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 .
Claims 8-14 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification page 14 line 24, “D1, D2, D3, D4” are not shown in fig.5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 line 3, “the detection zones” should be -- the two or more detection zones--. Multiple occurrences in claim 8 require appropriate correction. Similar correction is required in claim 10.
Claim 8 lines 3-4, “said radiation sensors” should be -- the radiation sensors--. Similar correction is required in claim 10.
Claim 8 lines 7-8, “from a respective said detection angular range” should be -- from the detection angular range--.
Claim 8 line 9, “detected radiation intensities” should be --detected intensity of incoming radiation--.
Claim 9 line 2, “a radiation intensity” should be –the intensity of incoming radiation--.
Claim 10 lines 3-4, “said one radiation sensor” should be –each of the radiation sensors--.
Claim 10 line 4, “an assigned said detection zone” should be -- the assigned detection zone--.
Claim 10 lines 5-6, “an assigned said radiation sensor” should be –one of the radiation sensors--.
Claim 14 lines 3-4, “said radiation sensors” should be -- the two or more radiation sensors--. Multiple instances in claim 14 need appropriate corrections.
Claim 14 lines 6-7, “said detection angular range” should be –detection angular range--.
Claim 14 line 9, “the detection zone” should be -- the assigned detection zone--. Multiple instances in claim 14 need appropriate corrections.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shapanus (US 5886783 A).
Regarding claim 8, Shapanus teaches a method for locating an arc (abstract, apparatus for isolating and sensing optical signals) (column 5 lines 5-7, provide a system which can detect arcing) in a switchgear assembly (column 9 lines 1-2, monitor other electrical machinery and equipment), the switchgear assembly having radiation sensors (i.e. Optical signal acquisition devices 2A and 2B, fig.1) and being divided into two or more detection zones (i.e. areas A and B, fig.1), and each of the two or more detection zones is assigned at least one of the radiation sensors (column 9 lines 17-22, Optical signal acquisition device 2A … receives light from a field of view which includes area A on surface S, and optical signal acquisition device 2B … receives light from a field of view which includes area B of surface S), a detection angular range (i.e. λA and λB, fig.1) of the at least one radiation sensor covers an assigned detection zone of the two or more detection zones (column 9 lines 13-17, 2A and 2B being shown, which are disposed and adapted to separately receive optical radiation, indicated as .lambda.A and .lambda.B, emitted in their direction from the corresponding areas A and B to be monitored), which comprises the steps of:
using the radiation sensors to detect an intensity of incoming radiation from a respective said detection angular range (column 9 lines 13-17, 2A and 2B being shown, which are disposed and adapted to separately receive optical radiation, indicated as .lambda.A and .lambda.B, emitted in their direction from the corresponding areas A and B to be monitored) during a burning of the arc (column 9 lines 4-5, monitoring the condition of a piece of electrical equipment) (column 5 lines 5-7, provide a system which can detect arcing); and
determining, on a basis of detected radiation intensities and an assignment between the radiation sensors and the two or more detection zones, a detection zone in which the arc is located (column 9 lines 45-47, arcing, flame ignition combustion, or smoldering conditions exist at any of the areas being monitored, the location of such conditions).
Regarding claim 9, Shapanus teaches the method according to claim 8, which further comprises measuring the intensity of incoming radiation in the ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS) or infrared (IR) range (column 1 lines 34-35, include visible light and adjacent wavelength ranges of electromagnetic radiation).
Regarding claim 10, Shapanus teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein:
precisely one of the radiation sensors is assigned to each of the two or more detection zones in a one-to-one manner, the detection angular range of each of the radiation sensors corresponds to the assigned detection zone (column 9 lines 13-17, 2A and 2B being shown, which are disposed and adapted to separately receive optical radiation, indicated as .lambda.A and .lambda.B, emitted in their direction from the corresponding areas A and B to be monitored); and
the arc is localized in the two or more detection zone for which one of the radiation sensors has detected a highest radiation intensity (column 9 lines 40-47, the electrical signal includes separate information representing the intensity of light received from each of the optical communication channels 6A and 6B (and thus from each of the monitored areas A and B). … the location of such conditions).
Regarding claim 11, Shapanus teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the highest radiation intensity is defined as an absolute maximum radiation intensity in an entire time curve of all the radiation sensors (column 23 lines 40-57, The amplitudes of the signals from the detector are monitored by signal processor 28 to determine the light intensity represented by the signals … Data may be stored at periodic internals to record the changes in the monitored condition over time).
Regarding claim 14, Shapanus teaches a device for locating an arc (abstract, apparatus for isolating and sensing optical signals) (column 5 lines 5-7, provide a system which can detect arcing) in a switchgear assembly (column 9 lines 1-2, monitor other electrical machinery and equipment), the device comprising:
two or more radiation sensors (i.e. Optical signal acquisition devices 2A and 2B, fig.1), a detection angular range (i.e. λA and λB, fig.1) of the two or more radiation sensors in each case covers an assigned detection zone (column 9 lines 13-17, 2A and 2B being shown, which are disposed and adapted to separately receive optical radiation, indicated as .lambda.A and .lambda.B, emitted in their direction from the corresponding areas A and B to be monitored), into which the switchgear assembly is divided, the two or more radiation sensors are configured, during a burning of the arc, to detect a radiation intensity that is incoming from a respective detection angular range (column 9 lines 45-47, arcing, flame ignition combustion, or smoldering conditions exist at any of the areas being monitored, the location of such conditions); and
an arithmetic logic unit (i.e. signal processor 12, fig.1) connected to the two or more radiation sensors (e.g. connection of 12, 2A and 2B as shown in fig.1) and configured to determine the assigned detection zone in which the arc is disposed on a basis of detected radiation intensities and an assignment between the two or more radiation sensors and the assigned detection zones (column 9 lines 42-48, A signal processor 12 receives the output electrical signal from converter 8 and processes it to obtain information, such as, for example, whether corona, arcing, flame ignition combustion, or smoldering conditions exist at any of the areas being monitored, the location of such conditions).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapanus (US 5886783 A).
Regarding claim 12, Shapanus teaches the method according to claim 10.
Shapanus does not teach, wherein the highest radiation intensity is defined as the highest radiation intensity of all radiation sensors averaged over an entire time curve.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the highest radiation intensity defined as the highest radiation intensity of all radiation sensors averaged over an entire time curve, since the applicant has not disclosed that averaged over an entire time curve solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the highest radiation intensity defined as the highest radiation intensity of all radiation sensors averaged over an entire time curve, as it provides on method of obtaining optimal value for radiation intensity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapanus (US 5886783 A), and further in view of Hughes (US 20220115858 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shapanus teaches the method according to claim 8.
Shapanus does not teach, wherein the switchgear assembly is in each case divided along two or more linearly independent axes into two or more said detection zones.
Hughes teaches in a similar field of endeavor of arc-flash sensor using optical fiber, switchgear assembly is in each case divided along two or more linearly independent axes into two or more said detection zones ([0023], multiple arc-flash sensors may be used in an area divided into a number of zones).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the switchgear assembly is in each case divided along two or more linearly independent axes into two or more said detection zones in Shapanus, as taught by Hughes, as it provides the advantage of detecting arc flash while preventing false detection when arc-flash occurs in neighboring zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 01/28/2026