Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/678,637

CAPACITANCE SENSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, HOAI AN D
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Advanced Energy Industries Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
612 granted / 711 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
733
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 711 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 statements (IDSs) submitted on September 4, 2024; December 19, 2024; March 25, 2025; June 10, 2025 and November 15, 2025 are being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Receipt is acknowledged of the Preliminary Amendment filed on September 30, 2024. Accordingly, claim 1 is cancelled, and newly added claims 2-19 are currently pending in the application. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an indicator of the capacitance of the load via a galvanic isolation path” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “node”) is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which are common and consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach, as a “connecting point at which several lines come together”. With that being said, a “connector”, as recited in the prior art to be used below, is considered as a “node” as recited in the claims. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 12. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 13 fails to further limit the scope of the subject matter of claim 12 since it is clearly seen that the recited feature, “the DC power source and the floating time-varying signal source are arranged in series on the conduction path between the ground connector and the output connector”, was already claimed in claim 12. Double Patenting 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. Claims 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,464 B2 issued to Enzinna. With regard to claims 2-18, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Enzinna teaches all that is claimed. With regard to claims 5 and 14, the scope of the subject matter of each of these claims is an inherent feature of the limitation “the floating time-varying signal source couples the time-varying signal to the conduction path via a transformer” or “the time-varying signal source is a floating time-varying signal source coupled between the DC power source and the output connector that couples the time-varying voltage signal to the conduction path via a transformer” as Enzinna recites in claim 3 and claim 11, respectively. It is clear that “the floating time-varying signal source” must be coupled to the primary side of the “transformer”, and “the conduction path” must be coupled to the secondary side of the “transformer”, which is considered as “the signal injection component” as claimed. With regard to claim 19, the additional feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an indicator of the capacitance of the load via a galvanic isolation path”) relate to slight modifications in the apparatus for measuring capacitance of a load according to claims 1 and 11 that lie in the scope of what someone skilled in the art is accustomed to performing based on well-known considerations common and commercially available to those skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for measuring capacitance of a load of Enzinna to use an indicator of the capacitance of the load via a galvanic isolation path since such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for the apparatus for measuring capacitance of a load. Such an implementation can significantly increase the effectiveness of the apparatus for measuring capacitance of a load with desirable levels of accuracy, resolution, stability and reliability in the measurements. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices. Enzinna (US 12,379,233 B2) teaches Devices and methods for measuring capacitance of a load . CONTACT INFORMATION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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. HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2858 /HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601769
INPUT ISOLATED VOLTAGE MONITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601776
Power-Semiconductor-Device Test Apparatus Facilitating Test-Connection Changes
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597926
VEHICLE STEERING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591021
SHORT-CIRCUIT DETERMINATION CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576711
STEERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 711 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month