DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to due to the following informalities.
In paragraph 22 of the specification, it appears that the phrase “magnetic field magnetic field 141b” should be revised to “magnetic field 141b.”
In paragraph 22 of the specification, reference is made to the “external magnet 141b” in Figure 1. However, Figure 1 shows a magnetic field 141b that is generated by an external magnet 140b. Therefore, it appears that the element “external magnet 141b” in paragraph 22 should be revised to “external magnet 140b.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDougall, JR. et al. (US 2021/0248898 – hereinafter “McDougall”) and Seal et al. (US 2004/0021568).
Per claim 1, McDougall teaches an electric utility meter (Fig. 1; electric utility meter 110; ¶19) comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 1; three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150; ¶21) configured to detect a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter (The three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150 is configured to detect a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter 110 (Fig. 1; ¶21));
a controller (Fig. 3; controller 134; ¶31) having an electronic processor (Fig. 3; electronic processor 220; ¶28) and coupled to the sensor, the controller configured to
receive, via the sensor, a signal indicative of a magnitude of the magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter (The controller 134 is configured to monitor magnetic field strength data received from the three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150 (¶31)),
determine whether the magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds a magnetic field threshold (The controller 134 is configured to determine whether the magnitude of the magnetic field strength exceeds a first magnetic field strength threshold value (¶31)),
log a magnetic tamper event in an event log when the magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds the magnetic field threshold (When the magnitude of the magnetic field strength exceeds a first magnetic field strength threshold value for a predetermined amount of time, the controller 134 is configured to determine that magnetic tampering is occurring and add a magnetic field tamper event to an event log (¶32)).
However, McDougall does not explicitly teach the magnetic tamper event as including a numerical value associated with the magnitude of the magnetic field.
In contrast, Seal teaches an apparatus for detecting and reporting magnetic fields in the proximity of a utility meter as an approach to determining tampering of such meter comprising a processor 14 that is configured to monitor the output of a plurality of magnetic field sensors 12. The processor 14 records a magnetic field strength when a magnetic field sensor 12 is subjected to a magnetic field of sufficient strength (Abstract; ¶33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric utility meter of McDougall such that the magnetic tamper event includes a numerical value associated the detected magnetic field, such as at least the magnitude of the magnetic field. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶33-35).
Per claim 2, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 1, wherein the numerical value includes a vector magnitude of the magnetic field (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the numerical value would include a vector magnitude of the magnetic field (McDougall; ¶37)).
Per claim 3, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 1, wherein the numerical value includes a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the numerical value would include a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field (McDougall; ¶37)).
Per claim 4, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 1, wherein the numerical value includes a difference between the magnitude of the magnetic field and the magnetic field threshold (McDougall describes determining an abnormality in the magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter 110 has occurred when the magnitude of the magnetic field strength exceeds a first magnetic field strength threshold value for a predetermined amount of time (¶31-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a difference between the magnitude of the magnetic field strength and the first magnetic field strength threshold value and include the difference in the numerical value. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification to record characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶33-35)).
Per claim 5, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field, detect an abnormal magnetic field when the vector magnitude and the vector angle lie in a first range, determine an amount of time for which the abnormal magnetic field has been detected, and generate an alert indicative of a magnetic tamper event when the amount of time exceeds a time threshold (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, when a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field are outside of an acceptable range for a certain amount of time, an alert may be generated (McDougall; ¶37-38)).
Per claim 6, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 5, wherein the alert includes transmitting an electronic message (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the alert may include transmitting an electronic message (McDougall; ¶38)).
Per claim 7, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to log a time at which a magnetic field tamper event occurred in the event log (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, a time of the magnetic field tamper event may be recorded (Seal; ¶35)).
Per claim 8, see the rejection regarding claim 1.
Per claim 9, see the rejection regarding claim 2.
Per claim 10, see the rejection regarding claim 3.
Per claim 11, see the rejection regarding claim 4.
Per claim 12, see the rejection regarding claim 5.
Per claim 13, see the rejection regarding claim 6.
Per claim 14, see the rejection regarding claim 7.
Per claim 15, McDougall teaches an electric utility meter (Fig. 1; electric utility meter 110; ¶19) comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 1; three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150; ¶21) configured to detect a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter (The three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150 is configured to detect a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter 110 (Fig. 1; ¶21));
a controller (Fig. 3; controller 134; ¶31) having an electronic processor (Fig. 3; electronic processor 220; ¶28) and coupled to the sensor, the controller configured to
receive, via the sensor, magnetic field measurements (The controller 134 is configured to monitor magnetic field strength data received from the three-axis Hall Effect sensor 150 (¶31)),
determine a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field measurements (A vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field measurements may be determined (¶36)),
determine whether the vector magnitude exceeds a magnetic field threshold (The controller 134 is configured to determine whether the vector magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds a first magnetic field strength threshold value (¶37)),
log a magnetic tamper event in an event log when the vector magnitude exceeds the magnetic field threshold (When the vector magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds a first threshold value for a predetermined amount of time, the controller 134 is configured to determine that magnetic tampering is occurring and add a magnetic field tamper event to an event log (¶38)).
