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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: November 26, 2025.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled. No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 1, with respect to the objection of claims 1, 15 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 15 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The applicant has argued that the prior art Nielsen fails to teach all the claim limitations of independent claim 11, in particular, that Nielsen fails to teach “wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on one or more parameters that affect a level of light that is expected external to the electric utility meter housing” (see REMARKS pages 1-2). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Nielsen teaches, in paragraph [0025], that the light sensitive component LSC can sense differences in light intensity so it may be used in dark environments with low background light that may be accounted for in the determination if the meter has been tampered, so the background light is the predetermined threshold that is needed to be overcome through the light reducing element (para [0025]; which allows some light to enter) to trigger a tamper event of the meter (see the rejection of claim 11 below). Thus, Nielsen appears to teach the argued claim limitations of claim 11.
The applicant has argued that the prior art Nielsen fails to teach all the claim limitations of independent claim 17, in particular, that Nielsen fails to teach “wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on a current time of day” (see REMARKS pages 2-3). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Nielsen teaches, in paragraph [0025], that the light sensitive component LSC can sense differences in light intensity so it may be used in dark environments with low background light through the light reducing element (para [0025]; which allows some light to enter) that may be accounted for in the determination if the meter has been tampered (such as the evening time period of the day that the meter is placed in or the detectable difference in incident daylight that may be accounted for; also see the rejection of claim 17 below). Thus, Nielsen appears to teach the argued claim limitations of claim 17.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant has argued that the prior arts Nielsen and Aiken fail to teach all the claim limitations of independent claim 1, in particular, that Nielsen and Aiken fail to teach “wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on one or more parameters that affect a level of light that is expected external to the electric utility meter housing” (see REMARKS pages 3-5). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Nielsen teaches, in paragraph [0025], that the light sensitive component LSC can sense differences in light intensity so it may be used in dark environments with low background light that may be accounted for in the determination if the meter has been tampered, so the background light through the light reducing element (para [0025]; which allows some light to enter) is the predetermined threshold that is needed to be overcome to trigger a tamper event of the meter (see the rejection of claim 1 below). Thus, Nielsen appears to teach the argued claim limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielsen EP2246667A1 (previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 11, Nielsen teaches a method of detecting electric utility meter tampering (Fig. 1; para [0001]), comprising:
measuring, with a sensor (Fig. 1; light sensitive component LSC), a level of light (para [0018]; daylight) in an electric utility meter housing (Fig. 1; casing CS); and
generating an alert (para [0015]; alarm signal) if the level of light is above a predetermined threshold (para [0015, 0018 and 0025], alarm sent if light is sensed), wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on one or more parameters that affect a level of light that is expected external to the electric utility meter housing (para [0025]; the threshold may be adjusted based on the background light intensity of the environment the meter is placed in).
Regarding claim 12, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the electric utility meter housing does not contain an internal light source configured to direct light to the sensor (para [0018]; detects external light sources, such as daylight).
Regarding claim 14, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the sensor is a photosensor configured to measure the level of light (para [0018]; photodiode used to detect daylight).
Regarding independent claim 17, Nielsen teaches a method of detecting electric utility meter tampering (Fig. 1; para [0001]), comprising: measuring, with a sensor (Fig. 1; light sensitive component LSC), a level of light (para [0018]; daylight) in an electric utility meter housing (Fig. 1; casing CS); and generating an alert (para [0015]; alarm signal) if the level of light is above a predetermined threshold (para [0015, 0018 and 0025], alarm sent if light is sensed), wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on a current time of day (para [0015 and 0025]; a time is recorded when a potential tampering event happens and can be identified if a tampering event actually occurred, such as a planned maintenance on the meter and the threshold may be adjusted based on the background light intensity, or current time of day, of the environment the meter is placed in).
Regarding claim 18, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on a current date (para [0015]; a date is recorded when a potential tampering event happens and can be identified if a tampering event actually occurred, such as a planned maintenance on the meter).
Regarding claim 20, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the alert is indicative of meter tampering (para [0015]; alarm signal sent for potential tampering events).
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) 1-5, 7-10, 13, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Aiken 2013/0057408 (previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nielsen teaches an electric utility meter tampering detection system (Fig. 1; para [0001]), comprising:
an electric utility meter located in the housing (Fig. 1; consumption meter; para [0024]); and
a sensor disposed in the housing (Fig. 1; light sensitive component LSC), the sensor configured to detect a presence of light (para [0018]; daylight) entering the housing from an area external to the housing (para [0018]; daylight is external to the housing); and
a controller configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of a level of light detected by the sensor (para [0018 and 0024], electronic sealing circuit ESC records a unsealing/tampering event from the LSC when daylight is detected) and generate an alert if the indicated level of light is above a predetermined threshold (para [0015, 0018 and 0025]; an alarm is transmitted when the LSC detects daylight), wherein the predetermined threshold is based, at least in part, on one or more parameters that affect a level of light that is expected external to the electric utility meter housing (para [0025]; the threshold may be adjusted based on the background light intensity of the environment the meter is placed in).
Nielsen fails to teach an electric utility meter housing; an electric utility meter located in the electric utility meter housing.
Aiken teaches an electric utility meter housing (Figs. 1 and 2; cover 118 with utility meter housing 207); an electric utility meter located in the housing (Figs. 1 and 2; electronic utility meter 102);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Nielsen with the meter housing as described by Aiken for the purpose of protecting the electronic components from external environments and allowing a photoreceptor sensor to detect arcing without influence from the external environment (para [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Aiken further teaches wherein the sensor is disposed between the electric utility meter and a meter socket (Figs. 1 and 2; first and second photoreceptor sensor 234 and 235 are located between meter base 206 and utility meter socket 250).
Regarding claim 3, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Nielsen further teaches wherein the system does not contain an internal light source configured to direct light to the sensor (para [0018]; detects external light sources, such as daylight).
Regarding claim 4, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Nielsen further teaches wherein the sensor is a photosensor configured to detect a level of light (para [0018]; photodiode used to detect daylight).
Regarding claim 5, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 4, Nielsen further teaches further comprising a controller configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the level of light (para [0018 and 0024], electronic sealing circuit ESC records a unsealing/tampering event from the LSC), the controller further configured to generate an alert when the level of light is above a predetermined threshold (para [0015 and 0018]; an alarm is transmitted when the LSC detects daylight).
Regarding claim 7, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Nielsen further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include a current time of day (para [0015 and 0025]; a time is recorded when a potential tampering event happens and can be identified if a tampering event actually occurred, such as a planned maintenance on the meter and the threshold may be adjusted based on the background light intensity of the environment the meter is placed in).
Regarding claim 8, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Nielsen further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include a current date (para [0010, 0012, 0015 and 0024]; a date is recorded when a potential tampering event happens and can be identified if a tampering event actually occurred, such as a planned maintenance on the meter).
Regarding claim 9, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Aiken further teaches wherein the alert is indicative of electric arcing in the utility meter housing (para [0023]; arcing alert).
Regarding claim 10, Nielsen and Aiken teach the electric utility meter tampering detection system of claim 1, Nielsen further teaches wherein the alert is indicative of meter tampering (para [0015]; alarm signal sent for potential tampering events).
Regarding claim 13, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the sensor is disposed between the electric utility meter and a meter socket.
Aiken teaches wherein the sensor is disposed between the electric utility meter and a meter socket (Figs. 1 and 2; first and second photoreceptor sensor 234 and 235 are located between meter base 206 and utility meter socket 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Nielsen with the meter housing as described by Aiken for the purpose of protecting the electronic components from external environments and allowing a photoreceptor sensor to detect arcing without influence from the external environment (para [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to teach further comprising transmitting a signal to a remote computer, the signal indicative of the level of light measured in the electric utility meter housing.
Aiken teaches transmitting a signal to a remote computer (para [0023]; arcing alert for communication to the service provider and/or a user), the signal indicative of the level of light measured in the electric utility meter housing (para [0023]; arcing alert indicates a light level beyond the established boundary conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Nielsen with the arcing alert as described by Aiken for the purpose of indicating when an arcing event is occurring, thus allowing a proper response to correct any issues that may be occurring to the utility meter.
Regarding claim 16, Nielsen and Aiken teach the method of claim 15, but fail to teach wherein the remote computer generates the alert.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Nielsen and Aiken to have the remote computer generate the alert. Nielsen teaches that an external alarm signal is generated by the electronic sealing circuit of the consumption meter to be transmitted to the utility (see para [0015] of Nielsen) and Aiken teaches generating an arcing alert in a computing device of the utility meter to be transmitted to a service provider and/or a user (see para [0023] of Aiken). Thus, one skilled in the art would be able to modify the location for the generation of the alert to be at the utility instead of at the utility meter itself for the purpose of being able to verify the data sent to the utility by determining if a tampering event is actually occurring before generating an alert that tampering of the utility meter is occurring.
Regarding claim 19, Nielsen teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the alert is indicative of electric arcing in the electric utility meter housing.
Aiken teaches wherein the alert is indicative of electric arcing in the electric utility meter housing (para [0023]; arcing alert).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Nielsen with the meter housing as described by Aiken for the purpose of protecting the electronic components from external environments and allowing a photoreceptor sensor to detect arcing without influence from the external environment (para [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kennon et al. discloses “Magnetic tamper detector” (see US4707679)
Johnson et al. discloses “Radio communication network for remote data generating stations” (see US5056107)
Cleary discloses “Data accessing system and method” (see US2009/0210197)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858