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 with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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 § 112
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.
Claim 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the temperature sensors” in line 4.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 1, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787
Regarding claim 1, Bhutada teaches a Rogowski sensor, comprising a Rogowski coil is on a board for a conductor of a GIS (Fig. 4; Rogowski coil 24 on a circuit board 42, conductor C; invention related to detecting signals form electrical devices such as MV cable compartments) and wherein the Rogowski sensor comprises an analog temperature sensor (Fig. 2; temperature sensor 11).
Bhutada is silent in the Rogowski sensor comprising at least four analog temperature sensors, comprising two groups of two of the sensors each connected in series, the two groups being connected in parallel, wherein the temperature sensors are physically distributed around the Rogowski coil. Mei teaches a Rogowski sensor (Title; Rogowski coil device) comprising at least four temperature sensors, comprising two groups of two of the sensors each connected in series, the two groups being connected in parallel, (Fig. 1-3; temperature detection module 102 comprising bridge circuit having resistors Rt, R1-R4 which are two groups connected in series and parallel), wherein the temperature sensors are physically distributed around the Rogowski coil (Fig. 1-2; “temperature detecting module 102…set in the side shell 5”; shell 5 is physically around the Rogowski coil 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Mei into Bhutada for the benefit of providing a temperature control circuit due to drifts so that a more precise measurement can be made.
Regarding claim 4, Bhutada teaches further comprising means for estimating or calculating the temperature at the location of each of the temperature sensors (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Bhutan teaches a single phase GIS, comprising a conductor and a Rogowski sensor as in claim 1 (Fig. 4a; conductor c with coil/windings 44-46).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787 in view of Wagoner et al., US 20200029395
Regarding claim 3, Bhutada is silent in comprising means for estimating or calculating a temperature gradient between at least two of the temperature sensors and/or an average value of the temperatures measured by at least two of the temperature sensors. Wagoner teaches estimating or calculating a temperature gradient between at least two of the temperature sensors and/or an average value of the temperatures measured by at least two of the temperature sensors (Fig. 8;¶[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Wagoner into Bhutada for the benefit of providing a temperature measurements in multiple areas of the element.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787 in view of Masri et al., US 20070223002
Regarding claim 6, Bhutan is silent in further comprising means for compensating the current value measured by the Rogowski sensor on the basis of the geometrical parameters of the coil, and the temperature measurements of at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the temperature gradient between at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the average temperature measured with at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the variation of the geometrical parameters due to dilatation resulting from the temperature. Masri teaches means for compensating the current value measured by the Rogowski sensor on the basis of the geometrical parameters of the coil, and the temperature measurements of at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the temperature gradient between at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the average temperature measured with at least two of the temperature sensors and/or of the variation of the geometrical parameters due to dilatation resulting from the temperature (¶[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Masri into Bhutan for the benefit of correcting current sensor output due to temperature drift.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787 in view of Wilkerson et al., US 20080007249 A1
Regarding claim 7, Bhutada is silent in the coil having an external diameter of at least 200 mm. Wilkerson teaches wherein a coil having external diameter of at least 200 mm (¶[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Wilkerson into Bhutada for providing a large coil to surround the desired conductors.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787 in view of Pascal, WO 2015051983
Regarding claim 9, Bhutada is silent in three conductors and a Rogowski sensor as in claim 1 around each conductor. Pascal teaches three conductors and a Rogowski sensor as in claim 1 around each conductor (Fig. 5; conductors 21 a-c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Pascal into Bhutada for the benefit of providing a temperature control circuit in multiple environments.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhutada et al., US 20230022633 in view of Mei et al., CN 215493787 in view of Wilkerson et al., US 20080007249 A1 in view of Baier et al., US 7292154
Regarding claim 10, Bhutan is silent in at least one of the temperature sensor being located below, or at the bottom of, the conductor or below, or at the bottom of, each conductor, and at least one of the temperature sensor being located above, or at the top of, the conductor or above, or at the top of, each conductor. Baier teaches at least one of the temperature sensor being located below, or at the bottom of, an element or below, or at the bottom of, each element, and at least one of the temperature sensor being located above, or at the top of, the element or above, or at the top of, each element (Fig. 2; first sensor 30 at back and second sensor 40 at front). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Baier in view of Bhutan for the benefit of sensing differences in temperature at multiple locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 5 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.
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 FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858