DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 8, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, copies of GB2450426, EP3744309 and EP3419040 have not been provided. Those references have been lined through on the IDS.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 are rejected 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.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the side opposite to the shunt resistor” recited in claim 1. The only previous recitation of a “side” earlier in the claim is referencing slots in side surfaces. While the examiner believes that applicant is trying to recite that the temperature sensor is on the second face but still near or in the same location as the shunt resistor, language is not proper because of the lack of antecedent basis.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cloud” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, openings are typically made by an absence of material. Claim 2 will be interpreted as an opening made through aluminum. Additionally, use of the term preferably makes the use optional and therefore makes the claim indefinite.
In claim 3 use of the term preferably makes the use optional and therefore makes the claim indefinite.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilches Millán (ES1185959) in view of Beer (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0084887) and Mitchell (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0003475). (U.S. Patent No. 11092626) is a US counterpart to ES1185959 and will be referred to in this rejection for purposes of disclosure in English. Vilches Millán teaches a device for measuring power in electrical protection panels in buildings by means of temperature measurement, to be installed coupled to a protector characterized in that it comprises: a substantially rectangular parallelepiped housing (figs 1-2), one or more openings (3, fig. 2) adapted to receive at least one phase wire or a neutral wire of an installation controlled by said protector (col. 6, lines 37-41), at least one electrical connection rod (5, figs 1-4) configured to be directly coupled to the protector (col. 6, lines 43-46); a motherboard (PCB, see col. 2, lines 3-9) inside the housing comprising; a measurement module (single phase module 1 and three phase modules 2) fitted with electronic means for the recording, processing and/or storing of information (col 8, lines 10-17) relating to the current and voltage of the phase wire or the neutral wire; and an own power supply (14, page 15, lines 16-22) through a connection to the electrical protector and/or to the phase/neutral wires of the installation passing through said electrical protector; a communications module 7 composed of a microcontroller 11 for data communication and processing, wherein said communications module is connected to the measuring module (singe phase module (1) and three phase module (2)) and configured with electronic means for transmitting the recorded information to the communications ports (6a, 6b, 6c); electrically insulated communications ports (6/7, see also col. 2, lines 42-58), which send the information processed or stored by the communications module to other equipment (col. 2, lines 52-56, “a wireless transmitter, an ultrasonic emitter, a fiber optic port, etc.”, “optical, ultrasonic, wireless (WiFi, GPRS, etc.))”) that sends the information to the cloud. (The italicized language is considered an intended use and not being given patentable weight. The applicant should note that transmitting data to a cloud server is notoriously well known.) and an analog to digital converter (col. 2, line 55, “(analog/digital)”) allowing the signal phase deltas to be calculated among the voltage measurements. (The italicized language is considered an intended use and not being given patentable weight. Alternatively, the A/D conversion does not hinder signal phase deltas to be calculated among the voltage measurements and therefore allows it.)
Vilches Millán teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for at least one shunt resistor connected to the phase wire or to the neutral wire of the installation and to a measuring module and a temperature sensor arranged on the second face and on the side opposite to the shunt resistor. Beer teaches in figure 1A and paragraphs 3, 13, 27 and 37 that it was known to provide a least one shunt resistor (3A, fig. 1A) to measure current (para 3, “require such current measurement with high precision. Often high precision discrete shunt resistors are employed for this purpose” and a temperature sensor (5, fig. 1A) arranged on the second face and on the side opposite to the shunt resistor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Beer for the purpose of accurate current determination and reliable measurement of the temperature of the current path.
Vilches Millán teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a plurality of slots in the side surface for the ventilation of the internal components. Mitchell teaches a plurality of slots 74 in the side surface for the ventilation of the internal components. The applicant is directed to review fig. 1 and paragraph 27. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Mitchell for the purpose of heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell teaches in paragraph 27 that the holes are made from aluminum.
The applicant should note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Vilches Millán teaches the device is configured to be adapted to a single-phase, two-phase or three-phase protection. See for example, col. 3, lines 26-29.
Regarding claim 5, Vilches Millán teaches that the communications ports allow a plurality of external devices to be connected to the same communications network regardless of the voltage of the lines that are measured. See col. 2, lines 27-31, and lines 48-58.
The following is presented to expedite prosecution. The rejection of claims 1-2 is the same as above with the exception of the addition of Macias. The following rejection is the same as the above rejection but the details pertaining to Vilches Millán, Beer and Mitchell are not repeated below as they may be referenced in the rejection above.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilches Millán (ES1185959) in view of Beer (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0084887) Mitchell (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0003475) and Macias (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0033435). Vilches Millán teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for using the ADC to determine signal phase deltas to be calculated among the voltage measurements. Macias teaches in paragraph 30 that it was known to use an ADC to calculate signal phase deltas to be calculated among the voltage measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Macias for the purpose of improved power measurement accuracy.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilches Millán (ES1185959) in view of Beer (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0084887) Mitchell (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0003475) and Macias (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0033435). Vilches Millán as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the electrical connection rod(s) manufactured in aluminum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize aluminum rods for the purpose of using readily available and economical materials. Aluminum is a known material for conducting electricity. Additionally, using aluminum where it will interface with aluminum will avoid galvanic degradation. The applicant should note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuno (U.S. Patent No. 6011416) teaches it was known to use a temperature sensor to sense the temperature of a current/voltage measuring resistor. Adrei (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0200255) teaches in paragraph 11 that aluminum is a known material for connections in high voltage electric component equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852