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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 and 3/25/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is a method directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Considering claim 1, the claim recites the abstract idea of “comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process, as provided by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool” and “taking one or more measurements of a current flowing through the ladder” are each considered insignificant extra-solution activity because they amount to mere data gathering steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception, which is mental step performed on the data gathered in the additional steps.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because appending mere data gathering steps, considered extra-solution activity, to an abstract idea has been found by the courts to be not sufficiently more than the abstract idea itself, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Considering the step of “setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool”, Simon et al. (US 20150055748 A1) generally outlines powering a pulsed neutron logging tool by applying an AC voltage to a ladder having a plurality of output stages. Similarly, considering the step of “taking one or more measurements of a current flowing through the ladder”, Simon discloses measuring the ladder output current via a microprocessor. Therefore, the additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional powering of a ladder within a pulsed neutron logging tool and monitoring the current therein fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 2, the claim places a narrower quantification on the threshold used in the abstract mental process. However, the threshold being “25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder” is still a level of abstraction and in no way integrates the mental comparison into a practical application. Because claim 2 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claim 3, the claim provides a desired outcome or conceptual meaning of the results without any further improvement, technology or additional element. Because claim 3 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claim 4, the claim provides a desired outcome or conceptual meaning of the results without any further improvement, technology or additional element. Because claim 4 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claims 5-8, the claims recites the additional limitation of “adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage”, “taking one or more measurements of a second current flowing through the ladder for the second voltage”, “comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold”, and “repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached” amounts to an iterative data collection process with repeated mental processes therein, similar to the process, as previously discussed, of claim 1. These additional elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to mere data gathering steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and mental processes as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception, which is mental step performed on the data gathered in the additional steps.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because appending mere data gathering steps, considered extra-solution activity, to an abstract idea has been found by the courts to be not sufficiently more than the abstract idea itself, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
The steps of repeatedly increasing ladder voltage, measuring current, comparing current to a threshold, until a maximum power has been reached is already known to be a well-known, routine, and conventional monitoring procedure used in arc prevention, as suggested by the teachings of Weinstein (US 5138513 A).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional powering of a ladder within a pulsed neutron logging tool and monitoring the current therein fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 9, the additional element of “a sensing circuit” is a generic recitation of hardware used in the performance of the insignificant extra-solution data gathering step. In accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the sensing circuit is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
The use of a sensing circuit to monitor current in a high voltage power supply ladder is already rendered well-known, routine and conventional by Simon, which utilizes a sensor to extract current from the ladder voltage.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of generic sensing circuitry to monitor the current fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 10, the additional element of the sensing circuit having “a filter” is a generic recitation of hardware used in the performance of the insignificant extra-solution data gathering step. In accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the filter is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
The use of a sensing circuit, having a filter, to monitor current in a high voltage power supply ladder is already rendered well-known, routine and conventional by Weinstein, which utilizes a plurality of low-pass filters to condition a current feedback signal from a voltage multiplier network.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of generic sensing circuitry, including a filter, to monitor the current fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is a method directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Considering claim 11, the claim recites the abstract idea of “comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process, as provided by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool”, “taking one or more measurements of a current flowing through the ladder”, and “taking one or more measurements of a voltage flowing through the ladder” are each considered insignificant extra-solution activity because they amount to mere data gathering steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception, which is mental step performed on the data gathered in the additional steps.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because appending mere data gathering steps, considered extra-solution activity, to an abstract idea has been found by the courts to be not sufficiently more than the abstract idea itself, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Considering the step of “setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool”, Simon et al. (US 20150055748 A1) generally outlines powering a pulsed neutron logging tool by applying an AC voltage to a ladder having a plurality of output stages. Similarly, considering the step of “taking one or more measurements of a current” and “voltage flowing through the ladder”, Simon discloses measuring the ladder output voltage/current via a microprocessor. Therefore, the additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional powering of a ladder within a pulsed neutron logging tool and monitoring the voltage/current therein fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 12, the claim places a narrower quantification on the threshold used in the abstract mental process. However, the threshold being “25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder” is still a level of abstraction and in no way integrates the mental comparison into a practical application. Because claim 2 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claim 13, the claim provides a desired outcome or conceptual meaning of the results without any further improvement, technology or additional element. Because claim 13 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claim 14, the claim provides a desired outcome or conceptual meaning of the results without any further improvement, technology or additional element. Because claim 14 fails to further add any additional elements that aren’t abstract, there are no additional elements to be considered.
Considering claim 15, the claim recites the additional element of “comparing the one or more measurements of the current to the one or more measurements of the voltage to determine if a voltage arcing occurred”, which amounts to an additional abstraction in the form of another mental process.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(II), because the only additional elements are themselves an abstract idea, they are not significant to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than originally presented judicial exception, see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, individually, or in an ordered combination, the additional elements of the mathematical concepts of claim 15 fail to integrate the abstract idea of claim 11 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea already discussed in claim 11.
Considering claim 16, the claim recites the additional element of “estimating a pressure within a housing that contains the ladder if the voltage arcing occurred” is both a conditional limitation and a mental process / mathematical concept. Assuming that the arcing has not occurred based on the previous comparison results, then this limitation is never required and would not be given patentable weight.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(II), because the only additional elements are themselves an abstract idea, they are not significant to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than originally presented judicial exception, see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, individually, or in an ordered combination, the additional elements of the mathematical concepts of claim 16 fail to integrate the abstract idea of claim 11 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea already discussed in claim 11.
Considering claims 17-18, the claims recites the additional limitation of “adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage”, “taking one or more measurements of a second current flowing through the ladder for the second voltage”, “comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold”, and “repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached” amounts to an iterative data collection process with repeated mental processes therein, similar to the process, as previously discussed, of claim 1. These additional elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to mere data gathering steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and mental processes as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception, which is mental step performed on the data gathered in the additional steps.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because appending mere data gathering steps, considered extra-solution activity, to an abstract idea has been found by the courts to be not sufficiently more than the abstract idea itself, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
The steps of repeatedly increasing ladder voltage, measuring current, comparing current to a threshold, until a maximum power has been reached is already known to be a well-known, routine, and conventional monitoring procedure used in arc prevention, as suggested by the teachings of Weinstein (US 5138513 A).
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional powering of a ladder within a pulsed neutron logging tool and monitoring the current therein fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 19, the additional element of “a sensing circuit” is a generic recitation of hardware used in the performance of the insignificant extra-solution data gathering step. In accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the sensing circuit is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
The use of a sensing circuit to monitor current in a high voltage power supply ladder is already rendered well-known, routine and conventional by Simon, which utilizes a sensor to extract current from the ladder voltage.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of generic sensing circuitry to monitor the current fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
Considering claim 20, the additional element of the sensing circuit having “a filter” is a generic recitation of hardware used in the performance of the insignificant extra-solution data gathering step. In accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not add more to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the filter is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
The use of a sensing circuit, having a filter, to monitor current in a high voltage power supply ladder is already rendered well-known, routine and conventional by Weinstein, which utilizes a plurality of low-pass filters to condition a current feedback signal from a voltage multiplier network.
Thus, taken individually or in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of generic sensing circuitry, including a filter, to monitor the current fails to amount to more than the abstract idea itself, as its merely serves as data gathering for use in the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (US 2015/0055748 A1) in view of Weinstein (US 5138513 A).
Considering claim 1, Simon discloses a method, comprising:
- setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder 304 disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool (Figures 6 and 8; Abstract; [0005]; [0034]); and
- taking one or more measurements of a current flowing through the ladder (Figure 8; [0035]).
The invention by Simon fails to explicitly disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold.
However, Weinstein teaches comparing one or more measurements of the current of a high voltage power supply to a threshold (Column 4, lines 13-29; Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 20; Column 5, lines 35-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a comparison of the current draw in a HV power supply, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to predict an incipient arc (Column 5, lines 35-51).
Considering claim 2, Simon fails to disclose comparison to a threshold.
However, Weinstein suggests that the threshold to which the ladder current is compared is more than an expected current moving through the ladder, but not enough to have yet caused an arc (Figure 3; Column 2, line 50 – Column 3, line 20, “The circuit preferably monitors any AC component on the DC output current. When the AC component reaches a predetermined level because of an incipient arcing condition, the arc detection circuitry interrupts the high voltage output”; Column 11, lines 8-39, “the output voltage should drop from its normal maximum level at currents below 45μA to zero as the current increases from 45μA to 85μA. The overcurrent protection may be set to block the output voltage only at a higher current, such as when the current reached 150μA. The overcurrent setpoint is determined by the voltage divider resistors 181 and 182”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a current threshold being 25-50% more than an expected current, as suggested by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. Weinstein does not explicitly disclose that the threshold is 25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder, but it is noted that the threshold comparison setpoint is customizable by the voltage divider resistors. Furthermore, the threshold setpoint is a result-effective variable because it must be more than a normal current and less than a current that causes arcing, but also it is variable with respect to a lowered input voltage at the power supply. It is noted, especially, that Weinstein is directed explicitly towards detecting power supply current and overcurrent to a level that has exceeded a threshold but has not yet caused an arc condition, therefore, within the conditions of the prior art it would have been obvious to optimize the level of overcurrent acceptable so as not to provide an arc condition but be over normal levels of operating current.
Considering claim 3, the claimed requirement that “a current above the threshold indicates a leak in a housing that contains the ladder” is a non-structural, non-functional intended use or outcome. There is no structural difference between the claimed limitation and the prior art indicating the presence of an incipient arc. The limitation is given no patentable weight as it is merely an intended use. Accordingly, this claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Considering claim 4, the claimed requirement that “the leak allows an insulation gas to escape from the housing” is a non-structural, non-functional intended use or outcome extension of the previous claim. There is no structural difference between the claimed limitation and the prior art indicating the presence of an incipient arc. The limitation is given no patentable weight as it is merely an intended use. Accordingly, this claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Considering claim 5, Simon discloses adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage (Figures 6 and 8; Abstract; [0005]; [0034]).
Considering claim 6, Simon discloses taking one or more measurements of a second current flowing through the ladder for the second voltage (Figure 8; [0035]).
Considering claim 7, Simon fails to disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold.
However, Weinstein teaches comparing one or more measurements of the second current of a high voltage power supply to a threshold (Column 4, lines 13-29; Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 20; Column 5, lines 35-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a comparison of the current draw in a HV power supply, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to predict an incipient arc (Column 5, lines 35-51).
Considering claim 8, Simon discloses repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached (Figure 6; [0023]; [0034]).
Considering claim 9, Simon discloses that the one or more measurements are taken by a sensing circuit (Figure 8; [0034-35]).
Considering claim 10, Simon fails to explicitly disclose a filter in the sensing circuit.
However, Weinstein teaches the use of at least one filter (123,124; Figure 6, parallel RC low-pass filter; Column 9, lines 8-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter in the sensing circuit, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to remove noise in the AC signal, as known in the art and suggested by Weinstein.
Considering claim 11, Simon discloses a method, comprising:
- setting a high voltage power supply to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a ladder 304 disposed in a pulsed neutron logging tool (Figure 8; Abstract; [0005]; [0034]);
- taking one or more measurements of a current flowing through the ladder (Figure 8; [0035]); and
- taking one or more measurements of a voltage current flowing through the ladder (Figure 8; [0035]).
The invention by Simon fails to explicitly disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold.
However, Weinstein teaches comparing one or more measurements of the current of a high voltage power supply to a threshold (Column 4, lines 13-29; Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 20; Column 5, lines 35-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a comparison of the current draw in a HV power supply, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to predict an incipient arc (Column 5, lines 35-51).
Considering claim 12, Simon fails to disclose comparison to a threshold.
However, Weinstein suggests that the threshold to which the ladder current is compared is more than an expected current moving through the ladder, but not enough to have yet caused an arc (Figure 3; Column 2, line 50 – Column 3, line 20, “The circuit preferably monitors any AC component on the DC output current. When the AC component reaches a predetermined level because of an incipient arcing condition, the arc detection circuitry interrupts the high voltage output”; Column 11, lines 8-39, “the output voltage should drop from its normal maximum level at currents below 45μA to zero as the current increases from 45μA to 85μA. The overcurrent protection may be set to block the output voltage only at a higher current, such as when the current reached 150μA. The overcurrent setpoint is determined by the voltage divider resistors 181 and 182”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a current threshold being 25-50% more than an expected current, as suggested by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. Weinstein does not explicitly disclose that the threshold is 25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder, but it is noted that the threshold comparison setpoint is customizable by the voltage divider resistors. Furthermore, the threshold setpoint is a result-effective variable because it must be more than a normal current and less than a current that causes arcing, but also it is variable with respect to a lowered input voltage at the power supply. It is noted, especially, that Weinstein is directed explicitly towards detecting power supply current and overcurrent to a level that has exceeded a threshold but has not yet caused an arc condition, therefore, within the conditions of the prior art it would have been obvious to optimize the level of overcurrent acceptable so as not to provide an arc condition but be over normal levels of operating current.
Considering claim 13, the claimed requirement that “a current above the threshold indicates a leak in a housing that contains the ladder” is a non-structural, non-functional intended use or outcome. There is no structural difference between the claimed limitation and the prior art indicating the presence of an incipient arc. The limitation is given no patentable weight as it is merely an intended use. Accordingly, this claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Considering claim 14, the claimed requirement that “the leak allows an insulation gas to escape from the housing” is a non-structural, non-functional intended use or outcome extension of the previous claim. There is no structural difference between the claimed limitation and the prior art indicating the presence of an incipient arc. The limitation is given no patentable weight as it is merely an intended use. Accordingly, this claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Considering claim 16, Simon, as modified by Weinstein, fails to explicitly disclose estimating a pressure within a housing that contains the ladder if the voltage arcing occurred. However, this is a conditional limitation because the limitation “if the voltage arcing occurred”, qualifies when the method would be required to estimate the pressure. Since the limitation is contingent on a voltage arc occurring, MPEP 211.04(II) states that “a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. Therefore, the limitation of estimating pressure is not required. The claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11.
Considering claim 17, Simon discloses adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage (Figures 6 and 8; Abstract; [0005]; [0034]).
Considering claim 18, Simon discloses taking one or more measurements of a second current flowing through the ladder for the second voltage (Figure 8; [0035]) and repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached (Figure 6; [0023]; [0034]).
The invention by Simon fails to disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold.
However, Weinstein teaches comparing one or more measurements of the second current of a high voltage power supply to a threshold (Column 4, lines 13-29; Column 2, line 67 – Column 3, line 20; Column 5, lines 35-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a comparison of the current draw in a HV power supply, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to predict an incipient arc (Column 5, lines 35-51).
Considering claim 19, Simon discloses that the one or more measurements are taken by a sensing circuit (Figure 8; [0034-35]).
Considering claim 20, Simon fails to explicitly disclose a filter in the sensing circuit.
However, Weinstein teaches the use of at least one filter (123,124; Figure 6, parallel RC low-pass filter; Column 9, lines 8-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter in the sensing circuit, as taught by Weinstein, in the invention by Simon. The motivation for doing so is to remove noise in the AC signal, as known in the art and suggested by Weinstein.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (US 2015/0055748 A1) in view of Weinstein (US 5138513 A), as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2006/0215335 A1).
Considering claim 15, Simon, as modified by Weinstein, fails to explicitly disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the current to the one or more measurements of the voltage to determine if a voltage arcing occurred.
However, Deshpande teaches comparing the one or more measurements of the current to the one or more measurements of the voltage to determine if a voltage arcing occurred (Figures 1-4; [0009]; [0016]; [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the current measurements to the voltage measurements, as taught by Deshpande, in the invention by Simon, as modified by Weinstein. The motivation for doing so is, as suggested by Deshpande, to “determine whether an arc fault is present” (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Korenev (US 2013/0000412 A1) claims applying a series of increased amplitude voltage pulses to a first electrode, spaced from a second electrode, with a gas positioned therebetween, whereby a voltage amplitude at the first breakdown of the gas, when an arc has occurred, is used to determine pressure of the gas.
Kovacich et al. (US 2015/0325394 A1) discloses the relationship between breakdown voltage changes and pressure changes in a sealed/leaking housing as it relates to Paschen’s Law.
Teague et al. (US 2018/0239052 A1) discloses a high-voltage generator having a ladder and a voltage feedback/measurement loop.
Hiles et al. (Various) disclose downhole neutron generators having ladder power supplies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 April 3, 2026