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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2025-12-16 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-15 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8, and their dependents 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 § 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn et al. (US-20070063691-A1) in view of Libove et al (US-5473244-A) in further view of Mueller et al. (US-20090006015-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yakymyshyn teaches a probe (Fig 1A or 5B) for measuring at least one of electric current and power (Para [0061] teaches a current sensor), the probe comprising:
a magnetometer array (Fig 1A or 5B: array of magnetic field sensors, 104 or 302, can be seen in Figure) disposed on a panel (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1A of Yakymyshyn), the magnetometer array comprising a plurality of magnetometers (Can be seen in Fig 1A or 5B), each magnetometer of the plurality thereof having a frequency response that is equal to or greater than 100 Hz (Para [0078] teaches magnetic field sensors have a bandwidth of 5 kHz); and
the panel (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1A of Yakymyshyn), wherein the panel includes a port (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1A of Yakymyshyn) configured to locate the cable relative to the magnetometer array (Fig 1A: current carrying conductor, 106, is located within the port);
wherein the magnetometer array is arranged about the port such that, when the probe and cable are operatively coupled via the port, the magnetometer array partially surrounds the cable (Can be seen in the annotated Fig 1A of Yakymyshyn that the array of magnetic sensors partially surrounds the cable when it is in the port).
Yakymyshyn does not teach wherein each magnetometer of the plurality thereof is configured to provide an output signal to a processor, the output signal being indicative of the magnetic field strength at its respective magnetometer, and being used to generate a magnetic field map that is deconvolved to identify a location of each of the wires to thereby determine a current in each of wires using the location of, and the magnetic field strength at, each respective magnetometer.
However, Libove teaches a cable that includes a plurality of wires (Fig 5A: cable, 501),
wherein each magnetometer of the plurality thereof is configured to provide an output signal to a processor (col 7 lines 27-40 teaches sensors capable of measuring magnetic field and outputting a signal to a microcomputer), the output signal being indicative of the magnetic field strength at its respective magnetometer (col 7 lines 27-40 teaches sensors capable of measuring magnetic field), and
identifying the location of wires using the magnetic field strength at the magnetic sensors and determining the current in each wire. (Libove - col. 7 lines 30-55 teaches a microcomputer that determines current in individual wires within a bundle utilizing information for electric field/ magnetic field sensors including spacings of wires within the bundle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cable and magnetometers of Yakymyshyn to include a plurality of wires and individual outputs. A motivation for doing so is many cables contain wires bundled within which would require a device capable of measuring them and each magnetometer having its own output allows to determine the net effect of the superposition of all of the fields at various sensor positions as taught by Libove in col. 7 lines 28-31.
The combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove does not teach a magnetic field map that is deconvolved.
However, Mueller teaches a magnetic field map that is deconvolved (Para [0011] teaches deconvolution of a magnetic field distribution that is generated by current flowing through a conductor and is detected by a magnetic sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the combination to include deconvolving a magnetic field map as taught by Mueller. A motivation for this modification is calculating in this manner provides an efficient avenue for solving for current as taught by Mueller in Para [0023].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach wherein each magnetometer of the plurality thereof occupies an area on the panel that is less than or equal to four square millimeters. However, it has been held In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have scaled the sensors of the combination to be any size as needed. A motivation for this is resizing may be done as needed based on spacing constraints.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller teaches wherein a first wire of the plurality thereof conducts a first electric current having maximum frequency-of-interest, and wherein at least one magnetometer of the plurality thereof has a frequency response that is equal to or greater than twice the maximum frequency-of-interest (Yakymyshyn - Para [0078] teaches magnetic field sensors have a bandwidth of 5 kHz and Para [0065] teaches a conductor frequency of 60 Hz). These features are necessarily taught by the combination as applied with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller teaches the processor being configured to identify the location of at least one wire of the plurality thereof based on the plurality of output signals (Libove - col. 7 lines 30-55 teaches a microcomputer that determines current in individual wires within a bundle utilizing information for electric field/ magnetic field sensors including spacings of wires within the bundle). These features are necessarily taught by the combination as applied with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller teaches wherein the processor is further configured to measure a current flow in a first wire of the plurality of wires (Libove - col. 7 lines 40-43 teach determine currents in lines). These features are necessarily taught by the combination as applied with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Yakymyshyn teaches a method for measuring at least one of electric current and power (Para [0061] teaches a current sensor).
operatively coupling a probe (Fig 1A or 5B) and the cable (Fig 1A: cable, 106), wherein the probe includes a magnetometer array (Fig 1A or 5B: array of magnetic field sensors, 104 or 302, can be seen in Figure) disposed on a panel (Can be seen in Annotated Figure 1A of Yakymyshyn), the magnetometer array comprising a plurality of magnetometers (Can be seen in Fig 1A or 5B) characterized by a frequency response that is equal to or greater than 100 Hz (Para [0078] teaches magnetic field sensors have a bandwidth of 5 kHz), and wherein probe and cable are arranged such that the magnetometer array partially surrounds the cable (Can be seen in the annotated Fig 1A of Yakymyshyn that the array of magnetic sensors partially surrounds the cable when it is in the port).
Yakymyshyn does not teach:
a cable that includes a plurality of wires, providing an output signal from each magnetometer of the plurality thereof to a processor, wherein the output signal of each magnetometer is indicative of the magnetic field strength at that magnetometer,
creating a magnetic-field map based on the plurality of output signals; and
identifying the location of at least one wire of the plurality thereof based on the magnetic-field map, and deconvolve the magnetic field map to identify a location of each of the wires to thereby determine a current in each of wires using the location of, and the magnetic field strength at, each respective magnetometer.
However, Libove teaches a cable that includes a plurality of wires (Fig 5A: cable, 501),
providing an output signal from each magnetometer of the plurality thereof to a processor (col 7 lines 27-40 teaches sensors capable of measuring magnetic field and outputting a signal to a microcomputer), wherein the output signal of each magnetometer is indicative of the magnetic field strength at that magnetometer (col 7 lines 50-55 teaches the magnetic field at each sensor is calculated).
identifying the location of at least one wire of the plurality thereof (col. 7 lines 30-55 teaches a microcomputer that determines current in individual wires within a bundle utilizing information for electric field/ magnetic field sensors including spacings of wires within the bundle).
The combination of Yakymyshyn and Libove does not explicitly teach generating a magnetic-field map; and deconvolving the magnetic field map. However, Mueller teaches generating a magnetic field map (Para [0026]) and deconvoluting the magnetic field map (Para [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of the combination to include deconvolving a magnetic field map as taught by Mueller. A motivation for this modification is calculating in this manner provides an efficient avenue for solving for current as taught by Mueller in Para [0023].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach providing the probe such that each magnetometer of the plurality thereof occupies an area on the panel that is less than or equal to one square millimeter. However, it has been held In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have scaled the sensors of the combination to be any size as needed. A motivation for this is resizing may be done as needed based on spacing constraints.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller teaches providing the probe such that each magnetometer of the plurality thereof is characterized by a frequency response that is equal to or greater than twice the maximum frequency-of-interest of a first current flowing in a first wire of the plurality thereof (Yakymyshyn - Para [0078] teaches magnetic field sensors have a bandwidth of 5 kHz and Para [0065] teaches a conductor frequency of 60 Hz). These features are necessarily taught by the combination as applied with respect to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller teaches identifying the location of at least one wire of the plurality thereof based on the plurality of output signals (Libove - col. 7 lines 30-55 teaches a microcomputer that determines current in individual wires within a bundle utilizing information for electric field/ magnetic field sensors including spacings of wires within the bundle). These features are necessarily taught by the combination as applied with respect to claim 8.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in further view of Scott et al. (WO-2020168379).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach wherein the port is configured to secure the cable in a substantially immovable position relative to the magnetometer array. However, Scott teaches wherein the port is configured to secure the cable in a substantially immovable position relative to the magnetometer array (Fig. 6A and Para [0176] teaches deformable resilient fingers, 622, configured to secure the cable in place within the port, 621.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the port of the combination to incorporate the securing feature of Scott. A motivation for this combination is to retain the power cable centrally within the opening as taught by Scott in paragraph [0176].
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach securing the cable to the probe such that the cable is substantially immovable relative to the magnetometer array. However, Scott teaches securing the cable to the probe such that the cable is substantially immovable relative to the magnetometer array (Fig. 6A and Para [0176] teaches deformable resilient fingers, 622, configured to secure the cable in place within the port, 621.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the port of the combination to incorporate the securing feature of Scott. A motivation for this combination is to retain the power cable centrally within the opening as taught by Scott in paragraph [0176].
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in further view of Meyer et al. (US-20230358793-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach wherein the probe further includes a sensor that is operative for measuring an electric field corresponding to a voltage signal applied to cable, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one of a real power and an apparent power based on the current flow and the electric field. However, Meyer teaches wherein the probe further includes a sensor (Fig 1: magnetic field sensor, 180) that is operative for measuring an electric field corresponding to a voltage signal applied to cable (Para [0123] teaches the sensor, 180, may be configured to measure the electric field generated by the cable), and wherein the processor (Fig. 1: central computing unit, 170) is further configured to determine at least one of a real power and an apparent power based on the current flow and the electric field (Para [0152] teaches determining power based on several parameters including current and electric field). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probe of the combination to include power determination. A motivation for doing so would be to allow the power monitoring of a specific appliance as taught by Meyer in paragraph [0128].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in further view of Behringer et al. (US-20130229192-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach measuring a current flow in the cable (114), wherein at least one magnetometer of the plurality thereof is unpowered while the current flow is measured. However, Behringer teaches measuring a current flow in the cable (114), wherein at least one magnetometer of the plurality thereof is unpowered while the current flow is measured (Para [0034] teaches deactivating unneeded current sensors). A motivation for doing so is that deactivating unneeded sensors will reduce excess noise from the electronic devices being on.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in view of Behringer in further view of Meyer.
Regarding Claim 14, Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in view of Behringer does not teach measuring an electric field corresponding to a voltage signal applied to the cable; and determining at least one of a real power and an apparent power based on the current flow and the electric field. However, Meyer teaches measuring an electric field corresponding to a voltage signal applied to the cable (Para [0123] teaches the sensor, 180, may be configured to measure the electric field generated by the cable); and determining at least one of a real power and an apparent power based on the current flow and the electric field (Para [0152] teaches determining power based on several parameters including current and electric field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination to include power determination. A motivation for doing so would be to allow the power monitoring of a specific appliance as taught by Meyer in paragraph [0128].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller in further view of Reid et al. (Refer to NPL Paper “A. B. Reid et al., "Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution", Geophysics, VOL. 55 NO. 1 (January 1990)", attached in a previous office action).
Regarding Claim 15, Yakymyshyn in view of Libove in view of Mueller does not teach wherein the location of the at least one wire of the plurality thereof is identified via deconvolution of the magnetic-field map. However, Reid teaches wherein the location of the at least one wire of the plurality thereof is identified via deconvolution of the magnetic-field map (NPL-1 teaches locating objects using deconvolution of a magnetic field, see the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of the combination to incorporate deconvolution of Reid. A motivation for doing so is that the method can outline various structural features such as contact with remarkable accuracy as taught by Reid in the abstract.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858