DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 8/4/2023. Receipt of certified copy of the CN 2023109815435 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/18/204 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification is objected for the following informalities:
- The first letter in paragraphs 0010, 0011 and 0012 should be capitalized. Also, each of paragraphs 0009, 0010 and 0011 should end with a period.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/776,434 in view of the US Patent US 7,979,221 by Gilbert et al., (Gilbert hereafter).
Claim 1 in the instant application is similar in scope to claim 1 in the conflicting application except that in the instant application, claim 1 recites the use of a Hall sensing module, whereas conflicting claim 1 recites the use of an induction coil. See comparison below:
Instant application: 18/776,393
Conflicting application: 18/776,393
1. A non-contact AC/DC sensing method, comprising the following steps:
constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference, arranging a detection port that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space, and arranging, in the shielding space, a Hall sensing module that can collect the electromagnetic signal passing through the detection port to enter the shielding space;
during sensing of a single wire, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the single wire, so that an electromagnetic signal generated when an AC/DC current flows in the single wire can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the Hall sensing module, and the Hall sensing module outputs a corresponding voltage signal;
during sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the non-twisted cable, and then rotating around the non-twisted cable, so that the detection port faces the wires in the non-twisted cable one by one, and an electromagnetic signal generated when an AC/DC current flows in a target wire in the non-twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the Hall sensing module, and the Hall sensing module outputs a corresponding voltage signal; and
during sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the twisted cable, and then rotating around the twisted cable and/or moving along a direction of a central axis of the twisted cable, so that an electromagnetic signal generated when an AC/DC current flows in a target wire in the twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the Hall sensing module, and the Hall sensing module outputs a corresponding voltage signal.
1. A non-contact alternating current sensing method, comprising the following steps:
constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference, arranging a detection port that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space, and arranging, in the shielding space, an induction coil that can collect the electromagnetic signal passing through the detection port to enter the shielding space;
during sensing of a single wire, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the single wire, so that an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in the single wire can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the induction coil, and the induction coil outputs a corresponding current signal;
during sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the non-twisted cable, and rotating around the non-twisted cable, so that the detection port faces the wires in the non-twisted cable one by one, and an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in a target wire in the non-twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the induction coil, and the induction coil outputs a corresponding current signal; and
during sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together, enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the twisted cable, and then rotating around the twisted cable and/or moving along a direction of a central axis of the twisted cable, so that an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in a target wire in the twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the induction coil, and the induction coil outputs a corresponding current signal.
However, the use of coils, such Rogowski coils is a well-known alternative to the use of Hall effect sensors for the purpose of sensing/detecting current flow. For example, Gilbert teaches a system (shown in Figure 15), including a current sensor (532) detecting/sensing current flow in one of more conductors (col. 22, line 1). Furthermore, Gilbert teaches that well known alternatives for current sensors includes a Hall effect type, a wound type (induction coil) or a Rogowski coil type (also inductive). See col. 22, lines 1-5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed, to use/recite an induction coil instead of the recited Hall sensing module in claim 1, since both are equivalents for the stated purpose of sensing current.
The examiner notes that the recitation AC/DC current presented in instant claim 1, appears to describe an alternative of either alternating or direct current. Thus, given the instant claim a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 in the conflicting application has equivalent scope as it recites “alternating current”.
Similarly, claims 2-3 are rejected as being similar in scope as claims 2-3 in the conflicting application as noted below:
Instant application 18/776,393
Conflicting application 18/776,393
2. The non-contact AC/DC sensing method according to Claim 1, wherein the voltage signal output by the Hall sensing module is subjected to analytic operation processing by a main control MCU chip, to obtain related electrical parameters.
2. The non-contact alternating current sensing method according to Claim 1, wherein the current signal output by the induction coil is subjected to signal amplification and noise filtering and then is subjected to analytic operation processing by a main control MCU chip, to obtain related electrical parameters.
3. The non-contact AC/DC sensing method according to Claim 2, wherein the electrical parameters comprise a current, a voltage, a frequency, a duty cycle, a phase, a harmonic, and a frequency-conversion signal.
3. The non-contact alternating current sensing method according to Claim 2, wherein the electrical parameters comprise a current, a voltage, a frequency, a duty cycle, a phase, a harmonic, and a frequency-conversion signal.
Claim 4 in the instant application is similar in scope to claim 4 in the conflicting application except that in the instant application, the claims recite the use of a Hall sensing module, whereas conflicting claim 4 recites the use of an induction coil. See comparison below:
Instant application 18/776,393
Conflicting application 18/776,393
4. A non-contact AC/DC sensing probe for implementing the non-contact AC/DC sensing method according to Claim 1, comprising
a metal shielding shell used for constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference; wherein the metal shielding shell is provided with a detection port that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space; and
a Hall sensing module used for sensing the electromagnetic signal that enters the metal shielding shell from the detection port and outputting a corresponding voltage signal.
4. A non-contact alternating current sensing probe for implementing the non-contact alternating current sensing method according to Claim 1, comprising
a metal shielding shell used for constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference; wherein the metal shielding shell is provided with a detection port that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space; and
an induction coil, wherein the induction coil is arranged in the shielding space, and is used for sensing the electromagnetic signal that enters the metal shielding shell from the detection port and outputting a corresponding current signal.
Similar to that stated with regards to claim 1 above, the use of coils, such Rogowski coils is a well-known alternative to the use of Hall effect sensors for the purpose of sensing/detecting current flow. For example, Gilbert teaches a system (shown in Figure 15), including a current sensor (532) detecting/sensing current flow in one of more conductors (col. 22, line 1). Furthermore, Gilbert teaches that well known alternatives for current sensors includes a Hall effect type, a wound type (induction coil) or a Rogowski coil type (also inductive). See col. 22, lines 1-5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed, to use/recite an induction coil instead of the recited Hall sensing module in claim 1, since both are equivalents for the stated purpose of sensing current.
The examiner notes that the recitation AC/DC current presented in instant claim 4, appears to describe an alternative of either alternating or direct current. Thus, given the instant claim a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 in the conflicting application has equivalent scope as it recites “alternating current”.
Similarly, claims 2-3 are rejected as being similar in scope as claims 2-3 in the conflicting application as noted below:
Instant application 18/776,393
Conflicting application 18/776,393
5. The non-contact AC/DC sensing probe according to Claim 4, wherein an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the Hall sensing module to a magnetic field change is arranged beside the Hall sensing module.
5. The non-contact alternating current sensing probe according to Claim 4, wherein the induction coil is a hollow induction coil, with an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the induction coil to a magnetic field change penetrating through the middle.
7. The non-contact AC/DC sensing probe according to Claim 5, wherein the iron rod is a feeler pin of a test pen.
8. The non-contact AC/DC sensing probe according to Claim 4, applied to a test pen.
9. The non-contact alternating current sensing probe according to Claim 4, applied to a test pen, wherein the induction coil is a hollow induction coil, and a feeler pin of the test pen penetrates through the induction coil.
9. The non-contact AC/DC sensing probe according to Claim 4, applied to a measuring instrument.
10. The non-contact alternating current sensing probe according to Claim 4, applied to a measuring instrument.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
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.
Claims 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 7,746,055 by Bose et al., (Bose hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, Bose teaches in Figures 2, 8 and 9, a non-contact AC/DC sensing probe comprising:
a metal shielding shell (59) used for constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference (space within the enclosure created by the clamp 30 as it closes, labeled “A” in annotated Figure I below);
wherein the metal shielding shell is provided with a detection port (labeled “B” in annotated Figure I below, defined by the upper half of the measuring clamp) that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space (it allows electromagnetic fields to enter the shielding space when a conductor is positioned within it); and
a Hall sensing module (12) used for sensing the electromagnetic signal that enters the metal shielding shell from the detection port and outputting a corresponding voltage signal (see col. 3, lines 8-24 and lines 32-41.
** The examiner notes that the recitation: “for implementing the non-contact AC/DC sensing method according to Claim 1” appears in the preamble. The recitation doesn’t appear to be limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention' s limitations. Moreover, the recitation appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Bose teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of detecting current, it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure I
Regarding claims 8-9, the claims appear to describe an intended use of the sensing probe of claim 4. That is, the claims do not appear directed to a system comprising a non-contact AC/DC sensing probe and a test pen (claim 8) or a measurement instrument (claim 9). The claims appear to describe an intended application of the sensing probe; to use the claimed sensing probe and apply its functionality to a test pen or a measuring instrument. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Bose teaches the probe is applied to a measurement instrument (current measurement device comprising the clamp shown in Figure 8 (see col. 1, lines 64-67).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bose in view of the US Patent US 4,398,342 by Pitt et al., (Pitt hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 5, Bose substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the Hall sensing module.
Pitt teaches a hall effect device, including a iron flux concentrator rods (31 or 31, see col. 5, line 57 and col. 4, line 28) that concentrate magnetic fields so as to enhance the field density reaching the hall effect unit (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of iron concentrator rods as taught by Pitt, in the device/system/method of Bose, in order to concentrate the flux reaching the hall effect unit in , and thereby enhance it’s sensitivity to the electromagnetic field induced by the conductor.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bose in view of the US Patent US 9,829,516 by Erns et al., (Erns hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bose teaches in Figures 2, 8 and 9, a non-contact AC/DC sensing method, comprising the following steps:
constructing a sealed shielding space (space labeled “A” partially surrounded by the shielding mu metal 59, see last lines 8-10 in the abstract. See annotated Figure I below provided in an effort to add clarity to the examiner’s position) for preventing electromagnetic interference (shielding hall sensor from interference from adjacent conductors, see abstract last three lines), arranging a detection port (labeled “B” in annotated Figure I below, defined by the upper half of the measuring clamp) that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space (it allows electromagnetic fields to enter the shielding space when a conductor is positioned within it), and
arranging, in the shielding space, a Hall sensing module (12) that can collect the electromagnetic signal passing through the detection port to enter the shielding space (hall effect element 12 is capable of collecting the EMF field induce on conductor 14, as they pass through the shielding space);
during sensing of a single wire (as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9), enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the single wire (when the clamp closes, the detection port is close but doesn’t contact the wire within the conductor 14 because of the insulation surrounding the wire), so that an electromagnetic signal generated when an AC/DC current flows in the single wire can be allowed to pass through the detection port to enter the shielding space to be collected by the Hall sensing module (as the clamp is closed, the induced electromagnetic fields surround the conductor, passing through the port and effecting the hall effect device 12), and the Hall sensing module outputs a corresponding voltage signal (see col. 2, lines 64-66).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure I
Although Bose teaches the method for sensing of a single wire as discussed above, Bose is silent about the using the device to sense non-twisted and twisted wires constituted of 2 wires in parallel. That is, Bose doesn’t explicitly mention that, when testing the wires, the method should include the step of rotating around the non-twisted cable or twisted cable, so that the detection port faces the wires one by one.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, when measuring current on conductors having multiple independent wires, to separate the wires, and measure the current flowing through each wire individually, thus rotating which of the conductors is to be placed within the clamp. For example, Erns teaches in col. 6, lines 34-38 that typically, conductors are separated and probed individually as to increase the amount of current that is sensed by current sensing means.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of measuring current through multiple wires by separating them and probing them individually, one after the other in a rotating fashion as taught by Erns, in the device/system/method of Bose, in order to reduce unwanted effects a second conductor may have on the current measurement of a first conductor, including amplification or attenuation of induced fields that the current sensor depends on to produce an accurate reading.
As to claim 2, Bose teaches the non-contact AC/DC sensing method according to Claim 1, wherein the voltage signal output by the Hall sensing module is subjected to analytic operation processing by a main control MCU chip, to obtain related electrical parameters (see col. 3, lines 8-24 and lines 32-41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a non-contact AC/DC sensing probe comprising an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the Hall sensing module, the iron rod is connected to the second signal amplification circuit, and the metal shielding shell is connected to the noise filter circuit, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 10,451,678 by Lee.
- The US Patent US 10,283,955 by Cruz et al.
- The US Patent US 11,237,192 by Rodriguez et al.
- The US Patent US 9,000,752 by El-Essawy et al.
- The US Patent US 8,203,328 by Bose et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 February 13, 2026