DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-37 are added by the amendment.
Claims 21-37 are pending.
Claims 21-37 are rejected, grounds follow.
THIS OFFICE ACTION IS FINAL, see additional information at the conclusion of this action.
Priority
Application’s status as a 35 USC 371 national stage application of PCT application PCT/IB2021/055637 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 30 recites “the method comprising:” however claim 30 is “a process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to the various claim objections have been fully considered but are moot because Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot because Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are moot because Claims 1-20 have been canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner disagrees with applicant’s analysis if applied to the pending claims 21-37. Examiner notes that the office applies the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, and does not draw direct comparison to specific court cases to determine eligibility, but performs analysis of the claims at issue in view of guidance from the courts as a whole. In the interest of addressing applicant’s specific arguments however, Examiner notes that the instant application does not recite limitations that detail the particularly of how a solution is to be accomplished, contra Diehr, which specifically articulates in the claims the exact comparison which is being calculated and the specific action to be taken when the calculation reaches the equilibrium point being monitored; And therefore the instant application does not appear to evidence integration into a practical application in the claims, as the claims fail to recite the features that would show such integration. Accordingly, new claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. An interview may be beneficial in overcoming this rejection.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 15-18 in view of Algaonkar et al., US PG-Pub 2011/0218790 have been fully considered but they are moot because Claims 1-20 have been canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner notes that the features of Claim 21 alleged not disclosed by Algaonkar (e.g. application of a heat transfer model to a temperature measurement of one cable to control the current in a different, unmonitored cable.) are in fact disclosed by Algaonkar (see e.g., [0055]-[0056] discussing measuring temperature in an OPGW cable in the same duct as the power cable.) Algaonkar also discloses using a different number of temperature measuring optical fibers (as few as one, see [0048]) even when they are included in the sheaf, and discloses modeling the heat transfer model accordingly (see [0061]).
Finally, contrary to Attorney’s arguments characterizing the ‘unmonitored’ state of the cable for current *and* temperature, Examiner notes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a plain meaning reading of the phrase “a temperature monitored cable and an unmonitored cable” would lead one of ordinary skill to conclude that the claim only requires the unmonitored cable to be unmonitored with respect to temperature.
Examiner further concludes the claim cannot be construed so narrowly because the claim includes at least an embodiment where the cable current is monitored (because claim 26 depends on claim 21 and requires that the heat transfer model apply a ‘square of the cable current in the unmonitored cable as an excitation function’ which does not appear to be coherent if the cable current is not monitored in some capacity).
To facilitate compact prosecution, Examiner was unable to locate support in Applicant’s disclosure for the proposition that the cable subject to control by the heat model could be totally unmonitored, so Examiner requests that if Applicant elects to amend further in this direction, that the support in the original disclosure is particularly pointed out in the reply.
Examiner notes for clarity of the record that applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of now cancelled claims 2-4 and 12-14 relies on their dependence from the alleged eligible parents. These arguments are moot because claims 2-4 and 12-14 are canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner notes that the argument relying on the alleged independents is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 21, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea (mathematical concept) without significantly more. Regarding Claim 21, the claim(s) recite(s) “a heat transfer model between the monitored cable and the unmonitored cable” and “logic to apply the heat transfer model to the measured temperature”. which is reciting steps that are realizable as mathematical formulas, relationships, equations and/or calculations. A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea). Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea that is a recognized judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, while the claim recites the additional limitations of “a temperature monitored cable and an unmonitored cable” and “a sensor configured to generate a measured temperature of the monitored cable”, and “logic to… control a current in the unmonitored cable”, these limitations appear to be only a drafting effort generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) necessary to practice the abstract idea, realizable as general purpose computing components performing general purpose computer functions of input/output, storing, and execution of programs, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and is not sufficient to indicate integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respects to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional limitations of “a temperature monitored cable and an unmonitored cable” and “a sensor configured to generate a measured temperature of the monitored cable”, and “logic to… control a current in the unmonitored cable” appear to be: only a drafting effort generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), insignificant extra-solution activity which appears to be merely necessary data gathering for performing the mathematical calculation identified as the abstract idea. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When considered as a whole, the claim recites generic computer components performing a mathematical algorithm that is only loosely tied to a particular technological area (electricity moving through insulated wires, i.e. cables), which fails to set forth any limitations detailing how a solution to a problem is actually accomplished, in part because the ‘control’ recited is fully generic, encompassing any and all possible control responses to any and all possible temperature measurements. And accordingly the claim is ineligible.
