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 reply filed on April 14, 2026 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (CN 107037311) in view of Liang et al. (CN 107607836).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Wan et al. discloses a method and apparatus (fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract) comprising
determining fault using a fault detection model for a power transformer type, the fault detection model executed by the processor (page 11, paragraph 6, lines 1-4);
determining the feature indicators of a given power transformer of the power transformer type (calculating fault characteristic reflected traveling waves during fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract);
determining whether the feature indicators in the transition region satisfy a fault
condition (fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract);
predicting an inter-turn short fault for the given power transformer in response to satisfying the fault condition (predicting turn-to-turn short circuit fault location based on turn-to-turn short circuit fault location, Abstract, lines 10-11) or the feature indicators being in the fault region; and
in response to predicting the inter-turn short fault, automatically mitigating the inter-turn short fault (prompting protective measures, Abstract, lines 11-12).
It is noted that predicting an inter-turn short fault for the given power transformer in response to the feature indicators being in the fault region is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Wan et al. does not disclose generating, by use of a processor, a transition region that separates a health region and a fault region in a two-dimensional feature space of two feature indicators for a plurality of operation conditions.
Liang et al. discloses generating, by use of a processor (processor of network fault region locating method, Abstract), a transition region (failure transition area, Abstract, lines 7-8) that separates a health region (non-fault region, Abstract) and a fault region (fault area, Abstract) in a two-dimensional feature space of two feature indicators for a plurality of operation conditions (multidimensional data, e.g., time domain, frequency domain, Abstract) using a fault detection model (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Liang at al. with a transition region for separating a fault region from a health region as disclosed by Liang et al. for the purpose of distinctly defining a fault region for determining a fault.
Regarding claim 2, Laing et al. discloses determining a fault phase from a fault region of a fault localization map of the inter-turn short fault (the IEEE-57 system is provided with first phase or second phase or third phase fault short circuits for identifying test results, page 6, paragraph 3) and/or a fault severity of the inter-turn short fault as a distance from a health region.
It is noted that determining a fault severity of the inter-turn short fault as a distance from a health region is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. in view of Liang et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 115758247).
Regarding claim 3, Wan et al. as modified by Liang et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except the fault detection model is generated from training data comprising the feature indicators.
Li et al. discloses a fault detection model (Abstract, line 11) is generated from training data comprising the feature indicators (multidimensional data, Abstract, lines 4-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed provide Wan et al. as modified with training data comprising the feature indicators as disclosed by Li et al. for the purpose of training the fault detection model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a method comprising the transition region is based on a Mahalanobis distance from a distribution of healthy feature indicators (claim 4) or the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as half planes bounded by sloped lines defined from a distribution of healthy feature indicators (claim 14) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “[o]n page 4, the Office Action provides the following motivation to combine Wan with Liang: "it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Liang¹ et al. with a transition region for separating a fault region from a health region as disclosed by Liang et al. for the purpose of distinctly defining a fault region for determining a fault." However, Applicant submits the motivation suggested in the Office Action is not applicable to Wan because Wan does not describe fault regions that need to be "distinctly defin[ed]."”
Examiner’s position is Wan discloses the need for “determining a fault area characteristic corresponding to realize a fault location” (Abstract, line 6). Liang discloses an improvement to realize a fault location. Liang discloses by distinctly defining a fault region (Abstract, line 7-8), and by using multidimensional information related property (Abstract, line 10), locating a fault can be fast and accurate (Abstract, line 10). Thus, the motivation to combine Wan with Liang is to provide Wan with distinctly defining a fault region for locating a fault fast and accurate as suggested by Liang.
Applicants further argue “Liang's transition-region framework is incompatible with Wan's fault-location framework. For example, it is not clear how a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the categorical outputs of Liang with the location output of Wan, nor is there a reason or motivation to combine a transition region of Liang with Wan because Wan seeks to determine the location of a fault rather than a "health region and a fault region."”
Examiner’s position is that Liang discloses distinctly defined regions including not only a transition area, but also a fault area, and a non-fault area. The transition area separates a health (non-fault) region from a fault region. Thus, in view of Liang, the fault area can be distinctly realized. Thus, there is a motivation to combine Wan with Liang for distinctly realizing a fault area (Abstract, line 8) so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately as suggested by Liang.
Applicants further argue “the areas disclosed in Liang, including the fault transition area, do not correspond to any turn interval or any other location within a winding to be combined with Wan. Wan is directed to determining a fault location using a traveling wave, rather than constructing health/fault/transition regions in a two-dimensional feature space.”
Examiner’s position is that the fault transition area, corresponding to a turn interval or any other location within a winding is not required by the claims. Wan discloses the need to determine the failure area faut characteristic corresponding to realize the fault location (Abstract, line 6). Liang is used to show an improvement to realize a fault (distinctly realize a fault). As discussed above, a transition area is used for separating a non-fault region (Abstract, line 8) from a fault region (Abstract, line 7). Thus, in view of Liang, the use of providing separate areas including transition area, non-fault area, fault area can be used to improve realization of a fault (by distinctly realize a fault) so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately as suggested by Liang. Wan does not preclude use of a transition area for separating a non-fault region from a fault region to improve realization of a fault so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately.
Applicants further argue “Wan explains that the transformer winding is grouped into position intervals having K turns and that the fault characteristics are input into the trained genetic neural network to determine the fault interval corresponding to the fault characteristics to realize fault location. See Wan, Abstract and Contents of the Invention, step 3. Wan further describes the characteristics that change monotonically with the fault location and that the neural network includes a mapping between fault features and corresponding intervals. See id. By contrast, Liang is not directed toward an inter-turn fault at all; rather, Liang discloses a fault area, fault boundary area, fault transition area, and a non-failure area. In Liang, observations that do not satisfy the fault area or the non- faulty areas are classified as fault boundary or fault transition regions. See Liang, Contents of the Invention, step 8. These areas do not correspond to any turn interval or any other location within a winding that can be combined with Wan.”
Examiner’s position, as discussed above, is that Liang is used to show an improvement to realize a fault (distinctly realize a fault). A transition area is used for separating a non-fault region (Abstract, line 8) from a fault region (Abstract, line 7). Thus, in view of Liang, the use of providing separate areas including transition area, non-fault area, fault area can be used to improve realization of a fault (distinctly realize a fault) so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately as suggested by Liang. It is noted that Wan does not preclude use of a transition area for separating a non-fault region from a fault region to improve realization of a fault so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately.
Applicants further argue “[i]n summary, Applicant submits a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Liang with the system of Wan because the various areas disclosed in Liang (i.e., fault area, fault transition area, non-failure area) are conceptual areas in a mathematical modeling space, whereas the fault locations disclosed in Wan are physical locations within a winding. It is unclear how the teachings of Liang could be applied to the system in Wan in view of this conceptual distinction.”
Examiner’s position is that Wan discloses “inputting trained generic neural network to determine failure area fault characteristic corresponding to realize fault location” (Abstract, lines 5-6). Liang discloses “a network fault region locating method based on multidimensional information” (Abstract, line 1). Accordingly, the disclosures of Wan and Liang seem to be of the same field of endeavor. Liang further discloses an improvement to locating a failure (distinctly realize a fault). Liang discloses a transition area is used for separating a non-fault region (Abstract, line 8) from a fault region (Abstract, line 7). Thus, in view of Liang, the use of providing separate areas including transition area, non-fault area, fault area can be used to improve realization of a fault (distinctly realize a fault) so locating a fault can be performed fast and accurately as suggested by Liang.
Applicants further argue “[e]ven if the teachings of Liang and Wan could be combined, Applicant submits the result would not be desirable to a person of ordinary skill in the art because various areas disclosed in Liang are less precise than the physical locations disclosed in Wan. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to determine the precise location of the fault in Wan would not have been motivated to define a more general fault area as described in Liang. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Liang with Wan as suggested in the Office Action.”
Examiner’s position is that it is unclear how the various areas disclosed in Liang are less precise than the physical locations disclosed in Wan. Wan discloses the need for “determining a fault area characteristic corresponding to realize a fault location” (Abstract, line 6). Liang discloses by distinctly defining a fault region (Abstract, line 7-8), and by using multidimensional information related property (Abstract, line 10), locating a fault can be fast and accurate (Abstract, line 10). Thus, the motivation to combine Wan with Liang is to provide Wan with distinctly defining a fault region for locating a fault fast and accurate as suggested by Liang.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights