Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .1
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,4,6-10 and 14 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, what is considered as “another electrical signal proportional to the current” .and how this another electrical signal is obtained? Is this another electrical signal is obtained by “a second RJ45 socket”? It is unclear how “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil” is obtained and how it interrelated and associated with a voltage signal proportional to a rate of change of a current through a conductor wrapped around the Rogowski coil”. It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 6, it is unclear how “”a remote terminal unit” (RTU) is interrelated and associated with the electrical integrator as recited in claim 1.
In claim 8, it is unclear how “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil” is interrelated and associated with a voltage signal proportional to a rate of change of a current through a conductor wrapped around the Rogowski coil” ? Furthermore, it is unclear how “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil” is obtained? It appears that claim format is improper, therefore it is unclear what has been claimed
In claim 14, it is unclear where “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil ” and “both signals with electromagnetic interference protection” are from? Are they from “a RJ45” or from the Rogowski coil? Furthermore, what are considered as “both signals with electromagnetic interference protection”? Are these signals different from the “a voltage signal indicative of a rate of change of a current” and “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil “?
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
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 8,10 and 12 (insofar as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykora et al (pat# 8,610,438) in view of Hase (Pat# 10,330,704).
As to claims 8 and 12, Sykora et al an electrical integrator as shown in figure 2 comprising: a RJ45 socket (46) (see column 7, lines `13-14) configured to receive a signal from a current sensor (48), wherein the signal comprises at least an electrical signal proportional to a rate of change of a current measured by the current sensor. Sykora et al do not explicitly mention about current senor is a Rogowski coil. It is noted that the limitation of “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil” is not given any patentable weight.
Hase teach that it would have been well known in the art to use Rogowski coil as a current sensor (see column 7, line 4)
However, it would have been obvious and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Rogowski coil as a current sensor as taught by Hase in the device of Sykora et al for sensing a signal proportional to the rate of change of current since this is an alternative choice of current sensor type.
As to claim 10, in the device of Howell et al in view of Brooks disclose Rogowski integrator kit as mentioned in claim 8, but do not explicitly mention about the closing unit is mechanically configured to permit installation in either a vertical or horizontal orientation in constrained panel environments. However, the orientation of the closing unit would have been considered as an obvious choice since this orientation does not change the structure and operation of the apparatus (see in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) .
Claims 1,4,7 are (insofar as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al ( 7,598,724) in view of Brookes (9,384,884)
As to claim 1, Howell et al disclose Rogowski integrator kit as shown in figure 2 comprising: a Rogowski coil having a closing unit (free end of the coil “205”) in which a first socket (215) is embedded, the first socket (215) being configured to output a voltage signal indicative of a rate of change of a current through a conductor (cable) and an electrical integrator (220) comprising socket configured receive an electrical signal proportional to the rate of chance of the current measured by the Rogowski coil and convert the electrical signal to another electrical signal (integrated signal) proportional to the current. It is noted that the limitation of “a voltage signal indicative of an operational temperature of the Rogowski coil” is not given any patentable weight.
Howell et al do not mention about the closing unit is either horizontally oriented or vertically oriented with the Rogowski coil and the first socket (215) is RJ45 socket. However, the orientation of the closing unit would have been considered as an obvious choice since Applicants have not established the criticality of this feature and this orientation does not change the structure and operation of the apparatus (see in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) .
Brookes disclose a current transformer as shown in figure 2A having a connector socket ( RJ45 ) as an electrical connector.
It would have been obvious and well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use RJ45 connector as taught by Brookes in the device Howell et al for the purpose of high speed data & power transmission and secure and reliable connection.
As to claim 4, in the device of Howell et al in view of Brooks disclose Rogowski integrator kit as mentioned in claim 1, but do not explicitly mention about the cable is a RJ45 cable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that as soon as the RJ45 connector is used in the device of Howell et al in view of Brooks, the cable connected to the RJ45 connector has to be used RJ45 cable for the purpose of transmitting signals to the integrator (220).
AS to claim 7, in the device of Howell et al in view of Brooks disclose Rogowski integrator kit as mentioned in claim 1, but do not explicitly mention about the closing unit is mechanically configured to permit installation in either a vertical or horizontal orientation in constrained panel environments. However, the orientation of the closing unit would have been considered as an obvious choice since this orientation does not change the structure and operation of the apparatus (see in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858