Regarding independent Claim 30, This claim recites substantively the same abstract idea and additional limitations as analyzed with respect to Claim 21 above, except embodied as a process; and is likewise ineligible for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent Claim 22, 24, and 35 these claims recite limitations regarding which cable(s) carry electrical current, and that the cables are in a cable duct, which appears to be only a drafting effort generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claim 23, this claim recites limitations regarding the type of temperature sensor used to monitor the temperature of the cable, which appears to be only a drafting effort generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claim 25, this claim recites a limitation that “the cable current is adjusted by altering a load on the unmonitored cable” without limitation as to when or how or to what extent the load is adjusted; and therefore appears to be an equivalent to merely reciting the words “apply it”, failing to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claim 26 this claim recites the limitation “apply a square of the cable current in the unmonitored cable as an excitation function; and determine from the excitation function a linear response model of the measured temperature of the monitored cable to the cable current in the unmonitored cable” which appears to be a restatement of “Joule’s Law” (heat produced in a conductor is proportional to the square of the current in the conductor), and is further detail regarding the specifics of the mathematical concept; which is part of the abstract idea and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claims 27 and 31, these claims recite the limitation “wherein the heat transfer model is a frequency domain model” which is further detail regarding the specifics of the mathematical concept; which is part of the abstract idea and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claims 28 and 32, these claims recite the limitation “wherein the frequency domain model is based on a temperature response to current excitations in one or both of the monitored cable and the unmonitored cable” which is further detail regarding the specifics of the mathematical concept; which is part of the abstract idea and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claims 29, 34, and 35, these claims recite limitations regarding the heat transfer model being dependent on, variously, a position along a length of one or both of the cables or environmental parameters for the surrounding area. Which is further detail regarding the specifics of the mathematical concept; part of the abstract idea; and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claim 33, this claim recites the limitation “wherein the frequency domain model is based on the temperature response to a square of the current excitations” which appears to be a restatement of “Joule’s Law” (heat produced in a conductor is proportional to the square of the current in the conductor), and is further detail regarding the specifics of the mathematical concept; which is part of the abstract idea and accordingly does not evidence integration into a practical application nor rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 37, this claim recites the limitation “applying a load prioritization to adjust the current in the one or more other ones of the plurality of current-carrying cables.”; Examiner notes that there is no limitation setting forth how this logic is affected by or otherwise based upon the abstract idea, so the limitation fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-26, 29-30, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Algaonkar, et al., US Pg-Pub 2011/0218790.
Regarding Claim 21, Algaonkar discloses:
A control system (see fig. 1) for use in at least one area (fig. 2, plurality of conductors 202, see [0023] “determining characteristics of power cables using distributed temperature sensing systems”) comprising a temperature monitored cable (e.g. conductor 202, see [0048] Power cable 200, which may be in coupled to DTS system 110 of FIG. 1, may include one or more conductors 202 and one or more sensing fibers 204. It should be recognized that there are many possible power cable designs possible, with different combinations of conductors, sheaths, other insulation layers, armored layers, bedding layers, outer layers etc. and the system described here anticipates modeling each design choice.) and an unmonitored cable, (nb. that is where one sensing fiber 204 is included in a sheath 206 with a plurality of power cables, at least one cable would not have a sensing fiber in proximity. See e.g. [0051], [0052] discussing alternative embodiments.) the unmonitored cable providing current transport ([0049] “Conductors 202 may include be made of any material (e.g., aluminum, copper, or other suitable metals) that includes moveable electrical charges may be configured to transmit electrical power.”), the system comprising: a sensor ([0039] “optical fiber-based distributed temperature sensor (DTS) system” see fig. 1, 110) configured to generate a measured temperature of the monitored cable; ([0045] “In operation, DTS system 110, may include a single light, dual light, or multiple light sources emitting one or several wavelengths through an optical fiber. Resulting OTDR information (e.g., Rayleigh and/or spontaneous and/or stimulated Raman back scattered light occurring in the optical fiber as a result of the emitted wavelength) may be collected by DTS system 110 and may be used to determine a distributed temperature profile of the power cable.”)
a heat transfer model (see fig. 3, particularly steps 306 and 308; [0058]; and e.g. [0062] “The system described here makes use of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to learn and fine-tune the predictive ability over time.”) between the monitored cable and the unmonitored cable; ([0064] “In step 306 the static heat transfer equations are solved and matched to the measured temperatures from the DTS system to calculate a static temperature of the conductor. From this information updated calculations can be done 308 on all heat loses and thermal resistances and capacitances for the various layers (insulation, sheath, etc.) of the power cable system.”)
and logic configured to apply the heat transfer model to the measured temperature to control a current in the unmonitored cable. ([0059] “From this equation [nb. the equation in [0058]] a formula can then be obtained for the permissible current as follows (equation omitted for clarity); where [0060] I=Permissible continuous constant current (100% load factor) in one conductor of the cable.”)
