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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the language “ and; a software processor configured to determine the analytical current of …” should be corrected to:-- and a software processor configured to determine the analytical current of--.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: in the language “ … comparing both the analytical grounding current and measured grounding current to determine whether the cable is having an SG or not. determining the location of sheath fault …” a period (underlined) should be replaced by semicolon.
Similar issue exists with the language “whether grounded at the beginning or end cable, single point grounded at the middle cable, and two point grounded d cable. measuring the operating phase voltage …”.
Claim 2 comprises an open parenthesis without closing it “ …(single point bonded at the beginning or at the end, single point bonding at the middle and two point bonded cable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 8 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.
In the above claims, the last limitations comprise language “analytically obtaining both the grounding current range of values for all minor sections by using equation no—or—or—; comparing both the analytical grounding current and measured grounding current to determine the sheath to ground fault; and determining the minor section having sheath fault by locating the fault analytically or either using any of the measured current values from equation no—or—or—" (Claim 7) or “analytically obtaining both the grounding current range of values for non-crossbonded power cable by using equation no, —or; comparing both the analytical grounding current and measured grounding current to determine whether the cable is having an SG or not. determining the location of sheath fault by using the measured current values from equation no.” (Claim 8).
The underlined language of the claims is indefinite as its meaning is unclear.
Therefore, the above claims were not examined.
Claim 2 is 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.
The language of the claim ““ …(single point bonded at the beginning or at the end, single point bonding at the middle and two point bonded cable” is indefinite as it is unclear what is claimed (what is this definition relates to).
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted the limitation as having a close parenthesis as the end of the sentence, i.e. explaining different types of non-cross bonded cables.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A system for identifying and locating a sheath to ground (SG) at any arbitrary position faults in an electrical cables during online condition comprising: a high voltage cross-bonded (CB) power cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; plurality of minor sections are configured to be formed from said CB power cable; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances; a system configured to measure the current from the grounding resistances; a high voltage non-crossbonded power cable, a single point grounded at the beginning or end cable, single point grounded at the middle cable, and two point grounded d cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable, and; a software processor configured to determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for a CB cable and compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault; and a software processor configured to determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable, and compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for a CB cable and compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault; and a software processor configured to determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault.” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, the limitation encompasses a user comparing the determined analytical current with the measured current and developing a judgement about the fault based on known criteria (range). The latter step, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally is treated as mathematical relationship step (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A system for identifying and locating a sheath to ground (SG) at any arbitrary position faults in an electrical cables during online condition comprising: a high voltage cross-bonded (CB) power cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; plurality of minor sections are configured to be formed from said CB power cable; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances; a system configured to measure the current from the grounding resistances; a high voltage non-crossbonded power cable, a single point grounded at the beginning or end cable, single point grounded at the middle cable, and two point grounded d cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable, and; a software processor.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a software processor are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that recite structural circuit arrangements related to cross-bonded and non cross-bonded power cables (“a high voltage cross-bonded (CB) power cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; plurality of minor sections are configured to be formed from said CB power cable; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances” and “ a high voltage non-crossbonded power cable, a single point grounded at the beginning or end cable, single point grounded at the middle cable, and two point grounded d cable having 3 phases R, Y, B; a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable”) are not meaningful as recited in generality. The limitations that recite a system configured to measure the current from the grounding resistances represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-6 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
With regards to Claim 1,
Marina A. Shokry et al., “Detection and localization of defects in cable sheath of cross-bonding configuration by sheath currents”, submitted in IDS dated 4/26/2024, hereinafter ‘Shokry’, discloses
a system for identifying and locating a sheath to ground (SG) at any arbitrary position faults in an electrical cables during online condition comprising:
a high voltage cross-bonded (CB) power cable having 3 phases R, Y, B;
plurality of minor sections are configured to be formed from said CB power cable;
a sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances;
a system configured to measure the current from the grounding resistances;
Nils V. Holmgren (US 4464583), hereinafter ‘Holmgren, discloses
a high voltage non-crossbonded power cable,
a single point grounded at the beginning or end cable, and two point grounded d cable having 3 phases R, Y, B;
a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable.
Francisco Javier BENGOECHEA DE LA LLERA (US 20230324449), hereinafter ‘ILLERA’ discloses
a single point grounded at the beginning or end cable, single point grounded at the middle cable, and two point grounded d cable having 3 phases R, Y, B;
a metallic sheath of each phase is configured to be grounded at a grounding box through plurality of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable;
a system configured to measure the current from the grounding resistances
KIM DAE JEONG (KR 20160030023) discloses a method for diagnosing insulation degradation of a power cable through the whole section of a cross-bonded three-phase transmission line including synchronizing time of a plurality of insulation degradation diagnosing devices with each other; simultaneously measuring sheath circulating currents in both ends of a power cable; obtaining a charging current from the power cable; obtaining a third high frequency current of the charging current; and analyzing the third high frequency current to determine whether insulation of the power cable is degraded.
Mingzhen Li et al., “A Novel Fault Location Method for a Cross-Bonded HV Cable System Based on Sheath Current Monitoring”, Sensors, 2018, 18, 3356, 19 p., discloses a fault location method based on the monitoring of cable sheath currents for use in cross-bonded HV cable systems. The cable segment where a fault occurs can be localized by the phase difference between the sheath currents at the two ends of the cable segment, because current would flow in the opposite direction towards the two ends of the cable segment with fault. Conversely, in other healthy cable segments of the same circuit, sheath currents would flow in the same direction. The exact fault position can then be located via electromagnetic time reversal (EMTR) analysis of the fault transients of the sheath current.
However, with regards to Claim 1, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Shokry, Holmgren, Illera, Jeong, and Li, either singularly or in combination, because the references fail to anticipate or render obvious determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for a CB cable and compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault; and … determine the analytical current of grounding resistances for different types of non-crossbonded cable, and compare with measured current to determine the minor section having SG fault, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights