DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. “Electric Field Evaluation and Optimization of Shielding Electrodes for High Voltage Apparatus in ±1100 kV Indoor DC Yard” from “IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 25, No. 1; February 2018” (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches: a method for designing and manufacturing high voltage electrodes, comprising:
- receiving electric specifications for the component to be manufactured (Page 322, left column - - “the design requirements of the indoor DC yards were described” ),
- receiving geometric boundaries for the high voltage electrode to be manufactured (Page 323-324, Fig. 9, Fig. 10 - - “For the preliminarily designed shielding electrodes, the shape, size and install location were modelled in detail.” The Page 328, left column - - “the sphere-like shielding electrode should provide enough interior space for the installation and heat dissipation of hardware fittings, and applicable gap factor for air clearance calculation”),
- producing an initial 3D design of the high voltage electrode to be manufactured (Page 323, Fig. 3-7 - - preliminary design),
- optimizing the initial 3D design in accordance with the electric specifications and the geometric boundaries (Page 327-328 - - optimization),
- providing a 3D geometry of the optimized 3D design representing the high voltage electrode to be manufactured (Page 327, right column - - “Therefore, Rbottom was finally set to 150 mm and the optimized design of the top shielding cover of DCF-C was proposed.”; Page 328, right column - - “the recommended value of the Rp was 600 mm for the shielding electrodes of ±1100 kV post insulators”), and
- manufacturing the high voltage electrode (Page 328, right column - - “Some electrodes based on the design proposed in this paper have been trial-manufactured”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wang further teaches: the initial design is based on traditional design of the high voltage electrode (Page 323, right column - - “The preliminary designs of the indoor shielding electrodes for the key ±1100 kV apparatus in the DC yard were proposed. Their models are partly shown in Figure 3-7 for example, compared with the typical design in the running ±800 kV outdoor DC yard.”).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wang further teaches: the initial design is based on previously designed high voltage electrodes (Page 323, right column - - “The preliminary designs of the indoor shielding electrodes for the key ±1100 kV apparatus in the DC yard were proposed. Their models are partly shown in Figure 3-7 for example, compared with the typical design in the running ±800 kV outdoor DC yard.” “typical design” are previously designed high voltage electrodes).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wang further teaches: the geometric boundaries may comprise a 3D image of a room where the component is to be installed (Page 323-324, Fig. 9, Fig. 10 are 3D image of room).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Wang further teaches: the electric specifications comprise thresholds for local field strength, and where optimizing of the initial 3D design comprises simulating local field strength over the surface of the 3D design and changing radii of the surface of the 3D design until the simulated local field strength is below the thresholds over the full surface of the 3D design (Page 328, right column - - “After optimization, the maximum E-field strength on the shielding electrode of ±1100 kV DC filter capacitor decreased from 1507 V/mm to 1335 V/mm, lower than the corresponding critical value for evaluation.” Page 328, left column - - “In the view of corona free design, the optimization was carried out by decreasing the fillet radius Rp of the side surface, where the Emax occurred. The whole electrode was scaled down at the same time.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wang et al. “Electric Field Evaluation and Optimization of Shielding Electrodes for High Voltage Apparatus in ±1100 kV Indoor DC Yard” from “IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 25, No. 1; February 2018” (hereinafter Wang) in view of Javora et al. EP 3671777 (hereinafter Javora).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Wang does not explicitly teach: manufacturing of the high voltage electrode is done by means of additive manufacturing.
However, Javora teaches manufacturing of the high voltage component is done by means of additive manufacturing ([0040] - - 3D printing of a part of a transformer [0002] - - the method is appliable to high voltage transformers).
Wang and Javora are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to design and manufacture a 3D model of a high voltage component.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Wang, and incorporating 3D printing, as taught by Javora.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve the production of parts in a substation, as suggested by Javora ([0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Wang does not explicitly teach: the 3D geometry is partitioned into smaller segments and each segment is manufactured separately, and the component segments are assembled after manufacturing.
However, Javora teaches: a 3D geometry is partitioned into smaller segments and each segment is manufactured separately, and the component segments are assembled after manufacturing ([0022] - - parts are produced independently and then assembled together).
Wang and Javora are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to design and manufacture a 3D model of a component.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Wang, and incorporating partitioning a 3D geometry, as taught by Javora.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve the production of parts in a substation, as suggested by Javora ([0002]-[0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wang et al. “Electric Field Evaluation and Optimization of Shielding Electrodes for High Voltage Apparatus in ±1100 kV Indoor DC Yard” from “IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 25, No. 1; February 2018” (hereinafter Wang) in view of Cuttone et al. “Surface Treatment of HV Electrodes for Superconducting Cyclotron Beam Extraction” from “IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 4 No. 2, April 1997” (hereinafter Cuttone).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Wang does not explicitly teach: performing a surface treatment of the surface of the high voltage electrode components after manufacturing.
However, Cuttone teaches: performing a surface treatment of the surface of the high voltage electrode components after manufacturing (Page 218, 1. INTRODUCTION - - surface treatment to remove all traces of debris, e.g. polishing by mechanical, chemical or electrochemical processes).
Wang and Cuttone are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to design and manufacture a 3D model of a high voltage component.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Wang, and incorporating surface treatment, as taught by Cuttone.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid damage of the electrode surface, as suggested by Cuttone (Page 218, 1. INTRODUCTION).
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 YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116