However, McDougall does not explicitly teach the magnetic tamper event as including numerical values corresponding to the vector magnitude and the vector angle.
In contrast, Seal teaches an apparatus for detecting and reporting magnetic fields in the proximity of a utility meter as an approach to determining tampering of such meter comprising a processor 14 that is configured to monitor the output of a plurality of magnetic field sensors 12. The processor 14 records a magnetic field strength when a magnetic field sensor 12 is subjected to a magnetic field of sufficient strength (Abstract; ¶33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric utility meter of McDougall such that the magnetic tamper event includes numerical values corresponding to the detected magnetic field, such as the vector magnitude and the vector amplitude of the magnetic field. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶33-35).
Per claim 16, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 15, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to detect an abnormal magnetic field when the vector magnitude and the vector angle lie outside of an acceptable range, determine an amount of time for which the abnormal magnetic field has been detected, and generate an alert indicative of a magnetic tamper event when the amount of time exceeds a time threshold (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, when a vector magnitude and a vector angle of the magnetic field are outside of an acceptable range for a certain amount of time, an alert may be generated (McDougall; ¶37-38)).
Per claim 17, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 16, wherein the alert includes transmitting an electronic message (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the alert may include transmitting an electronic message (McDougall; ¶38)).
Per claim 18, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 16, wherein controller is further configured to logging a time at which a magnetic field tamper event occurred when the amount of time exceeds a time threshold (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, a time of the magnetic field tamper event may be recorded (Seal; ¶35)).
Per claim 19, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 15, wherein the sensor is a three-axis Hall Effect sensor (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the sensor is a three-axis Hall Effect sensor (McDougall; ¶21)).
Per claim 20, McDougall in view of Seal teaches the electric utility meter of claim 15, wherein the magnetic field is generated by an external magnet approximately located at one selected from a group consisting of in front of the electric utility meter and to a side of the electric utility meter (In the electric utility meter of McDougall in view of Seal, the magnetic field is generated by an external magnet approximately located at one selected from a group consisting of in front of the electric utility meter and to a side of the electric utility meter (McDougall; claim 2)).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 in view of Seal.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 describes an electric utility meter comprising:
a three-axis Hall Effect sensor configured to detect the presence of a magnetic field in two or more directions surrounding the electric utility meter; and
a controller having an electronic processor, the controller configured to, in particular:
receive a signal indicative of a magnitude of a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter from the three-axis Hall Effect sensor;
determine whether the magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds a first threshold;
log a magnetic tamper event in an event log when the amount of time for which the magnitude has exceeded the first threshold when the threshold flag has been set exceeds a second threshold.
Therefore, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 teaches the sensor and controller of the electric utility meter of claim 1 of the present application. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 does not explicitly teach the magnetic tamper event as including a numerical value associated with the magnitude of the magnetic field, as recited in claim 1 of the present application.
Seal teaches an apparatus for detecting and reporting magnetic fields in the proximity of a utility meter as an approach to determining tampering of such meter comprising a processor 14 that is configured to monitor the output of a plurality of magnetic field sensors 12. The processor 14 records a magnetic field strength when a magnetic field sensor 12 is subjected to a magnetic field of sufficient strength (Abstract; ¶33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric utility meter of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 such that the magnetic tamper event includes a numerical value associated the magnitude of the magnetic field. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶33-35).
Furthermore, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 in view of Seal teaches claim 7 of the present application because Seal suggests recording the time of the magnetic field tamper event when recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶35)).
8. Claims 8 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 in view of Seal.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 describes a method for detecting an abnormality in a magnetic field proximate an electric utility meter, the method comprising, in particular:
receiving, by a controller having an electronic processor, a signal indicative of a magnitude of a magnetic field proximate the electric utility meter from a three-axis Hall Effect sensor configured to detect the presence of a magnetic field in two or more directions surrounding the electric utility meter;
determining, by the controller, whether a magnitude of the magnetic field exceeds a first threshold;
logging, by the controller, a magnetic tamper event in an event log when the amount of time for which the magnitude has exceeded the first threshold when the threshold flag has been set exceeds a second threshold.
Therefore, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 teaches the receiving and determining steps of the method of claim 8 of the present application. However, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 does not explicitly teach logging a magnetic tamper event including a numerical value associated with the magnitude of the magnetic field, as recited in claim 8 of the present application.
Seal teaches an apparatus for detecting and reporting magnetic fields in the proximity of a utility meter as an approach to determining tampering of such meter comprising a processor 14 that is configured to monitor the output of a plurality of magnetic field sensors 12. The processor 14 records a magnetic field strength when a magnetic field sensor 12 is subjected to a magnetic field of sufficient strength (Abstract; ¶33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 such that the magnetic tamper event includes a numerical value associated the magnitude of the magnetic field. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶33-35).
Furthermore, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,322 in view of Seal teaches claim 14 of the present application because Seal suggests recording the time of the magnetic field tamper event when recording characteristics of a magnetic field event in the proximity of a utility meter (Seal; ¶35)).
Claim Objections
9. Claims 18 is objected to due to the following informality.
Per claim 18, it appears that the phrase “wherein controller” should be revised to “wherein the controller” and the phrase “configured to logging a time” should be revised to “configured to log a time.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852