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 statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/24 and 6/17/25 was 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:
The opening sentence, “The present disclosure includes:” is improper.
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 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, 3-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohi JP H0963741 A in view of Fan et al. CN 110907742 A (hereinafter referred to as Fan)
Regarding Claim 1, Ohi discloses an arrester monitor (fig. 1, lightning arrestor deterioration monitoring apparatus) comprising: a galvanometer (fig. 1, first current transformer 3, par. [0026]) that measures, on an electrical path between an arrester (fig. 1, arrester 2, par. [0026]); a data storage (fig. 1 , storage of CPU 16, par. [0026]) that stores the value of the current, which has been measured by the galvanometer, as history data in a chronological manner (fig. 5, par. [0029]-[0030]); and processing circuitry configured to determine, based on a chronological change in the history data stored in the data storage, that the arrester is in a state of deterioration and output a predetermined deterioration signal (deterioration determination threshold value, par. [0029]-[0030]) in a case where an average value (moving average value , par. [0029]-[0030]) of the current within a predetermined unit time is greater than a predetermined deterioration threshold value (deterioration determination signal, par. [0029]-[0030]);.
Ohi does not disclose a railcar and a carbody of the railcar; a value of a current that flows from the arrester to the carbody.
Fan discloses disclose a railcar and a carbody (fig. 1, locomotive 11, car 11, pg. 3, last par.) (clm. 1) of the railcar; a value of a current that flows from the arrester (fig. 1, lightning arrester 4, pg. 3, last par.) to the carbody (clm. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a monitoring method of locomotive inrush current and overvoltage, as taught in Fan in modifying the apparatus of Ohi. The motivation would be to suppress inrush current (see Fan: abs.).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohi and Fan discloses the arrester monitor according to claim 1, Ohi discloses wherein the deterioration signal includes a signal to display a warning on a display (par. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohi and Fan discloses the arrester monitor according to claim 1, Fan discloses wherein the deterioration signal includes a signal to open a breaker (fig. 1, vacuum circuit breaker 5, pg. 6, 3rd par.) that is interposed in a power feeding path to the arrester (fig. 1, arrester 2, pg. 6, 3rd par.)
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Ohi and Fan discloses the arrester monitor according to claim 1, Fan discloses wherein the deterioration signal includes a signal to prohibit raising of a pantograph (fig. 1, pantograph 2, pg. 6, 3rd par.) of the railcar (fig. 1, locomotive 11, pg. 3, last par.).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Fan discloses a railcar (fig. 1, locomotive 11, pg. 3, last par.) comprising the arrester monitor lightning arrester monitoring device (fig. 1, lightning arrester monitoring device 7, 3, last par.) according to Ohi and Fan disclosure in claim 1.
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. CN 108983060 A.
Regarding Claim 2, the arrester monitor according to claim 1, Ohi discloses the processing circuitry (fig. 1 , CPU 16, par. [0026]) determines that the arrester (fig. 1, arrester 2, par. [0026]) the arrestor is in the state of deterioration (fig. 1, lightning arrestor deterioration monitoring apparatus) is in the state of deterioration in a case where, in the history data (fig. 5, par. [0029]-[0030]).
Ohi and Fan do not disclose a number of occurrences of a current value change pattern is greater than a predetermined number of times, the current value change pattern being a pattern in which the value of the current exceeds a predetermined overcurrent threshold value and then drops below the overcurrent threshold value.
He discloses the arrestor (lightning arrester, Specific implementation methods, 5th par.) a number of occurrences (counting unit 2, Specific implementation methods, 5th par.) of a current value change pattern is greater than a predetermined number of times the current value change pattern being a pattern in which the value of the current exceeds a predetermined overcurrent threshold value and then drops below the overcurrent threshold value (count on the current transformer 11. or, when the current on the current transformer 11 to reach a certain current threshold, Specific implementation methods, 13th par.) (clm. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide signal collecting unit arranged on a ground line of a lightning arrester for collecting a lightning signal, as taught in He in modifying the apparatus of Ohi and Fan. The motivation would be to detect lightning single strike time periods in an accurate manner. (see He: background technology).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 the prior art of record does not teach or support, in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim the state of deterioration is divided into multiple deterioration levels corresponding to respective deterioration degrees of the arrester, and the processing circuitry makes the deterioration signal different in accordance with to which one of the multiple deterioration levels the chronological change in the history data corresponds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (Kim et al. KR 20110094648 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858