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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/18/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not narrative in form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for detecting acoustic waves”, “an acquisition chain for detecting an electrical signal” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 -8, 10 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 1, in line 9, the claim recites “an acquisition chain for detecting an electrical signa provided by the detection device”. It is unclear whether the detection device is referring to the device for detecting acoustic waves. Therefore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the detection device”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the coils” and is dependent on claim 1. However, only “at least one coil” is recited in claim 1. Therefore it is unclear whether the claim is directed to at least one coil or more than one coil.
Regarding claim 7, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the period corresponding to the maximum variation frequency”.
Regarding claim 8, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the measurement signal”, “the gain” and “the magnitude”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “from one coil to twenty coils, preferably from two coils to six coils”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “one to twenty coils”, and the claim also recites “two to six coils” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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) 9, 10, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dias, US 5488955
Regarding claim 9, Dias discloses a device for detecting an electric current flowing through an electrically conductive element comprising:
a device for generating a magnetic field in the electrically conductive element (Fig. 1a; magnet 70 with generator 76 generates a field and biases coil 66 and magnetostriction element 68), comprising a support (Col. 5 lines 60-65; Fig. 2; motor 86 housing) and an electrically conductive wire rigidly coupled to the support (Fig. 1a; wire from pulse generator 76 to coil 66) and comprising at least one coil wound around the support (Fig. 2; coil 66 provided on motor housing); an acoustic waveguide having a base and a tapered end attached to the support (Fig.1a-3; acoustic waveguide 22) ; and an electroacoustic transducer rigidly coupled to the base (Fig. 1a; switch 80 to magnetostriction transducer 65 transmits/receives electric signals to/from acoustic signals).
Regarding claim 10, Dias teaches from one coil to twenty coils, preferably from two coils to six coils (Fig. 1; coil 66).
Regarding claim 14, Dias teaches wherein the acoustic waveguide extends along an axis from the base to the tapered end, with the cross-sectional area of the acoustic waveguide decreasing from the base up to the tapered end (Fig. 1a; waveguide 22 extends in the x direction to a tapered end).
Regarding claim 15, Dias teaches wherein the electroacoustic transducer is a transverse-wave electroacoustic transducer (Col. 4 lines 40-50; magnetostriction element 68 producing vibrations parallel to the longitudinal axis of the acoustic waveguide).
Regarding claim 16, Dias teaches wherein the acoustic waveguide is at least partly truncated cone shaped (Fig. 1a-1b; waveguide is at least a truncated cone shape in the mid-section).
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, 2, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerr et al., US 4920522 in view of Dias, US 5488955
Regarding claim 1, Duerr discloses a system for measuring an electric current flowing through an electrically conductive element (Abstract), the system comprising:
a device for generating a magnetic field in the electrically conductive element (Fig. 1; HF coil 2 having a magnetic field, generated by generator 32), and comprising at least one coil (Fig. 1; signal pickup 10 having measuring loop 12); a device for detecting acoustic waves on the surface of the electrically conductive element (Fig. 2; acoustic waveguide 24); and an acquisition chain for detecting an electrical signal provided by the detection device (Fig. 1-2; signal receiver 30 and eval circuit 8).
Duerr is silent in a support and an electrically conductive wire rigidly coupled to the support, and comprising at least one coil wound around the support ; and a control and acquisition device comprising a generator configured to provide at least one current pulse in the electrically conductive wire. Dias teaches a support (Col. 5 lines 60-65; Fig. 2; motor 86 housing) and an electrically conductive wire rigidly coupled to the support (Fig. 1a; wire from pulse generator 76 to coil 66) and comprising at least one coil wound around the support (Fig. 2; coil 66 provided on motor housing); and a control and acquisition device comprising a generator configured to provide at least one current pulse in the electrically conductive wire (Fig. 1a; pulse generator 76). 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 Dias into Duerr for the benefit of providing a device which is integrated with a generator and a pick up circuit in order to have a compact circuit.
Regarding claim 2, Duerr teaches further comprising an acoustic waveguide having a base and wherein the detection device is an electroacoustic transducer rigidly coupled to the base (Fig 2; waveguide 24; transducer 31). Duerr is silent in a tapered end attached to the support. Dias teaches a tapered end attached to a support (waveguide 22 has a tapered end). 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 Dias into Duerr for the benefit of concentrating the energy in the conductive element.
Regarding claim 5, Duerr is silent in wherein the support corresponds to a ferromagnetic rod , with the coils wound around the ferromagnetic rod. Dias teaches wherein the support corresponds to a ferromagnetic rod , with the coils wound around the ferromagnetic rod (Fig. 1; magnetostriction element 68 ). 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 Dias into Duerr for the benefit of providing a device which is integrated with a generator and a pick up circuit in order to have a compact circuit.
Regarding claim 6, Duerr is silent in wherein the device for generating a magnetic field comprises a permanent magnet. Dias teaches a device for generating a magnetic field comprises a permanent magnet (Fig. 1; magnet 70). 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 Dias into Duerr since providing a magnet with the generator would produce the predictable result of providing a magnetic field which can be detected by the pickup coil.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerr et al., US 4920522 in view of Dias, US 5488955 in view of Cheng et al., US 20220043049
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Duerr is silent in wherein the detection device comprises a contactless vibration sensor, wherein the detection device comprises a laser vibrometer. Cheng teaches a detection device comprises a contactless vibration sensor, wherein the detection device comprises a laser vibrometer (¶[0017]; claim 8). 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 Cheng into Duerr since providing a contactless vibration sensor would produce the predictable result of converting to an electrical signal when detecting vibrations from the acoustic waveguide.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias, US 5488955 in view of Tatsumi et al., US 20130327217
Regarding claim 17, Dias is silent in wherein the acoustic waveguide has an apex angle of less than 15°. Tatsumi teaches an acoustic waveguide which has an apex angle less than 15 degrees (¶[0079]; Fig. 3; waveguide 130). 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 Tatsumi into Dias so as to concentrate the energy in a monitored.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias, US 5488955 in view of Duerr et al., US 4920522
Regarding claim 18, Dias is silent in wherein the acoustic waveguide is made of a non-magnetic material. Duerr teaches an acoustic waveguide made of non-magnetic material (Col. 3 lines 65-66; fig. 2- acoustic waveguide 24). 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 Duerr into Dias for the benefit of providing a waveguide with high acoustic quality and low dielectric constant.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias, US 5488955
Regarding claim 19, Dias is silent in wherein the melting temperature of the acoustic waveguide and the melting temperature of the electrically conductive wire are higher than 1000°C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a material with high melting temperature, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide a high melting temperature element since it would have greater reliability when used in various environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 8, 11-13, 20, 21 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the generator is
configured to provide the current pulse in the electrically conductive wire having a duration half as short as the period corresponding to the maximum variation frequency of the electric current
flowing through the electrically conductive element” in combination with all the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the control and
acquisition device comprises an amplifier receiving the measurement signal , the gain of which is programmable in increasing steps, each step corresponding to a possible range of variation in the magnitude of the electric current flowing through the electrically conductive element” in combination with all the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the support corresponds to a ferromagnetic rod, with the coils wound around the ferromagnetic rod, and wherein the ferromagnetic rod enters the acoustic waveguide through the tapered end” in combination with all the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not disclose or suggest: “wherein the acoustic
waveguide comprises a disk-shaped portion , having an axis , thinned at said axis , the support extending along said axis and being coupled to said portion at said axis” in combination with all the limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
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 on 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