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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Notice to Applicant(s)
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The prior art submitted on May 31, 2024 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (2013/0193907).
As per claim 1, Thomas et al. disclose a power management system for detecting a fault in a power network, the power management system includes a signal generator configured to transmit a test signal through the power network to a component (see at least the abstract); a receiver coupled to the power network and configured to receive a test signal response corresponding to the test signal; a memory storing a fault database (see at least paragraphs 0005-0007); and a processor coupled to the receiver and the memory, the processor configured to process the test signal response to detect a condition in the power network; compare the condition to a fault database; and initiate shutdown of the component or conditional operation of the component based on a severity assessment from the fault database (see at least figure 4; paragraph 0040).
As per claim 2, it is inherently that the test signal does not degrade the power network or the component (see at least figures 1 and 4).
As per claim 3, Thomas et al. disclose that the power network supplies direct current power from a direct current power supply to the component (see at least figures 1 and 4).
As per claim 4, Thomas et al. disclose that the signal generator includes a frequency modulated signal generator configured to generate a frequency modulated test signal (see at least paragraphs 0033, 0037).
As per claim 5, Thomas et al. disclose that the condition is at least a power supply fluctuation (see at least figure 4).
As per claim 7, Thomas et al. disclose that the fault database associates the condition with a physical characteristic of the power network (see at least figure 4).
With respect to claims 8-12, 15-18 and 20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejections above. They are therefore considered rejected as set forth above.
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) A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, nowwitstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims , 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Channegowda et al. (2023/0062548).
As per claim 6, Thomas et al. disclose the claimed invention as discussed above except for the processor is further configured to execute a machine learning module to process the test signal. However, such limitation is well known and suggested in at least paragraphs 0005, 0017, 0036, 0041, 0042 of the Channegowda et al. reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Channegowda et al. into the system of Thomas et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the system with the enhanced capacity of using the machine learning module for accuracy process the test signal and detecting a fault in a power network.
With respect to claims 13 and 19, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejections above. They are therefore considered rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The following references are cited as being of general interest: Ponnuvel et al. (2020/0117565) and Alla et al. (2021/0158634).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
July 28, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights