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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase and should be included. See rejected claim 17 below and published specification ¶0045. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (US 2022/0029411 A1), hereafter Collins in view of Kukowski (US 2009/0287426 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Collins at fig. 2 discloses a method of locating a fault condition in an insulated supply conductor 38/40 circumferentially surrounded by a first conductive screen 42, the supply conductor coupled at a first end [end near 20] to an electrical load 20 and coupled at an opposing second end [end near 34] to a power supply 18/23, the power supply configured to provide a supply voltage [as shown] to the electrical load 20 via the supply conductor 38, the method comprising: coupling a first resistive element 50 between the first conductive screen 42 and an electrical ground 32; coupling a second resistive element R1 between the supply conductor 38 and the first conductive screen 42 at the second end [end near 34].
Collins is silent about injecting a first incident signal to a supply end of the first conductive screen; detecting a first reflected signal from the first incident signal; determining a first elapsed time between the injection of the first incident signal and the detecting the first reflected signal; and determining a location of the fault condition based on the elapsed time.
Kukowski at fig. 3-4 and ¶0030-0032 discloses injecting a first incident signal to a supply end of the first conductive screen [… the TDR module 61 may transmit a control signal along the conductive material (e.g. the conductive material 13 described above) within the wire/cable 63 to determine faults within the wire/cable 63.]; detecting a first reflected signal from the first incident signal [Since the TDR module 61 is configured with a connector 62, the TDR module 61 may be operable to convey information regarding a detected fault (e.g., via the pin 65) to a system in which the connector 62 is attached.]; determining a first elapsed time between the injection of the first incident signal and the detecting the first reflected signal [step 180, fig. 4 and “The TDR module may then receive reflection of the transmitted control signal in the process element 73 and measure an electrical characteristic of the reflected signal in the process element 74. This measurement may include measuring the voltage of the reflected signal to determine whether the conductive layer is broken (i.e., open) or even shorted to an adjacent conductive material (e.g., another worn away wire/cable, a metal object, or the like).”]; and determining a location of the fault condition based on the elapsed time [“TDRs may also be used to test relatively long lines, such as those that are impractical to inspect (e.g., due to distance, location, etc) as they locate faults to within centimeters.” see ¶0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Collins using the teaching of Kukowski (using injected/reflected signal, see fig. 4 and TDR) to determine fault location/condition.
Regarding claim 15, Collins at fig. 2 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising sensing a measured voltage [using 52] on the first conductive screen 42.
Regarding claim 16, Collins at fig. 2-3 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising determining a fault condition exists [see 84, 80 at fig. 3] in the supply conductor 38 based on the measured voltage [using 52,68].
Regarding claim 17, Collins at fig. 2-3 discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the determining a fault condition exists is based on a difference between the measured voltage and a predetermined reference voltage [voltage from 60 to 68, see ¶0032].
Regarding claim 18, Kukowski at ¶0028 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising displaying on a user interface [implicit to TDR], an indication of the fault condition [short or open].
Regarding claim 19, Kukowski at ¶0021 discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the indication of the fault condition includes a location of the fault condition [“TDRs may also be used to test relatively long lines, such as those that are impractical to inspect (e.g., due to distance, location, etc) as they locate faults to within centimeters.”].
Regarding claim 20, Collins at fig. 2-3 and ¶0028 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising triggering a protection device 26 electrically coupled between the power supply 18/23 and the supply conductor 38 to transition from a closed state to an open state [fuse 26 to blow state].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: No prior art has been found that meets the limitations of claim 1 calling for an apparatus to locate a fault condition in a supply conductor and a first conductive screen surrounding the supply conductor, the supply conductor coupled at a first end to an electrical load and coupled at a second end to power supply, the power supply configured to provide a supply voltage to the electrical load via the supply conductor, the apparatus comprising: a first reflectometry module; s voltage sensor; a control module communicatively coupled to the reflectometry module and voltage sensor, the control module configured to: trigger an injection of the first incident signal from the signal generator to the first conductive screen; receive an indication of the first reflected signal from the first pulse detector; and determine a location of the fault condition based on the first reflected signal, as further defined.
Dependent claims 2-13 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
January 24, 2026