DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended and submitted claims 15 and 21-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Previously submitted claims were directed to species of sensing device mounted to a conductor (see Original Claims 6, 8, 11, 12, and 15-20). Newly amended claims 15 and newly presented claims 21-25 are directed to a separate embodiment of a sensing device coupled to an insulator, and further elaborate on specific details associated with various types of insulator sensor configurations.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15 and 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 includes the following limitation in question:
“determining, at the electronic processor, a jerk based on the monitored parameter,;”
There seems to be an inadvertent “,” after the term parameter. This is believed to be a typo and should be removed.
Claim 13 includes the following limitation in question:
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the first signal and the second signal is transmitted to the pole sensing device in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
The bolded “is” is believed to be a typo and should be changed to “are” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 contains the following limitations in question:
compare the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value,
determine, based on the comparison, that a falling conductor condition is occurring …
Paragraph 0061 of the PG Publication indicates that a falling line condition can be detected when the accelerometer detects that the line is falling at a rate that exceeds a predetermined value, such as 10 ft/s. The specification does not expressly describe using jerk to identify that a falling conductor condition is occurring. However, the specification does describe detecting a broken line condition in response to jerk exceeding a threshold. This is not inherently the same as a determination that falling condition is presently occurring. Thus, the newly presented amendments above, are believed to be new matter.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 because they incorporate the lack of written description present in parent claim 1.
Claim 13 contains the following limitation in question:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first signal and the second signal is transmitted to the pole sensing device in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
As discussed above, paragraph 0061 of the PG Publication indicates that a falling line condition can be detected when the accelerometer detects that the line is falling at a rate that exceeds a predetermined value, such as 10 ft/s. The specification does not expressly describe using jerk to identify that a falling conductor condition is occurring. However, the specification does describe detecting a broken line condition in response to jerk exceeding a threshold. This is not inherently the same as a determination that falling condition is presently occurring. Thus, the newly presented amendments above, are believed to be new matter as the specification does not expressly describe transmitting a first signal, i.e. one indicating the falling conductor condition is occurring, to the pole sensing device in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 because they incorporate the lack of written description present in parent claim 13.
Examiner Note:
While claim 9 is similar to claims 1 and 13, claim 9 does not expressly require the determination that a falling conductor condition is occurring or a transmission of a signal indicating that a falling conductor condition is occurring in response to the jerk being greater than a first predetermined threshold value. Thus, claim 9 is not believed to contain new matter.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 9 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for detecting a broken conductor, the method comprising:
receiving, at an electronic processor, a monitored parameter from a first sensor;
determining, at the electronic processor, a jerk based on the monitored parameter;
comparing, at the electronic processor, the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value;
determining, at the electronic processor, that a falling conductor condition is occurring; and
transmitting, with a communication interface coupled to the electronic processor, (i) at least one of a first signal indicating the falling conductor condition is occurring and a second signal to a pole sensing device and (ii) the second signal to a local control station.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the computer system, i.e. communication interface and electronic processor, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of receiving data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation in relation to transmitting signals equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 10-14 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, and/or further define the type of data received or transmitted, i.e. adding to the insignificant extra solution data activity. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20140136140) in view of Pinney (US 20200232102), Greco (US 20180375316), and Li (US 7369345).
Regarding claim 1, Chan discloses a sensing device for detecting a broken conductor (see Abstract, Fig. 1B, and paragraphs 0028 and 0042: monitoring system for detecting a falling line/broken conductor), the sensing device comprising:
a first sensor for sensing a parameter of a conductor, wherein the first sensor is mounted to the conductor (first sensor for sensing a parameter of a conductor (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0029-0030: sensor with accelerometer coupled to transmission line, i.e. conductor),
a communication interface including a transmitter and a receiver (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0029: transmitter and receiver), and
an electronic processor connected to the first sensor and the communication interface (see paragraphs 0029-0031 and Fig. 2: processing circuit 206 of monitoring device, also discloses accelerometer module, transmitter and receiver, all coupled to the processing circuit) and configured to:
receive the parameter of the conductor from the first sensor (see paragraph 0030: Accelerometer module 202 provides acceleration and rotation information to processing circuit 206, i.e. receives acceleration parameter from the sensor),
determine, based analyzing the sensor data, that a falling conductor condition is occurring (see paragraphs 0004, 0032, and 0042), and
transmit, with the communication interface/transmitter, (i) at least one of a first signal indicating the falling conductor condition is occurring and a second signal to a tower sensing device (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including other monitoring devices mounted on transmission towers, i.e. tower sensing device, signal can include alert, i.e. falling condition and well as sensor parameters) and (ii) the second signal to a local control station (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including a local control center).
Chan does not expressly disclose wherein the communication interface comprises a transceiver;
determining a jerk of the conductor based on the parameter,
comparing the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value,
determining, based on the comparison, that a falling conductor condition is occurring, and
transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Pinney discloses a sensing device with a communication interface that includes a transceiver and transmitting a signal with the transceiver (see paragraphs 0048 and 0050: communication section including one or more transceivers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Piney, i.e. utilize a transceiver to implement data communication, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional, proven equipment when sending or receiving data. Once modified, the modification would result in the transceiver transmitting the transmitted signals of Chan, meeting the limitations of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the separable receiver and transmitter of Chan into one integral unit, i.e. a transceiver, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v: Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. a64 (1893).
Chan and Pinney do not expressly disclose determining a jerk of the conductor based on the parameter,
comparing the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value,
determining, based on the comparison, that a falling conductor condition is occurring, and
transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan, Pinney, and Greco do not expressly disclose determining a jerk of the conductor based on the parameter,
comparing the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value, and
determining, based on the comparison, that a falling conductor condition is occurring.
Li discloses a method of determing a falling condition is occurring that includes determining a jerk of an apparatus based on the parameter (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: monitors/determines first derivate of acceleration, i.e. jerk, in relation to determing when a falling condition is occurring),
comparing the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: compares rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, i.e. compares jerk to a threshold), and
determining, based on the comparison, that a falling condition is occurring (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: determines falling condition is occurring based on the comparison of the rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, i.e. based on comparing jerk to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of determining a jerk of the conductor and determining, based on the comparison, that a falling conductor condition is occurring.
Regarding claim 2, Chan discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal to the tower sensing device in response to detecting that a falling conductor condition is occurring (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including other monitoring devices mounted on transmission towers, i.e. tower sensing device, signal can include alert, i.e. falling condition and well as sensor parameters).
Chan and Pinney do not expressly disclose wherein the signals are transmitted to a pole sensing device and wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan, Pinney, and Greco do not expressly disclose wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Li discloses a method of determing a falling condition is occurring wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: determines falling condition is occurring based on the comparison of the rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, i.e. based on comparing jerk to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of determining wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Regarding claim 3, Chan, previously modified, wherein the first signal includes a broken conductor alarm (see paragraphs 0028, 0030, and 0042: device transmits signal, warning/alarm or control signal, alarm associated with line breakage, furthermore a downed line can be considered broken conductor) and the second signal includes the parameter (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including other monitoring devices mounted on transmission towers, i.e. tower sensing device, signal can include both an alert and sensor parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Chan discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to transmit the second signal to a tower sensing device in response to parameter values being less than a first predetermined threshold value, i.e. transmits parameter values even when a falling conductor condition is not detected (see paragraph 0027 and 0040).
Chan and Pinney do not expressly disclose wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device and wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan, Pinney, and Greco do not expressly disclose wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value.
Li discloses a method of monitoring for a falling condition is occurring wherein the monitoring includes determining if the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value or not, i.e. also includes determining if the jerk if less than a threshold (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: determines falling condition is occurring based on the comparison of the rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, the comparison reveals if the jerk is above or below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value as Chan previously disclosed the transmission of parameter values even when the parameter values are less than a threshold value, i.e. transmitting parameter values even when a falling condition is not detected.
Regarding claim 5, Chan, previously modified, further discloses wherein the first sensor is an accelerometer (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0029-0030: sensor with accelerometer coupled to transmission line).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20140136140) in view of Pinney (US 20200232102), Greco (US 20180375316), Li (US 7369345) and Mobley (US 20210091559).
Regarding claim 6, Chan discloses wherein the parameter is motion of the conductor in relation to a single axis or multiple axes (see paragraphs 0029-0030).
Chan, Pinney, Greco, and Li do not expressly disclose wherein the parameter is motion of the conductor along an x-axis.
Mobley discloses wherein the parameter is motion of the conductor along an x-axis (see paragraphs 0028-0029: discusses x-axis of acceleration in relation to a conductor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Mobley, monitoring acceleration in relation to an x-axis of a conductor, for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional, proven, and effective sensor configuration when monitoring conductors for beaks/falls.
Regarding claim 7, Chan, Pinney, and Greco do not expressly disclose wherein the first predetermined threshold value is within a range of 0.1 gravity (g) and 15.9 g.
Li discloses wherein the first predetermined threshold value is within a range of 0.1 gravity (g) and 15.9 g (see Fig. 7B and column 13 line 55 to column 14 line 5: threshold of 0.15 gravity (g)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. using a threshold of 0.15 g, for the advantageous of using a known, proven effective threshold for accurately identifying that a falling condition is occurring.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20140136140) in view of Greco (US 20180375316) and Li (US 7369345).
Regarding claim 9, Chan discloses a method for detecting a broken conductor (see Abstract, Fig. 1B, and paragraphs 0003, 0028 and 0042: monitoring system and method for detecting a falling line/broken conductor), the method comprising:
receiving, at an electronic processor, a monitored parameter from a first sensor (see paragraph 0030: Accelerometer module 202 provides acceleration and rotation information to processing circuit 206, i.e. receives acceleration parameter from the sensor);
determine, at the electronic processor, based analyzing the sensor data, that a falling conductor condition is occurring (see paragraphs 0004, 0032, and 0042);
transmitting, with a communication interface coupled to the electronic processor (see paragraphs 0029-0031 and Fig. 2: processing circuit 206 of monitoring device, also discloses transmitter and receiver, all coupled to the processing circuit), (i) at least one of a first signal indicating the falling conductor condition is occurring and a second signal to a tower sensing device (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including other monitoring devices mounted on transmission towers, i.e. tower sensing device, signal can include alert, i.e. falling condition and well as sensor parameters) and (ii) the second signal to a local control station (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including a local control center).
Chan does not expressly disclose determining, at the electronic processor, a jerk based on the monitored parameter;
comparing, at the electronic processor, the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value; and
transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan and Greco do not expressly disclose determining, at the electronic processor, a jerk based on the monitored parameter; and
comparing, at the electronic processor, the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value.
Li discloses a method of determing a falling condition is occurring that includes determining, at an electronic processor, a jerk based on the monitored parameter (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: monitors/determines first derivate of acceleration, i.e. jerk, in relation to determing when a falling condition is occurring; see column 9 lines 39-44: determining done using microprocessor 28),
comparing, at the electronic processor, the jerk to a first predetermined threshold value (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: compares rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, i.e. compares jerk to a threshold; and see column 9 lines 39-44: comparing done using microprocessor 28), and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of both determining a jerk parameter and comparing the jerk to a threshold.
Regarding claim 10, Chan, previously modified, further discloses wherein the first sensor is an accelerometer (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0029-0030: sensor with accelerometer coupled to transmission line).
Regarding claim 12, Chan, previously modified, further discloses wherein the first sensor is mounted to a conductor (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0029-0030: sensor with accelerometer coupled to transmission line).
Regarding claim 13, Chan discloses wherein the first signal and the second signal is transmitted to the tower sensing device in response to detecting that a falling conductor condition is occurring (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046: discloses transmitting signal to a multitude of devices, including other monitoring devices mounted on transmission towers, i.e. tower sensing device, signal can include alert, i.e. falling condition and well as sensor parameters).
Chan does not expressly disclose wherein the signals are transmitted to a pole sensing device and wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan and Greco do not expressly disclose wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Li discloses a method of determing a falling condition is occurring wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: determines falling condition is occurring based on the comparison of the rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, i.e. based on comparing jerk to a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of determining wherein the falling condition is in response to the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value.
Regarding claim 14, Chan discloses wherein the second signal is transmitted to a tower sensing device in response to parameter values being less than the first predetermined threshold value, i.e. transmits parameter values even when a falling conductor condition is not detected (see paragraph 0027 and 0040).
Chan does not expressly disclose wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device and wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value.
Greco discloses wherein the support structure for holing power lines is a utility pole, and further wherein the utility pole has a pole sensing device (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002 and 0145: utility pole with pole sensing device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Greco, i.e. using a pole as a support structure to support power lines, for the advantageous benefit of using a cost-effective support structure in situations when larger towers are not required. Once modified, using a pole, in lieu of a tower, to support power lines in specific situations, the modification would meet the limitation of transmitting the at least one of the first signal and the second signal to a pole sensing device, i.e. wherein the tower sensing device is a pole sensing device.
Chan and Greco do not expressly disclose wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value.
Li discloses a method of monitoring for a falling condition is occurring wherein the monitoring includes determining if the jerk being greater than the first predetermined threshold value or not, i.e. also includes determining if the jerk if less than a threshold (see column 12 line 64 to column 13 line 3 and column 13 lines 35-54: determines falling condition is occurring based on the comparison of the rate of change of acceleration to a threshold, the comparison reveals if the jerk is above or below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Li, i.e. monitoring jerk of an object and comparing it a threshold, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the time required to detect a falling condition. Once modified, analyzing jerk of the conductors in Chan to improve the timing in relation to detecting a falling condition of the monitored conductors, the modification meets the limitations of wherein the transmission in response to the jerk being less than the first predetermined threshold value as Chan previously disclosed the transmission of parameter values even when the parameter values are less than a threshold value, i.e. transmitting parameter values even when a falling condition is not detected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20140136140) in view of Greco (US 20180375316), Li (US 7369345), and Mobley (US 20210091559).
Regarding claim 11, Chan discloses wherein the monitored parameter is motion of the conductor in relation to a single axis or multiple axes (see paragraphs 0029-0030).
Chan, Greco, and Li do not expressly disclose wherein the monitored parameter is motion of the conductor along an x-axis.
Mobley discloses wherein the monitored parameter is motion of the conductor along an x-axis (see paragraphs 0028-0029: discusses x-axis of acceleration in relation to a conductor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan with the teachings of Mobley, monitoring acceleration in relation to an x-axis of a conductor, for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional, proven, and effective sensor configuration when monitoring conductors for beaks/falls.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument will be addressed for pending claims 1-7 and 9-14, and will not address withdrawn claims 15 and 21-25, due to the previously addressed election by original presentation.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a sensing device for detecting a broken conductor and that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
With respect to amended 1, the examiner agrees. Independent claim 1 now clearly clarifies that the sensing device comprises a first sensor mounted to the conductor. This equates to a physical device installed on a conductor for detecting a broken conductor.
However, with respect to independent claim 9, the 101 Claim Rejections are being maintained. Claim 9 recites a method. The method includes receiving and transmitting limitations, which have been identified as insignificant extra solution data activity. An electronic processor which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer. The claim also recites determining and comparing steps. Such steps have been equated to abstract limitations as they are merely mathematical and/or mental steps. The method comprises an algorithm that is implement on a computer, and does not expressly include the same physical sensor limitations presented in independent claim 1 that serve to tie the claims to a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the prior 103 Claim Rejections have been considered. Upon further search and consideration, new 103 Claim Rejections have been presented above to teach the newly presented claim amendments.
Applicant further argues that Chan teaches transmitting waring signals to a single control center and does not discloses transmitting the signals to a plurality of devices. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above in the new 103 Claim Rejections, Chan teaching transmitting its signals to any multitude of devices, including receivers located at a control center, and as well as to other monitoring devices/a tower sensing device (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0030, 0042, and 0046).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan (US 20190103007) discloses a method of detecting a person falling by identifying motion data having a sufficiently high magnitude of acceleration (e.g., greater than a particular threshold acceleration value), combined with a sufficiently high magnitude of jerk (e.g., greater than a particular threshold jerk value) (see paragraph 0127).
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 MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857