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 .
Priority
Application 18/692,950 filed on 03/18/2024 is a 371 of PCT/TR2021/050956 filed on 09/17/2021.
Current Status
This office action is a first office action, non-final rejection based on the merits wherein claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below. Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendments filed on 04/02/2024.
Specification
Amendments to the Specification, including the abstract, received on 04/02/2024 are acceptable.
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 11 and 12 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 12: Applicant claims, “the voltage sensing means are detachable attached each other” (claim 11 line 2) and “the voltage sensing means are attached each other.” (claim 12 line 4-5). The claims are indefinite as Examiner is uncertain of the meaning of the claim limitation. Examiner will interpret this to mean that each voltage sensing means is detachable attached (claim 11) and attached (claim 12). However, it could be a different concept intended by the applicant, explanations are requested.
Claims 11 and 12 will be examined based on the merits as best understood.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed
below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A power analyzer for a mains switchgear
comprising,
- a main body,
- at least a housing formed on the main body, wherein the housing is suitable for inserting a respective cable of the mains switchgear,
- a magnetic sensor. wherein the magnetic sensor is provided on the main body for measuring a magnetic field value present in the housing when the respective cable of the mains switchgear is inserted into the housing wherein
- a position sensor is provided on the main body for determining a distance value between the respective cable and the magnetic sensor and
- a control unit is configured to calculate a current value flowing in the respective cable by using the distance value and the magnetic field value.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a series of mathematical concepts where “determine” and “calculate” may include a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations/two-group significance tests for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Regarding the underlined limitation “a position sensor is provided on the main body for determining a distance value between the respective cable and the magnetic sensor” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for determining a distance. It is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine.
Regarding the underlined limitation “a control unit is configured to calculate a current value flowing in the respective cable by using the distance value and the magnetic field value” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for determining a magnetic field value. It is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claims above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a control unit only amounts to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of a magnetic sensor for measuring a magnetic field value equates to routine data gathering and extra solution data activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claims do not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claims do not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-20 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail or limit the abstract idea with limitations such as:
“voltage sensing means are adapted to collect a voltage signal from the mains switchgear for measuring a voltage value of the mains switchgear and the control unit is adapted to calculate a power value by multiplying the voltage value and the current value” (claim 9) where collect a voltage signal” equates to routine data gathering and extra solution data activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “calculate a power value by multiplying the voltage value and the current value” merely adds a limitation which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps and does not help integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea .
“the control unit is configured to generate a warning signal when the control unit determines that a position of the respective cable in the housing is changed” (claim 13) claims what the control unit is configured to do but not actually what the control the control does and does not help integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
“a display is configured for displaying at least one parameter, the at least one parameter is determined by the control unit” (claim 14) claims what the display is configured to do but not actually what the control the control does in addition, displaying information equates to routine data gathering and extra solution data activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not help integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnussen Björn, hereinafter Magnussen, DE102013106216 A1 in view of Yoshike Tetsuya et al., hereinafter Yoshike, JP2020038113A.
Regarding Independent claim 1 Magnussen teaches:
“A power analyzer for a mains switchgear” (Magnussen, “switchgear cabinet”, (¶ 0001) “carry out a voltage measurement and to determine a transmitted active, reactive and/or apparent power)” (¶ 0016).)
“comprising, - a main body, - at least a housing formed on the main body, wherein the housing is suitable for inserting a respective cable of the mains switchgear” (Magnussen, fig. 4 depicts a switch cabinet 20 which includes among other components an elongate housing 11 containing the measuring device 10 which includes busbars 12 (¶ 0034, ¶ 0036).)
While Magnussen teaches using a magnetic sensor, Magnussen does not teach the magnetic sensor is mounted to the housing. Yoshike teaches a mounted magnetic sensor (see fig. 2) for measuring a magnetic field value of a conductor (Yoshike, ¶ 0009) therefore the combination of Magnussen and Yoshike disclose “a magnetic sensor. wherein the magnetic sensor is provided on the main body for measuring a magnetic field value present in the housing when the respective cable of the mains switchgear is inserted into the housing.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen by mounting the magnetic sensor away from the conductor in order to measure the current as disclosed by Yoshike because by doing so the sensor has not direct electrical contact with the conductor ensuring no power loss due to the resistance caused by a direct contact sensor and thereby providing a current measuring device that “does not require a complicated measuring operation, and can perform accurate measurement” (Yoshike, ¶ 0008).
Magnussen does not teach:
“a position sensor is provided on the main body for determining a distance value between the respective cable and the magnetic sensor and “a control unit is configured to calculate a current value flowing in the respective cable by using the distance value and the magnetic field value”
Yoshike teaches:
“a position sensor is provided on the main body for determining a distance value between the respective cable and the magnetic sensor and “a control unit is configured to calculate a current value flowing in the respective cable by using the distance value and the magnetic field value” (Yoshike teaches a “a proximity sensor that obtains information on the distance to a conductor” (¶ 0009) where the “distance to a conductor” is the “distance value between the respective cable and the magnetic sensor” as the proximity sensor and the magnetic sensor are contained within the same unit (see fig 1 where eddy current sensor 11 is the proximity sensor (position sensor) and Hall element sensor 12 is the “magnetic sensor” (¶ 0014)). Additionally, Yoshike teaches a “measuring device main body 20” (control unit) which includes a “Central Processing Unit 26” (¶ 0015) which uses the distance and the magnetic field value to calculate the “current flowing through the conductor 2” (¶ 0016).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen by determining a distance between a magnetic sensor and a conductor and using a well known Physics principle of determining the current knowing the magnetic field value and the distance between the magnetic sensor and the conductor as disclosed by Yoshike in order to provide a current measuring device that “does not require a complicated measuring operation, and can perform accurate measurement” (Yoshike, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 2 Magnussen as modified teaches:
“the housing has two opposite side walls and a bottom wall” (Magnussen depicts in fig 2-3b a housing 11 with opposite walls and a bottom wall (fig. 2)).
Regarding claim 5 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the magnetic sensor provided on the bottom wall of the housing.”
Yoshike teaches:
“the magnetic sensor provided on the bottom wall of the housing” (Yoshike teaches a mounted magnetic sensor (see fig. 2) for measuring a magnetic field value of a conductor (Yoshike, ¶ 0009). Mounting the magnetic sensor on the bottom wall of the enclosure is arbitrary and the designer’s choice.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by mounting the magnetic sensor away from the conductor in order to measure the current as disclosed by Yoshike because by doing so the sensor has not direct electrical contact with the conductor ensuring no power loss due to the resistance caused by a direct contact sensor and thereby providing a current measuring device that “does not require a complicated measuring operation, and can perform accurate measurement” (Yoshike, ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 6 Magnussen as modified teaches:
“at least one of the two opposite side walls is provided with a cable holder” (Magnussen teaches “different conductors, for example a neutral conductor and one or more phase conductors, can be guided in a comb rail” (¶ 0011) where the “comb rail” discloses a “cable holder.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a comb rail would be attached to a wall of an enclosure or to a mounting plate attached to the enclosure.
Regarding claim 8 Magnussen as modified teaches:
“a wireless communication module is provided on the main body” (Magnussen teaches communicating between components “via a radio connection” (¶ 0046) disclosing a “wireless communication module” where the components are located within the housing 11 (¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 9 Magnussen as modified teaches:
“voltage sensing means are adapted to collect a voltage signal from the mains switchgear for measuring a voltage value of the mains switchgear and the control unit is adapted to calculate a power value by multiplying the voltage value and the current value” (Magnussen teaches “the power flow can be determined by a voltage measurement carried out in parallel with the current measurement and a multiplication of current and voltage values” (¶ 0030) where the controller 8 is in the housing 11 (¶ 0046).)
Regarding claim 10 Magnussen as modified teaches:
“at least three voltage sensing means are connected to the main body” (Magnussen teaches “in addition to the magnitude of the current, to determine its direction or phase position relative to an electrical voltage present at the respective phase conductor” (¶ 0039) where L1, L2, and L3 represent the three phase conductors (see fig. 1) and would require “three voltage sensing means” and are “connected to the main body” as the phase conductors are “guided in a comb rail” and the comb rail is part of the switchgear cabinet (¶ 0011).)
Regarding claim 14 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“a display is configured for displaying at least one parameter, the at least one parameter is determined by the control unit.”
Yoshike teaches:
“a display is configured for displaying at least one parameter, the at least one parameter is determined by the control unit” (Yoshike teaches “the value of the current flowing through the conductor 2 of the target electric wire is calculated and output and displayed on the display unit 33” (¶ 0016) where the calculating is done by CPU 26 (see fig. 1).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by displaying calculated parameters as disclosed by Yoshike as displaying important information yields the predictable result of making the system more user friendly.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 cites analogous limitations to claim 5 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 3-4 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnussen in view of Yoshike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of André, WO2020069584A1.
Regarding claim 3 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the position sensor is an optical sensor”
André teaches:
“the position sensor is an optical sensor” (André teaches an optical sensor for determining the position of a rod (¶ 047).)
Both Magnussen and André determine positions of conductors (rods) within a housing therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by Yoshike by including an optical position sensor as optical sensors as disclosed by André as optical sensors are capable of measuring minute distances and are not affected by electrical noise, magnetic fields, or radio frequencies and thereby provide a system ”with a reliable indication of electrical signals related to the on or off state of the switching device” (André, ¶ 057).
Regarding claim 4 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the optical sensor has a transmitter provided on a first one of the two opposite side walls and a receiver provided on a second one of the two opposite side walls to sense a light.”
André teaches:
“the optical sensor has a transmitter provided on a first one of the two opposite side walls and a receiver provided on a second one of the two opposite side walls to sense a light” (André teaches a position sensor mounted inside a housing (¶ 0035) where the transmitter and receiver are mounted opposite with respect to each other (¶ 047) in order that the receiver would detect the signals emitted by the transmitter. Mounting the receiver and transmitter on opposite walls of the enclosure is arbitrary and the designer’s choice.
Both Magnussen and André determine positions of conductors (rods) within a housing therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by Yoshike by including an a transmitter and receiver of a position sensor mounted in a position opposite with respect to each other optical position sensor as disclosed by André in order to effectively use optical sensors which are capable of measuring minute distances while not being affected by electrical noise, magnetic fields, or radio frequencies and thereby provide a system ”with a reliable indication of electrical signals related to the on or off state of the switching device” (André, ¶ 057).
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 cites analogous limitations to claim 3 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 cites analogous limitations to claim 5 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 cites analogous limitations to claim 5 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 cites analogous limitations to claim 6 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 cites analogous limitations to claim 6 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnussen in view of Yoshike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kozel et al., hereinafter Kozel, U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0305789 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the main body comprises three housings.”
Kozel teaches:
“the main body comprises three housings” (Kozel teaches a “switchgear or control gear, comprising at least one first compartment 2, 8, 12, a second compartment 1” (¶ 0038) where compartments 2, 8, 12, and 1 disclose “the main body” and compartments 2, 8, and 1 disclose “three housings.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by separating the mains switchgear enclosure into different compartments separated by walls in order to prevent localized faults from causing system wide failures and to protect personnel.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnussen in view of Yoshike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of El-Essawy et al., hereinafter El-Essawy, WO2012/107845 A1.
Regarding claim 11 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the voltage sensing means are detachably attached each other.”
El-Essawy teaches:
“the voltage sensing means are detachably attached each other” (El-Essawy teaches the detachable attachment of each voltage sensor (20) to a PWB (printed wiring board) 30 (see fig. 3 and pg 6 line 17-pg 7 line 2) as sensors are mounted using a “snap-attach sensor body” (pg 7 line 20-22) disclosing the sensors are “detachably attached.”
Regarding claim 12 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“each of the voltage sensing means has an outer body provided with a protrusion and a corresponding recess, both of the protrusion and the corresponding recess are being sized and shaped to engage each other when the voltage sensing means are attached each other.”
El-Essawy teaches:
“each of the voltage sensing means has an outer body provided with a protrusion and a corresponding recess, both of the protrusion and the corresponding recess are being sized and shaped to engage each other when the voltage sensing means are attached each other” (El-Essawy teaches the voltage sensor 20 has a terminal 38 (protrusion) and recesses (38) both for the snap-attach body (22) which are engaged when each of the sensors are attached to the PCB (printed wiring board) (see fig. 3, 4A, 4B, and pg 7 line 4-22).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen as modified by including detachably attached sensors because detachably attached sensors reduce maintenance downtime thereby decreasing maintenance costs as there is no complex rewiring needed thereby providing a more efficient system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnussen in view of Yoshike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pons Gonzalez U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0287602 A1.
Regarding claim 13 Magnussen as modified does not teach:
“the control unit is configured to generate a warning signal when the control unit determines that a position of the respective cable in the housing is changed.”
Pons Gonzalez teaches:
“the control unit is configured to generate a warning signal when the control unit determines that a position of the respective cable in the housing is changed” (Pons Gonzalez teaches “the external device can perform the desired actions in each case, such as alarm management when the detected signals exceed a pre-set limit parameters” (¶ 0052) where the “detected signals” include current signals “collected from the mains” (abstract) thereby disclosing “generate a warning signal (alarm) when the control unit (external device used for subsequent processing (¶ 0012)) determines that a position of the respective cable in the housing is changed” as a change in the current would result from a change in the “position of the respective cable.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for current measurement in a switchgear cabinet as taught by Magnussen by including alerts as disclosed by Pons Gonzalez because alerts inform users of any potential hazards that may occur thereby providing a safety oriented system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takenaka et al., U.S. 2021/0088557 A1 teaches a current measuring device using magnetic sensors in a known position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights