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
The Amendments to the Claims filed 04/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9-11 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 5-6, and 8 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 01/07/2026. Due to amendments to the claims new claim objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the claim objections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, due to amendment to the claim new claim objections are presented below.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 1: “the method according to claim 6” should be corrected to “the method according to claim [[6]]1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, new 112(b) issues have arisen due to amendment to the claims.
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, 3-4, 7, and 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “correcting at least one measurement value” in line 7, “correcting at least one measurement value” in line 13, and “applying the new correction value to the at least one measurement value” in line 14. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the “at least one measurement value” that the new correction value is applied to is the first recited “at least one measurement value” or the second recited “at least one measurement value”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear which at least one measurement value is being referred to any given point in the claim. For the purposes of examination the recited “applying the new correction value to the at least one measurement value” shall be interpreted as requiring applying a correction value to any measurement value. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify the difference between the first recited “at least one measurement value” and the second recited “at least one measurement value”. For example, the claims could recite “correcting at least one second measurement value of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit by applying the new correction value to the at least one second measurement value”.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously presented has been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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, 3-4, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 20130119972 A1) in view of Bruno (US 20060095219 A1) and Tripodi et al. (US 5835325 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Maguire teaches:
A method for correcting measurement values of an electric current acquired by a sensor unit, the method comprising:
providing a controller (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and para[0037]: Control mechanism 132.) and circuit breaker (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and para[0030]: circuit breaker.) connected to the sensor unit (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and para[0041]: current sensors.);
providing for a functional correlation between the measurement values of the electric current and correction values (See Fig. 3, para[0023], and para[0062] – para[0064]: applying a Kalman filter using at least the at least two first current sensor readings to determine one or more first calibration coefficients. The covariance estimate, Pk/k-1, for the state vector.);
correcting at least one measurement value of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit by applying to the at least one measurement value a respective correction value determined by the functional correlation (See Fig. 3 and para[0023]: determining a first electrical power used by the electrical power infrastructure of the structure using at least the at least one third current sensor reading and the one or more second calibration coefficients.);
determining a new correction value by way of the functional correlation on a basis of the at least one measurement value of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit (See Fig. 3, para[0023], and para[0085]: wherein re-calibrating the power consumption measurement device can include: applying the Kalman filter using at least the at least two first current sensor readings and the at least one second current sensor reading to determine one or more second calibration coefficients for the power consumption measurement device.); and
correcting at least one measurement value of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit by applying the new correction value to the at least one measurement value (See Fig. 3 and para[0023]: determining a first electrical power used by the electrical power infrastructure of the structure using at least the at least one third current sensor reading and the one or more second calibration coefficients.) and
outputting the corrected value of the electric current as a corrected sensor output (See Fig. 3 and para[0049]: Display 134 can be configured to display information to a user.);
the correction values being determined to compensate for an amplitude- dependent error caused by a non-linear transfer function of the sensor unit (See para[0031], and para[0065]: Usually, panel 196 is composed of steel or another ferrous metal; therefore the magnetic field outside the panel will be non-linearly dependent on the current through power conductors 192, 194, and 195. Receiving the amplitude and phase signal from a number of non-contact current sensors, a non-linear model of the system (state vector) can be created.), and
correcting a plurality of measurement values of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit with a given correction value before the new correction value is determined (See Fig. 3 and para[0086]: For example, rather than a threshold in the change of current sensor described in activity 366, the range of anticipated total current coverage, the number of points acquired, random application of the load, or any a priori information concerning the shapes of the curves may be utilized to improve the estimation algorithm and it's convergence properties.); and
determining the functional correlation between the measurement values of the electric current and the correction values by a multi-point calibration (See para[0023]: applying the Kalman filter using at least the at least two first current sensor readings and the at least one second current sensor reading to determine one or more second calibration coefficients for the power consumption measurement device.).
Maguire is silent as to the language of:
the corrected sensor output being provided to the controller to control a tripping operation; and
averaging the plurality of measurement values of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit, and determining the new correction value by way of the functional correlation based on a mean value obtained by the averaging.
Nevertheless Bruno teaches:
averaging the plurality of measurement values of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit, and determining the new correction value by way of the functional correlation based on a mean value obtained by the averaging (See Fig. 4, para[0030], para[0037], and Claim 6: determining a phase correction factor corresponding to said first root mean square load current comprises the step of calculating a phase correction factor from an equation expressing a mathematical relationship of said phase correction factor and a root mean square current.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maguire by averaging the plurality of measurement values of the electric current acquired by the sensor unit, and determining the new correction value by way of the functional correlation based on a mean value obtained by the averaging such as that of Bruno. Bruno teaches, “The present inventor realized that the root mean square (rms) of the load current changes more slowly and over a narrower range than the instantaneous load current and that the computational and data storage requirements of a power meter could be reduced if the phase correction could be determined from the rms value of the assumed load current” (See para[0030]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Maguire, because determining a new correction value using a mean value would have helped to reduce the computational and data store requirements needed to determine a correction, as recognized by Bruno.
Bruno is silent as to the language of:
the corrected sensor output being provided to the controller to control a tripping operation.
Nevertheless Tripodi teaches:
the corrected sensor output being provided to the controller to control a tripping operation (See Fig. 3, Abstract, and Col. 3 lines 52 – 64: According to the invention, the purpose of correction is to guarantee tripping functions in terms of tripping threshold and tripping time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maguire wherein the corrected sensor output being provided to the controller to control a tripping operation such as that of Tripodi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Maguire, because controlling a tripping operation using corrected sensor output would have helped to guarantee tripping functions in terms of tripping threshold and tripping time, as recognized by Tripodi.
Regarding Claim 3. Maguire teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
which comprises determining the new correction value by way of the functional correlation on a basis of the values of the plurality of measurement values of the electric current (See Fig. 3 and para[0023]: wherein re-calibrating the power consumption measurement device can include: applying the Kalman filter using at least the at least two first current sensor readings and the at least one second current sensor reading to determine one or more second calibration coefficients for the power consumption measurement device.).
Regarding Claim 4. Maguire is silent as to the language of
The method according to claim 1,
wherein a number of the plurality of measurement values is equal to a number of acquired values that are averaged to obtain display values.
Nevertheless Bruno teaches:
wherein a number of the plurality of measurement values is equal to a number of acquired values that are averaged to obtain display values (See Fig. 4 and para[0032]: When the number of samples equals the number of samples specified for a sampling window 94, the sample counter is reset 82 and the root mean square (rms) of the assumed load currents accumulated for the sampling window is calculated 96.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maguire wherein a number of the plurality of measurement values is equal to a number of acquired values that are averaged to obtain display values such as that of Bruno. Bruno teaches, “The present inventor realized that the root mean square (rms) of the load current changes more slowly and over a narrower range than the instantaneous load current and that the computational and data storage requirements of a power meter could be reduced if the phase correction could be determined from the rms value of the assumed load current” (See para[0030]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Maguire, because obtaining an average using a number of acquired values would have helped to reduce the computational and data store requirements needed to determine a correction, as recognized by Bruno.
Regarding Claim 9. Maguire teaches:
A device which is configured for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (See Fig. 1 and para[0027]: electrical power monitoring system 100.).
Regarding Claim 10. Maguire teaches:
The device according to claim 9,
comprising:
a circuit breaker having (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and para[0030]: circuit breaker.):
the sensor unit (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and para[0041]: current sensors.); and
a control unit that is configured to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1 (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and para[0037]: Control mechanism 132.).
Regarding Claim 11. Maguire teaches:
A computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer program that is configured to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is executed on a processing unit (See Fig. 2 and para[0042]: When computational unit 120 is running, program instructions (e.g., processing module 222 and/or calibration calculation module 229) stored in memory 226 are executed by processor 225.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire et al. (US 20130119972 A1) in view of Bruno (US 20060095219 A1) and Tripodi et al. (US 5835325 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinhardt (US 20160209236 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Maguire is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 6 (Examiner note: for the purposes of examination the claim is interpreted as depending from claim 1.),
which comprises:
for multiple known measurement values of the electric current, determining a deviation from measurement values acquired by the sensor unit; and
performing an interpolation between the multiple measurement values.
Nevertheless Steinhardt teaches:
for multiple known measurement values of the electric current, determining a deviation from measurement values acquired by the sensor unit (See para[0013]: wherein error values of measured values of a first sensor system are defined by means of a comparison with measured values of further sensor systems.); and
performing an interpolation between the multiple measurement values (See para[0042] – para[0044]: a measured value with the required timestamp can be calculated by means of the interpolation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maguire wherein for multiple known measurement values of the electric current, determining a deviation from measurement values acquired by the sensor unit; and performing an interpolation between the multiple measurement values. such as that of Steinhardt. Steinhardt teaches, “Similarly, temporal influences on the measured data must be corrected and temporary outages or the unavailability of sensors must be bridged” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Maguire, because determining a deviation and using interpolation would have helped to correct measured data and bridge sensor outages, as recognized by Steinhardt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Consequently, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a multi-point calibration of Patel, or any other prior art reference, to the teachings of Bandsmer, because Bandsmer specifically teaches away from such a feature.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant argues that: Bandsmer teaches averaging cycles of the calibration waveform to arrive at a correction factor. This is not a "new correction factor" but an average over corrections. The present application teaches averaging multiple measurement values and inputting the average into the functional correlation (based on multi- point calibration) to get a new correction factor.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant argues that: That is, in Patel, the constant of proportionality is only computed once. Hence, a more time-consuming method such a multi-point calibration can be used. This does not contradict or undermine the teaching away from Bandsmer where every current value is to be corrected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights