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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
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 it is not presented in narrative form limited to a single paragraph within 50 to 150 words in length. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 21, line 18, “31” (second occurrence) should be replaced with --33--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, a comma should be added after “claim 15”.
In claims 18 and 19, a comma should be added after “claim 17”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palacios Laloy (US 2021/0396786) in view of Siemens AG (DE 9315875 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device (element 1, Fig. 1) for measuring a current in at least one cable (element 5, Fig. 1) of an electrical transmission grid by the Zeeman effect in the presence of a magnetic field from the environment, in particular the Earth's magnetic field or magnetic noise (see par. [0056]), comprising: at least one assembly of one or more measurement cells (elements C1-C4, Fig. 2) containing a gas sensitive to the Zeeman effect (see par. [0012]), in particular an alkaline gas (see par. [0035]), at least one polarized light source which wavelength is tuned to an absorption line of the gas sensitive to the Zeeman effect and which emits a beam of light through the assembly of one or more measurement cells (see pars. [0028-0039]), at least one polarimetry system (element 4, Fig. 1) configured to measure a first parameter corresponding to the rotation of a polarization angle as a result of the beam passing through the assembly of one or more measurement cells containing a gas sensitive to the Zeeman effect (see Fig. 2 and pars. [0028-0039]), and wherein the assembly of one or more measurement cells is configured to define at least one pair of first and second measurement sections (elements C1-C4, Fig. 2), the measurement sections of a pair being parallel and arranged perpendicular to a conductor connected to the cable and on opposite sides of the conductor, the polarized beam of light flowing in the second measurement section in the opposite direction to that in the first section; in such a way that the contributions of the magnetic field from the environment to the first parameter in the first and second measurement sections cancel each other out (see Fig. 2 and pars. [0028-0039]), and the contributions of the magnetic field generated by the current in the conductor to the first parameter in the first and second measurement sections are added together, the variation in the polarization angle making it possible to determine the value of the current flowing through the conductor (see Fig. 2 and pars. [0028-0039]).
Although Palacios Laloy does not appear to disclose a cable shield in which the current is measured, Siemens AG shows that this feature is well known in the art. Siemens AG discloses a cable shield in which the current is measured (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as allowing interferences in the surroundings to be collected by the shield of the cable and discharged to earth.
Regarding claim 7, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein the light source comprises a laser, in particular a laser diode (see par. [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein it comprises optical deflection elements (elements M1-M3, Fig. 2) of the beam of light (see par. [0034]), which are arranged so that the beam of light successively reaches the at least one pair of measurement sections (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein each deflecting optical element of the beam of light is configured to maintain the polarization such that the polarization at the input is the same as at the output of the deflecting optical element (see par. [0034] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein at least one of the optical deflecting elements of the beam of light comprises a deflecting prism or mirror (see par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein the assembly of one or more measurement cells comprises a single measurement cell in the form of a closed container, having at the center an opening configured for the conductor to pass through (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein the assembly of one or more measurement cells comprises, for a pair of measurement sections, a first measurement cell (element C1, Fig. 2) and a second measurement cell (element C2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Palacios Laloy discloses a measurement device, wherein the assembly of one or more measurement cells comprises an assembly of two pairs of first and second measurement cells (elements C1-C4, Fig. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palacios Laloy (US 2021/0396786) in view of Siemens AG (DE 9315875 U1).
Regarding claim 6, although Palacios Laloy does not appear to disclose the alkaline gas being rubidium, lithium, sodium, potassium, cesium or francium, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that utilizing one of these alkaline gases is well known 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 utilize one of these alkaline gases, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known gas on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palacios Laloy (US 2021/0396786) discloses a magneto-optical sensor for sensing a current flowing through a conductor comprising a light source capable of providing a linearly-polarized optical beam and a polarization analyzer configured to perform a differential measurement. Renz (US 3,746,983) discloses an apparatus for measuring very high currents comprising a polarized light beam and the displacement of the polarization plane of the light beam measured as a measure of the current flowing in the conductor. Ergin et al. (US 10,317,433) discloses an optoelectric measuring device and method for measuring an electrical current. Davis et al. (US 9,817,038) an optical sensor that senses current by directing polarized light across an airgap that is orthogonal to a direction of current running through a conductor. Sorensen (US 8,558,535) discloses a 3-phase Faraday optical current sensor assembly. Koide et al. (US 5,780,845) discloses an optical current transformer. Sato et al. (US 4,564,754) discloses a method and apparatus for optically measuring a current.
Allowable Subject Matter
No art has been found for a prior art rejection of claims 2-5, 11, and 15-19 at this time.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
2/21/2026