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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered. However, upon further review and consideration, a new rejection is proffered below.
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merat et al (US 20190323899 A1) in view of Sommervogel et al (US 20170261383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Merat discloses a method for detecting a hot spot (method for declaring an overheat) at a connector (3) able to form a junction between current conductive cables (6) of a first electrical line (Fig.2) and a second electrical line (Fig.2), the connector (3.6) being arranged on the first electrical line (Fig.2), a heat-sensitive impedance module (Not shown but mentioned in para [0117]) integrated within the connector (3), the first electrical line (Fig.2) and the heat-sensitive impedance module (Not shown but mentioned in para [0117]) having an overall heat-sensitive impedance (para [0122]), the method comprising the following steps: a. determining a physical characteristic (ex: electrical continuity) that is a function of said the overall heat- sensitive impedance by measuring a physical quantity (para [0118]), and b. if said the determined physical characteristic deviates from a predetermined reference value (para [0117]); the connector (para [0070], [0144], [0145]). Merat fails to explicitly disclose emitting an alarm for detecting and locating a hot spot.
Sommervogel teaches emitting an alarm for detecting and locating a hot spot (para [0063], Fig.4). Examiner notes Sommervogel also discloses connectors in paragraph [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate ab alarm signal as taught by Sommervogel in Merat’s method for declaring an overheat because this will provide immediate notification of a fault and increase safety.
Regarding claim 2, Merat discloses the method (method for declaring an overheat), further comprising an estimation the of temperature (para [0117] and [0122]) at the heat-sensitive impedance module (not shown but mentioned) determined from said the determined physical characteristic (ex: electrical continuity).
Claims 3, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merat et al in view of Sommervogel et al in further view of Chuc et al (FR 3042863 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Merat discloses in figures 1-5 the method (method for declaring an overheat), wherein the determined physical characteristic (electrical continuity). Merat and Sommervogel fail to explicitly disclose a reflection coefficient obtained by reflectometry.
Chuc teaches a reflection coefficient obtained by reflectometry (pg.3 lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merat and Sommervogel method for declaring an overheat by adding a reflectometer as taught by Chuc because, this will provide a better efficient way of analyzing reflections and making it easier to locate defects in a cable.
Regarding claim 5, Merat discloses in figures 1-5 a system for detecting and locating a hot spot (overheat detection system) within an electrical connection capable of forming a junction between current conductive cables (Fig. 2) of a first electrical line and a second electrical line (Fig.2), the system comprising: the electrical connection, a heat-sensitive impedance module (not shown but discussed in para [0117]) integrated into a connector (3) equipping the first electrical line, the first electrical line (Fig.2) and the heat-sensitive impedance module (not shown but discussed in para [0117]) having an overall heat- sensitive impedance (para [0122]),- and - at a distance from the electrical connection (Fig.2); physical characteristic (electrical continuity); the connector an event of a determined physical characteristic deviating from a predetermined reference value (para [0070], [0144], [0145]); a module for processing the data (controller). Merat fails to explicitly disclose an alarm for detecting and locating a hot spot; a reflectometry module.
Sommervogel teaches emitting an alarm for detecting and locating a hot spot (para [0063], Fig.4). Examiner notes Sommervogel also discloses connectors in paragraph [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate ab alarm signal as taught by Sommervogel in Merat’s method for declaring an overheat because this will provide immediate notification of a fault and increase safety.
Chuc teaches reflectometry module (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merat’s method for declaring an overheat by adding a reflectometer as taught by Chuc because, this will provide a better efficient way of analyzing reflections and making it easier to locate defects in a cable.
Regarding claim 12, Merat discloses in figures 1-5 the method (method for declaring an overheat), wherein the determined physical characteristic (electrical continuity). Merat and Sommervogel fail to explicitly disclose a reflection coefficient obtained by reflectometry.
Chuc teaches a reflection coefficient obtained by reflectometry (pg.3 lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merat’s method for declaring an overheat by adding a reflectometer as taught by Chuc because, this will provide a better efficient way of analyzing reflections and making it easier to locate defects in a cable.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merat et al in view in view of Sommervogel et al in further view of Chuc et al and in further view of Meyer (US 5481195 A).
Regarding claim 4, Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc disclose the method (method for declaring an overheat); the reflectometry (reflectometer). The combination of Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc fail to explicitly disclose a signal whose autocorrelation function is a Dirac pulse.
Meyer teaches a signal (Fig.1) whose autocorrelation function is a Dirac pulse (column 2 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Merat as modified with a Dirac pulse as taught by Meyer because this helps with a better detection and location of faults in cables.
Regarding claim 13, Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc disclose the method (method for declaring an overheat); the reflectometry (reflectometer). The combination of Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc fail to explicitly disclose a signal whose autocorrelation function is a Dirac pulse.
Meyer teaches a signal (Fig.1) whose autocorrelation function is a Dirac pulse (column 2 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Merat as modified with a Dirac pulse as taught by Meyer because this helps with a better detection and location of faults in cables.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merat et al in view of Sommervogel in further view of Chuc et al in further view of Korn et al (DE 102011079854 A1) and in further view of Melamud et al (US 5793293 A).
Regarding claim 6, Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc disclose the system (overheat detection system) wherein the detection and location device (device for detecting a temperature variation): a. a unit for coupling (4) to an electrical grid (5); b. an injection unit (2); network (Fig.1) via the coupling unit (4); an acquisition unit (11) digitizing the received return signal (Fig.1); emitting the alarm for detecting and locating a hot spot (para [0063], Fig.4; Sommervogel); Merat, Sommervogel and Chuc fail to explicitly disclose a high-frequency electrical signal; a data control; processing unit; a communication unit.
Korn teaches in figures 1-5 a high-frequency electrical signal (electromagnetic signal); a data control (signal analyzer); processing unit (data processing system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate components as taught by Korn into the overheat detection system as taught by Merat as modified because these will help improve the system efficiency.
Merat as modified fails to explicitly disclose a communication unit.
Melamud teaches a communication unit (microprocessor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Merat as modified with a microprocessor because this will improve real-time monitoring and better determine multi-fault detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are allowed.
Regarding claim 7, Merat discloses in figures 1-5 a connector (3). However, the prior art alone or in combination fails to explicitly disclose suitable for forming a junction between current conductive cables in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The remaining claims are allowable due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855