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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/11/2024 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1-16 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-16 are 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.
Claim 1 recites limitation “ta, i1, H”. These terms are not defined in claim. For example what “ta, i1, H” mean?
Appropriate correction should be provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention s directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 1 is directed to process which is a method and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
(iii) determining from the measured electrical current a reaction time of the electromagnetic actuator, (iv) determining from the measured electrical current a quantity representative of the current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator, (v) determining a parameter in the form of a polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity representative of the current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator, the parameter being P with: coefficients ko, ..., kH taking rational values, coefficients Lo, ..., LH taking rational values, and coefficients Ai taking rational values, (vi) iterating the steps (i) to (v) for a set of successive commands of the electromagnetic actuator so as to obtain a set of values of the predetermined parameter, (vii) determining a degradation of the electromagnetic actuator from the evolution of the values of the set in the course of the successive commands of the electromagnetic actuator (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “electromagnetic actuator configured to unlock a control mechanism comprising an elastic member configured to move a mobile electrical contact so as to open or close an electrical circuit, the process comprising the steps: (i) commanding the electromagnetic actuator, (ii) measuring an electrical current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Measuring an electrical current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator pre solution activity and data gathering. Additionally electromagnetic actuator configured to unlock a control mechanism comprising an elastic member configured to move a mobile electrical contact so as to open or close an electrical circuit, the process comprising the steps: (i) commanding the electromagnetic actuator, such features were conventional, as best understood, for example US 9,864,008 B2; US 7,692,522 B2 discloses electromagnetic actuator configured to unlock a control mechanism comprising an elastic member configured to move a mobile electrical contact so as to open or close an electrical circuit, the process comprising the steps: (i) commanding the electromagnetic actuator. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 2 includes additional elements “wherein the switching device comprises: - an electrical contact which is mobile between a position for opening an electrical circuit and a position for closing the electrical circuit, - a control mechanism comprising: -- an elastic member configured to move the electrical contact from the closing position to the opening position or from the opening position to the closing position, so as to open or close the electrical circuit, respectively, -- an unlocking member configured to pass from a locking position in which the elastic member kept in a state of tension to a freeing position in which the elastic member is free to relax so as to move the electrical contact from the closing position to the opening position or from the opening position to the closing position, - an electromagnetic actuator configured to move the unlocking member from the locking position to the freeing position” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 9,864,008 B2; US 7,692,522 B2 discloses wherein the switching device comprises: - an electrical contact which is mobile between a position for opening an electrical circuit and a position for closing the electrical circuit, - a control mechanism comprising: -- an elastic member configured to move the electrical contact from the closing position to the opening position or from the opening position to the closing position, so as to open or close the electrical circuit, respectively, -- an unlocking member configured to pass from a locking position in which the elastic member kept in a state of tension to a freeing position in which the elastic member is free to relax so as to move the electrical contact from the closing position to the opening position or from the opening position to the closing position, - an electromagnetic actuator configured to move the unlocking member from the locking position to the freeing position.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the parameter is equal to the product of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity representative of the current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reaction time of the electromagnetic actuator is determined from the temporal variations in the measured electrical current”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reaction time of the electromagnetic actuator is equal to a time elapsed between an instant at which the electrical current starts to circulate in the electromagnetic actuator and an instant corresponding to a local minimum value of the electrical current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the quantity representative of the current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator the actuation of the switching device is a local maximum value of the electrical current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “calculating a value of a statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the values of the set of values of the polynomial of the determined reaction time (ta) and of the determined quantity,- determining a degradation of the electromagnetic actuator from the calculated value of the statistical parameter”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the values of the set of values of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity comprises a difference between: - a current value of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity, determined for a current actuation of the switching device, and - an average value of the values of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity obtained for a predetermined number (M)of actuations preceding the current actuation of the switching device”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the values of the set of values of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity comprises a standard deviation of the values of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity, determined for a set of actuations of the switching device carried out in reference conditions corresponding to a new condition of the switching device”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the parameter is equal to the product of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity representative of the current circulating in the electromagnetic actuator during the command of the electromagnetic actuator”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the polynomial of the determined reaction timeand of the determined quantity is equal to: [Math. 1] Di =
PNG
media_image1.png
131
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with Pi being the determined value of the polynomial for an actuation of rank i, Di the calculated value of the statistical parameter for the actuation of rank i, M a number of actuations taken into account in order to determine an average value, K a number of actuations carried out in reference conditions corresponding to a new condition of the switching device”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
20. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a degradation of the electromagnetic actuator is determined when the absolute value of the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the polynomial of the determined reaction time of the determined quantity is above a first positive predetermined threshold”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the degradation of the electromagnetic actuator is classified as a first type of degradation, referred to as minor degradation, when the absolute value of the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity is above a first positive predetermined threshold and below a second positive predetermined threshold”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
22. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the degradation of the electromagnetic actuator is classified as a second type of fault, referred to as major degradation, when the absolute value of the statistical parameter representative of a fluctuation of the polynomial of the determined reaction time and of the determined quantity is above the second positive predetermined threshold”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “a step of transmitting an alarm signal in response to a determination of a degradation of the electromagnetic actuator”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
24. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 16 includes additional elements “an electromagnetic actuator configured to unlock a control mechanism comprising an elastic member configured to move a mobile electrical contact so as to open or close an electrical circuit, - an electronic control unit configured to implement the process for detecting degradation according to one of the preceding claims Claim 1, wherein the switching device is a circuit breaker, or a switch, or a disconnector” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 9,864,008 B2; US 7,692,522 B2 discloses an electromagnetic actuator configured to unlock a control mechanism comprising an elastic member configured to move a mobile electrical contact so as to open or close an electrical circuit, - an electronic control unit configured to implement the process for detecting degradation according to one of the preceding claims Claim 1,wherein the switching device a circuit breaker, or a switch, or a disconnector.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Robinson et al. (Pub NO. US 2009/0154046 A1) discloses Trip Unit and Electrical Switching Apparatus.
b. Puskar et al. (Pub NO. US 2005/0047045 A1) discloses Circuit Breaker and Trip Unit.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858