Examiner notes that Claim 21 also covers an embodiment where the monitored cable is, for example, not a power cable, i.e. not one of the “conductors 202” of Algaonkar. (see Instant application claim 22). However, Algaonkar also discloses an alternative embodiment which reads on this embodiment as well, where the monitored cable is an OPGW line. see Algaonkar e.g. [0054]. ([0054] “In particular, one combination of note is the possibility of using fiber optic cables that may already be in place in a power cable application. Many power cables are used in conjunction with Optical Power Ground Wires (OPGW). Optical ground wires provide grounding and often include optical fibers for communication. There is normally no electrical voltage on OPGW's. These fibers are routed to instrument rooms at suitable distances where they may be connected to optical amplifiers/repeaters for optical communication.”)
Regarding Claim 22, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein monitored cable (i.e. in this embodiment the OPGW line) does not provide current transport and the unmonitored cable provides current transport. ([0055] “use of either existing OPGW lines or of installed fiber optics, either integrated into power cables or installed in proximity to or attached to power cables.” [0056] “As the OPGW includes optical fibers, it will be fairly straightforward to measure the temperature along the power cable. It is only necessary to come to instrument rooms and connect the fiber to a DTS system.”)
Regarding Claim 23, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 22,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the sensor is configured to monitor a temperature of an optical fiber disposed within the monitored cable. ([0039] “optical fiber-based distributed temperature sensor (DTS) system” “one or more sensing fiber 204 may be placed next to, in proximity of, or in direct contact with conductors 202.”)
Regarding Claim 24, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the monitored cable (e.g. the conductor 202 which is proximal the “one or more sensing fiber 204” in sheath 206.) and the unmonitored cable (e.g. the conductor 202 which is not proximal the “one or more sensing fiber 204”) both provide current transport. ([0049] “Conductors 202 may include be made of any material (e.g., aluminum, copper, or other suitable metals) that includes moveable electrical charges may be configured to transmit electrical power.”),
Regarding Claim 25, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the cable current is adjusted by altering a load on the unmonitored cable. ([0059] “From this equation [nb. the equation in [0058]] a formula can then be obtained for the permissible current as follows (equation omitted for clarity); where [0060] I=Permissible continuous constant current (100% load factor) in one conductor of the cable.”)
Regarding Claim 26, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the logic to apply the heat transfer model to control the cable current in the unmonitored cable is further configured to: apply a square of the cable current in the unmonitored cable as an excitation function; ([0057] “When a conductor is energized, heat is generated within the cable from the I2R losses of the conductor, dielectric losses in the insulation and losses in the metallic component of the cable.” [nb. “I” is the customary variable for current in electrical power equations.])
and determine from the excitation function a linear response model of the measured temperature of the monitored cable to the cable current in the unmonitored cable. (see fig. 4A and formula in e.g. [0058]; the model is a linear response between load and temperature, as depicted.)
Regarding Claim 29, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the heat transfer model is dependent on a position along a length ([0024] “This capability can include not only the distributed temperature along the conductor, but along the various layers and in the environment surrounding the power cable. This capability includes the capability to identify hot spots by location.”) of one or both of the monitored cable and the unmonitored cable. (see e.g. [0071] “DTS system 110 can monitor hot spots along the power cable. These hot spots can be caused by other power cables crossing the path and generating heat, steam pipes that cross near the cable or in a worst case may even run next to the power cable for some distance, localized manufacturing defects in the power cable (high localized resistance R). Other issues could be varying thermal resistivity in the ground along the length of the power cable or cable duct. Other hot spots could be cable splices where you need to connect two lengths of cable, and these joints are often a concern.”)
Regarding Claim 30, Algaonkar discloses:
A process (see fig. 3) for controlling temperature in an at least partially enclosed area where a plurality of current-carrying cables are present, (fig. 2, plurality of conductors 202, see [0023] “determining characteristics of power cables using distributed temperature sensing systems”) the method comprising: operating one or more sensors ([0039] “optical fiber-based distributed temperature sensor (DTS) system” see fig. 1, 110) to obtain a measured temperature ([0051] “one or more sensing fiber 204 may be placed next to, in proximity of, or in direct contact with conductors 202. In this configuration, sensing fiber 204 may be used to sense signals relating to the temperature of conductors 202.”) for a first one of the current-carrying cables; ([0045] “In operation, DTS system 110, may include a single light, dual light, or multiple light sources emitting one or several wavelengths through an optical fiber. Resulting OTDR information (e.g., Rayleigh and/or spontaneous and/or stimulated Raman back scattered light occurring in the optical fiber as a result of the emitted wavelength) may be collected by DTS system 110 and may be used to determine a distributed temperature profile of the power cable.”)
and transforming the measured temperature through a model of heat transfer (see fig. 3, particularly steps 306 and 308; [0058]; and e.g. [0062] “The system described here makes use of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to learn and fine-tune the predictive ability over time.”)between the one current-carrying cable and one or more other ones of the plurality of current-carrying cables; ([0064] “In step 306 the static heat transfer equations are solved and matched to the measured temperatures from the DTS system to calculate a static temperature of the conductor. From this information updated calculations can be done 308 on all heat loses and thermal resistances and capacitances for the various layers (insulation, sheath, etc.) of the power cable system.”)
and applying the measured temperature to adjust current in the one or more other ones of the plurality of current-carrying cables. ([0059] “From this equation [nb. the equation in [0058]] a formula can then be obtained for the permissible current as follows (equation omitted for clarity); where [0060] I=Permissible continuous constant current (100% load factor) in one conductor of the cable.”)
Regarding Claim 34, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 30,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the heat transfer model is dependent on a position along a length ([0024] “This capability can include not only the distributed temperature along the conductor, but along the various layers and in the environment surrounding the power cable. This capability includes the capability to identify hot spots by location.”) of one or both of the one current-carrying cable and one or more other ones of the plurality of current-carrying cables. (see e.g. [0071] “DTS system 110 can monitor hot spots along the power cable. These hot spots can be caused by other power cables crossing the path and generating heat, steam pipes that cross near the cable or in a worst case may even run next to the power cable for some distance, localized manufacturing defects in the power cable (high localized resistance R). Other issues could be varying thermal resistivity in the ground along the length of the power cable or cable duct. Other hot spots could be cable splices where you need to connect two lengths of cable, and these joints are often a concern.”)
Regarding Claim 35, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 30,
Algaonkar further discloses:
wherein the at least partially enclosed area comprises a cable duct. (see e.g. [0016] “ For static systems the need is for a system that takes into account cable design, and both cable insulation and cable duct thermal properties to estimate heat generated by resistive losses inside the conductor and how heat is dissipated through the various cable layers.”)
Regarding Claim 36, Algaonkar discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 30,
Algaonkar further discloses:
the heat transfer model comprising environmental parameters for the at least partially enclosed area. (see e.g. [0024] “ the DTS configured to receive a Stokes and an anti-Stokes signal resulting form[sic] the emitted wavelength of the light source and to use that information to calculate a distributed temperature along the power cable. This capability can include not only the distributed temperature along the conductor, but along the various layers and in the environment surrounding the power cable. This capability includes the capability to identify hot spots by location.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 27-28 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Well-Known Practice as exemplified by Ishii et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0147017.
Regarding Claim 27, Algaonkar teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 21,
Algaonkar differs from the claimed invention in that:
Algaonkar does not clearly articulate: wherein the heat transfer model is a frequency domain model.
However, examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that functions of a real-variable such as time may be converted to a function of a complex variable in the frequency domain by the Laplace Transform; it is also well-known in the art that the transform can be applied to heat transfer calculations, as exemplified by Ishii (“[0102] “The design device 200 converts the time-series data of the relative temperature of each heat source into data in the frequency domain by using the Laplace transform. … Subsequently, using frequency-domain fitting procedures, the design device 200 determines the heat transfer coefficients g.sub.1, g.sub.2, and g.sub.3, the thermal time constants τ.sub.h1, τ.sub.h2, and τ.sub.h3, and the thermal time constants τ.sub.g11, τ.sub.g21, τ.sub.g12, τ.sub.g22, τ.sub.g13, and τ.sub.g23. The frequency-domain fitting procedures employ, for example, the least-squares method.”)
Ishii is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of heat-transfer calculations.
Accordingly Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Algaonkar, which differ by the substitution of a frequency-domain based model for the time domain of the model of Algaonkar. 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Ishii, it is known in the art that the LaPlace transform can be applied to transform a heat transfer equation from the time domain to the frequency domain for subsequent analysis, 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because the LaPlace Transform is a well-known technique for converting between time and frequency domains, and Ishii teaches that it is applicable to heat transfer equations (see Ishii, [0070], [0102], etc.) and accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Algaonkar in view of Well-Known Practice as exemplified by Ishii teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 27,
Algaonkar further teaches:
wherein the frequency domain model is based on a temperature response to current excitations in one or both of the monitored cable and the unmonitored cable. ([0057] “When a conductor is energized, heat is generated within the cable from the I2R losses of the conductor, dielectric losses in the insulation and losses in the metallic component of the cable.” [nb. “I” is the customary variable for current in electrical power equations.])
(Examiner notes for clarity of the record that Well-Known Practice is relied upon to teach transforming the time-domain model of Algaonkar into a frequency domain model.)
Regarding Claim 31, Algaonkar teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 30,
Algaonkar differs from the claimed invention in that:
Algaonkar does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the heat transfer model is a frequency domain model.
However, examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that functions of a real-variable such as time may be converted to a function of a complex variable in the frequency domain by the Laplace Transform; it is also well-known in the art that the transform can be applied to heat transfer calculations, as exemplified by Ishii (“[0102] “The design device 200 converts the time-series data of the relative temperature of each heat source into data in the frequency domain by using the Laplace transform. … Subsequently, using frequency-domain fitting procedures, the design device 200 determines the heat transfer coefficients g.sub.1, g.sub.2, and g.sub.3, the thermal time constants τ.sub.h1, τ.sub.h2, and τ.sub.h3, and the thermal time constants τ.sub.g11, τ.sub.g21, τ.sub.g12, τ.sub.g22, τ.sub.g13, and τ.sub.g23. The frequency-domain fitting procedures employ, for example, the least-squares method.”)
Ishii is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor of heat-transfer calculations.
Accordingly Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Algaonkar, which differ by the substitution of a frequency-domain based model for the time domain of the model of Algaonkar. 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Ishii, it is known in the art that the LaPlace transform can be applied to transform a heat transfer equation from the time domain to the frequency domain for subsequent analysis, 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because the LaPlace Transform is a well-known technique for converting between time and frequency domains, and Ishii teaches that it is applicable to heat transfer equations (see Ishii, [0070], [0102], etc.) and accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Algaonkar in view of Well-Known Practice as exemplified by Ishii teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 27,
Algaonkar further teaches:
wherein the frequency domain model is based on a temperature response to current excitations in the one or more other ones of the plurality of current- carrying cables. ([0057] “When a conductor is energized, heat is generated within the cable from the I2R losses of the conductor, dielectric losses in the insulation and losses in the metallic component of the cable.” [nb. “I” is the customary variable for current in electrical power equations.])
(Examiner notes for clarity of the record that Well-Known Practice is relied upon to teach transforming the time-domain model of Algaonkar into a frequency domain model.)
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Algaonkar in view of Well-Known Practice as exemplified by Ishii teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 32,
Algaonkar further teaches:
wherein the frequency domain model is based on the temperature response to a square of the current excitations. ([0057] “When a conductor is energized, heat is generated within the cable from the I2R losses of the conductor, dielectric losses in the insulation and losses in the metallic component of the cable.” [nb. “I” is the customary variable for current in electrical power equations; and note that the value is squared.])
(In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner also notes that the concept that heating is proportional to the square of the current is a Well-Known concept popularly referred to as “Joule’s Law of Heating”).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algaonkar in view of McIntyre et al., US Pg-Pub 2007/0038335.
Regarding Claim 37, Algaonkar teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 30,
Algaonkar differs from the claimed invention in that:
Algaonkar does not appear to clearly articulate: applying a load prioritization to adjust the current in the one or more other ones of the plurality of current-carrying cables.
However, McIntyre teaches a power regulation algorithm which prioritizes loads ([0069] “the load value is given to LARs [nb. “Loads-As-Resources”, see [0004]] according to priority in the stack, which is determined by economic calculations based on real-time economic data from the utility and load customer, the status of each of the LARs, and current performance of the LAR.”) in order to determine which loads to shed in response to negative power events (e.g. thereby reducing current ) (see [0068] “the lumped LAR target power value is processed by the Load Allocation Engine to produce positive and negative load values. (A positive value asks for increased load power utilization.) The Load allocation engine would have internal control dynamics for stability, load tracking, and responsiveness. The dynamic response may be non-symmetrical. Load rates decreasing and increasing in value may have unequal gain or response.”)
McIntyre is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of how to allocate power distribution among multiple loads to meet operational constraints of a power distribution system.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Algaonkar’s Heat Transfer current limiting techniques for heat safety to include prioritizing loads for shedding as suggested by McIntyre.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to prioritize loads based on their economic value, as suggested by McIntyre ( [0069] “the load value … is determined by economic calculations based on real-time economic data from the utility and load customer”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119