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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/26/2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-15 made in view of 35 USC 112(a), it is noted that Applicant does not contest Examiner’s finding that there is no disclosed means to determine the current as called for in the claims. Rather, Applicant alleges that “one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that determining current values involves conventional current sensing techniques such as current transformers” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 9). However, the standard for written description is what the ordinary workman in the art would have understood the applicant to have possessed at the time of filing, not what the applicant could have reasonably achieved. The determination that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have figured out how to implement the invention without undue experimentation is one regarding enablement. The MPEP makes clear that 112(a) has both an enablement requirement and a written description (i.e. possession) requirement (see MPEP 2161(II) “The written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”).
As stated in MPEP 2163.02 “to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention.” As noted in the previous Office Action dated 11/3/2025, and as Applicant has not contested, there is no disclosed means of determining current disclosed in the original disclosure. One having ordinary skill in the art could have inferred that a current measuring device should be used to achieve the desired results, but one having ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably been apprised that applicant possessed such a device as part of the invention at the time of filing. As noted in the previous Office Action, one potential interpretation is that the thermal image is also used to determine the current via some undisclosed method, and therefore the ordinary workman in the art would not have reasonably been apprised that the Applicant had possession of a “conventional current sensing techniques such as current transformers” as alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(a) rejections of claims 1-15 are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 made under 35 USC 103 in view of Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0145849; hereafter Huang) and Piety (U.S. Patent No. 5,386,117; hereafter Piety) Applicant argues that the combination is improper because one having ordinary skill in the art would not combine the “automated, continuous system” of Huang with “portable hand truck” of Piety; “One of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Huangs automated continuous monitoring with Piety’s periodic manual inspection” because “Piety’s manual inspection cart would render Huang’s automated fault detection inoperable for its intended purpose” (see Applicant’s remarks pp. 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that Huang does not use the terms “automated,” “continuous,” or any reasonable synonym thereof to describe Huang’s invention. Nor in the Abstract does anything in Huang imply that automation or continuity of monitoring were concerns or intended purpose of the invention. Huang discloses that the intended purpose is to “provided for monitoring an operating condition of an electrical component, such as electrical switchgear” (see Huang, abstract). Such monitoring would not be hindered by the combination with Piety, which is also concerned with monitoring the operating condition of an electrical component. Applicant’s argument that the combination of Huang and Piety would render Huang “inoperable” is therefore unpersuasive.
As to Applicant’s argument that Piety “teaches away” from real-time automated monitoring, a teaching away is a teaching that disparages or otherwise discourages a proposed combination (see MPEP 2143.01(I) “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Nothing in Piety discourages real-time monitoring, so even if Piety does not use real-time automated monitoring, it does not teach away from doing so. Furthermore, as noted above, Huang does not state that the monitoring is continuous or real-time. On the contrary, the discussion of the timing of the measurements in Huang disclose discrete, non-continuous measurements (see Huang paragraph [0030] “the alert component 514 may use the first prediction model 504 for three consecutive time units (e.g., hours, days, weeks, months, etc.)”). Applicant’s assertion that Huang discloses, let alone requires as instrumental, autonomous, continuous, real-time monitoring is in error, and Applicant’s arguments that such a disclosure would render the combination improper is therefore unpersuasive. The rejections made in view of Huang and Piety are therefore maintained.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Huang in view of Piety, discussed above, and therefore are similarly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, inter alia, “a processor configured to receive a thermal image of the electrical system from the thermal camera and to determine… a current value of a current passing through the electrical component” and claim 14 recites “determining current value of a current passing through the electrical component.” In contrast to the portions of claims 1, 11, and 14 which disclose determining “a measured temperature of an electrical component using the thermal image” (emphasis added), the claims (as well as the specification) do not disclose any means, apparatus, or method by which the claimed current data us acquired or generated. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would not have reasonably been apprised that Applicant has possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, as there is no disclosed means to determine the current as called for in the claims. The only potential interpretation is that the thermal image is also used to generate current data, however there is no discussion in the specification as to how that might be accomplished, and would raise questions of enablement if the specification and claims were interpreted in that manner. Claims 1, 11, and 14 therefore fail the written description requirement of 112(a).
Claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are dependent on claims 1, 11, and 14, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0145849 A1; hereafter Huang) in view of Piety et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,386,117; hereafter Piety).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 14, Huang discloses a fault detection device and method for an electrical system, the fault detection device comprising: a processor configured determine: a measured temperature of an electrical component (see Huang Fig. 3, item 322); a current value of a current passing through the electrical component (see Huang Fig.3, item 306); an ambient temperature (see Huang Fig. 3, item 304); a predicted temperature of the electrical component (see Huang Fig. 3, item 312), wherein the predicted temperature is based on the current value and the ambient temperature (see Huang Fig. 3, item 310); a temperature difference between the measured temperature of the electrical component and the predicted temperature of the electrical component (see Huang Fig. 3, items 314 and 316); and the health of the electrical component based on the temperature difference (see Huang Fig. 3, item 308, the alarm is a determination of the health of the device); [claim 6] wherein the predicted temperature is based on a model and wherein the current value and ambient temperature are inputs to the model (see Huang Fig. 3, item 310); [claims 7 and 19] wherein the model is a physics-based model (the model is based on some level of physical understanding of the relationship between current and temperature); [claim 8] wherein the model is a first order model (the model is linear with respect to temperature); [claim 9] wherein the model is a data driven model (the model requires data input, and therefore can be construed as data driven).
Huang does not disclose that a thermal camera configured to acquire one or more thermal images of the electrical system; and a processor configured to receive a thermal image of the electrical system from the thermal camera to determine a measured temperature; [claims 2] wherein the thermal camera is movable such that a field of view of the thermal camera is adjustable; [claims 3, 12, and 16] wherein the thermal camera is rotatable about at least one axis; [claims 4 and 13] further comprising a movable structure, wherein the thermal camera is mounted to the movable structure such that a lateral position of the thermal camera is adjustable using the movable structure.
Piety discloses a thermal camera for fault detection and a processor configured to receive a thermal image of the electrical system from the thermal camera (see Piety Fig. 1, items 28 and 32); [claims 2 and 15] wherein the thermal camera is movable such that a field of view of the thermal camera is adjustable (note that the camera is on a wheeled support); [claims 3, 12, and 16] wherein the thermal camera is rotatable about at least one axis (the camera can rotate as it is being wheeled); [claims 4 and 17] further comprising a movable structure, wherein the thermal camera is mounted to the movable structure such that a lateral position of the thermal camera is adjustable using the movable structure (see Piety Fig. 1, items 22 and 28).
Piety does not specifically disclose that the processor determines a temperature from the thermal image, but notes that “there are prior art systems which employ computers to aid the thermographer... to manipulate thermographic images for identifying specific values, average temperature over some area, isotherms, or line temperature profiles” (see Piety col. 2, ll. 24-30). It therefore would have been obvious that the device of Piety could also be modified to determine the temperature from the image data, as disclosed as already be well known in the Piety reference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the system of Huang with a mobile monitoring unit like that in Piety in order to obviate the need to provide multiple temperature sensors, and allows the workman to centrally record data in a mobile system.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Piety as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0200608 A1; hereafter Williams).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Huang in view of Piety discloses the fault detection device of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the predicted temperature is based on measured temperature data of a calibration electrical component. Huang does not disclose how the normal temperature curve was generated.
Williams discloses that it is well known in the art to generate a normal operation function using calibration data (see Williams, abstract “A temperature calibration may be performed on all units of a given design at a small number of controlled scene temperatures at one ambient temperature to produce a function that relates sensor signal to scene temperature.“).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate the normal usage temperature data using calibration data in order to establish what normal operating temperatures of the component are when the component is in use for accurate comparison.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Piety as applied to claims 9 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Tsai (Pub. No. US 2022/0148799 A1; hereafter Tsai).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Huang in view of Piety discloses the fault detection device of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the predicted temperature model is a machine learning based regression model
Tsai discloses generating a normal temperature model from machine learning (see Tsai abstract “obtain normal temperature values by using the machine learning model”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate the normal usage temperature data using machine learning in order to establish what normal operating temperatures of the component are when the component is in use for accurate comparison.
Priority
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 3/26/2026