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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
The term “close to” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines “close to?” Is 10cm “close to?” Is 1cm “close to?” Is 10mm “close to?” Is 1mm “close to?” Is 10nm “close to?” Given the 1/r2 nature of electromagnetic fields, one must define a specific distance for a working electromagnetic sensor. Clarification is needed.
Claims 1-10 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.
Independent claim 1 requires “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 “during sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel, enabling the detection port,” & “during sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together, enabling the detection port.” How is the necessary single wire or type of cable identified for sensing? When are these wires and cables being sensed? What enables the detection port? Are the wires in place and the shielding space detection port moves to them? Do the wires and cables move to the shielding space detection port? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires “sensing of a single wire.” What single wire? Where did this come from? Is it a wire in a house? Is it a wire in a computer? Is it a wire on a telephone pole? Given the nature of alternating current and the resulting magnetic fields, one could conceive that any or all alternating current carrying wires are being sensed by any magnetic field measurement device.
Claim 1 requires “sensing of “a non-twisted cable.” What non-twisted cable? Where did this come from? Is it a non-twisted cable in a house? Is it a non-twisted cable in a computer? Is it a non-twisted cable on a telephone pole? Given the nature of alternating current and the resulting magnetic fields, one could conceive that any or all alternating current carrying wires are being sensed by any magnetic field measurement device.
Claim 1 requires “sensing of “a twisted cable.” What twisted cable? Where did this come from? Is it a twisted cable in a house? Is it a twisted cable in a computer? Is it a twisted cable on a telephone pole? Given the nature of alternating current and the resulting magnetic fields, one could conceive that any or all alternating current carrying wires are being sensed by any magnetic field measurement device.
Claim 1 requires the steps of “during sensing of a single wire, enabling the detection port,” “during sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel, enabling the detection port,” & “during sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together, enabling the detection port.” When are these different elements sensed? Is this a sequential set of steps? Can they occur simultaneously? Are there three different sensing systems that sense each distinct wire individually? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires the steps of “an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in the single wire,” “an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in a target wire in the non-twisted cable,” & “an electromagnetic signal generated when an alternating current flows in a target wire in the twisted cable.” When and how is the alternating current applied? Is there an AC source? Is an AC source on a timer set to generate an AC signal at a specific time? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires “the single wire can be allowed to pass through the detection port,” “a target wire in the non-twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port,” and “a target wire in the twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port.” How are the electromagnetic signals “allowed” to pass through the detection port? Is there a necessary power threshold? Is there a password? What would prevent the signal from entering the detection port? Is the detection port subject to opening and closing? The word allowed implies that it may not always be able to enter. What defines when and how an electromagnetic signal can or cannot enter the detection port to be sensed by the induction coil? The claim states 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.” What happens if it cannot pass through. What defines the necessary items for the signal to pass through. If the signal can pass through, does it have to pass through? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires “a target wire in the non-twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port,” and “a target wire in the twisted cable can be allowed to pass through the detection port.” What is the target wire? Is it the non-twisted cable the target? Is the twisted cable the target? There is no mention of a target and no disclosure that identifies this necessary item. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires “rotating around the non-twisted cable.” What is rotating? There is no mention of any rotating elements in the claim prior to this statement. How can an unknown device rotate? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 requires “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.” What is rotating or moving? There is no mention of any moving elements in the claim prior to this statement. How can an unknown device move or rotate? Clarification is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner will use the broadest reasonable interpretation when applying art in the rejection below to advance prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooke (U.S. PGPub # 2002/0125877) in view of Maples (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0325336).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Cooke teaches:
A non-contact alternating current sensing method, comprising the following steps:
constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference (Fig. 1 Element 10. Paragraph 0039.), arranging a detection port that can allow an electromagnetic signal in a specific direction to enter the shielding space (Fig. 1 Element 18. Paragraph 0039.), 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 (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraph 0039.);
during sensing of a single wire (Fig. 1 Element 14. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the single wire (Fig. 1 Element 14 wherein the cable 14 is “close to” the aperture 18. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), 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 (Fig. 1 Element 14 wherein the cable 14 is “close to” the aperture 18. Paragraphs 0041-0045. Fig. 3 Elements 62 & 64. See paragraph 0046.), and the induction coil outputs a corresponding current signal (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraph 0039. Fig. 3 Elements 62 & 64. See paragraph 0046.);
during sensing of a non-twisted cable (Fig. 1 Element 14. Paragraphs 0041-0045.) formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel (Fig. 1 Element 14. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the non-twisted cable (Fig. 1 Element 14. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), 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 (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraph 0039. Fig. 3 Elements 62 & 64. See paragraph 0046.); and
during sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together (Fig. 1 Element 14. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), enabling the detection port to be close to but not in contact with the twisted cable (Fig. 1 Element 14 wherein the cable 14 is “close to” the aperture 18. Paragraphs 0041-0045.), 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 (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraph 0039. Fig. 3 Elements 62 & 64. See paragraph 0046.).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cooke may not explicitly teach:
sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel,
sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together
Maples teaches:
sensing of a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel (See Fig. 4 & Fig. 6a-6b.),
sensing of a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together (See Fig. 4 & Fig. 6a-6b.).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Maples to the teachings of Cooke such that one would sense a non-twisted cable formed by two or more wires arranged in parallel and a twisted cable formed by two or more wires twisted together because these are just various forms of known wires and cables used ubiquitously in electronics and electrical devices. Further, one can better understand various factors that create induced voltages in the various forms of wires and the capacitances formed in the various wires and cables that may cause safety concerns in the continuous operation of plants.
Regarding claim 2, Cooke & Maples teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the current signal output by the induction coil (Fig. 1 Element 12. Paragraph 0039.) is subjected to signal amplification (Fig. 4 Element 92. Paragraph 0039.) and noise filtering (Fig. 3 Elements 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, & 64 that form RLC filtering circuits. See paragraph 0046) and then is subjected to analytic operation processing by a main control MCU chip (Fig. 3 Element 72. Paragraph 0048.), to obtain related electrical parameters (See paragraphs 0039-0046 wherein any measured value is a parameter that meets this limitation.).
Regarding claim 3, Cooke & Maples teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the electrical parameters comprise a current, a voltage, a frequency, a duty cycle, a phase, a harmonic, and a frequency-conversion signal (Paragraph 0039 wherein the voltages are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 4, Cooke & Maples teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches a metal shielding shell used for constructing a sealed shielding space for preventing electromagnetic interference (Fig. 1 Element 10. See paragraph 0039.); 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 (Fig. 1 Element 18. See paragraph 0039.); and an induction coil (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraph 0039.), wherein the induction coil is arranged in the shielding space (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraph 0039.), and is used for sensing the electromagnetic signal that enters the metal shielding shell from the detection port and outputting a corresponding current signal (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraph 0039.).
Regarding claim 5, Cooke & Maples teach all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the induction coil is a hollow induction coil (Fig. 1 Element 12 and its coil surrounding it. See paragraph 0039.),
Cooke may not explicitly teach with an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the induction coil to a magnetic field change penetrating through the middle.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have an iron rod for enhancing sensitivity of the induction coil to a magnetic field change penetrating through the middle because most if not all scientists would know that the core enhances the performance of the coil as evidenced by Cooke’s use of the core, element 12 for just such a purpose. The use of iron would just be routine improvement made through standard experimentation. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 6, Cooke & Maples teach all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the induction coil is connected to a signal amplification circuit (Fig. 1 Element 12 and Fig. 4 Element 92.).
Regarding claim 7, Cooke & Maples teach or make obvious all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke & Maples may not explicitly teach the iron rod is connected to another signal amplification circuit.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have an iron rod be connected to another signal amplification circuit because most if not all scientists would know that the core enhances the performance of the coil as evidenced by Cooke’s use of the core, element 12 for just such a purpose. The use another signal amplification circuit would just be routine improvement made through standard experimentation to further enhance a signal. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 8, Cooke & Maples teach or make obvious all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the metal shielding shell is connected to a noise filter circuit (See Fig. 4 wherein all of the elements are connected.).
Regarding claim 9, Cooke teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke & Maples may not explicitly teach 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.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have this tool 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 because this is simply a more useful form of the tool that would allow one to more easily make measurements.
Regarding claim 10, Cooke teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Cooke teaches the non-contact alternating current sensing probe according to Claim 4, applied to a measuring instrument (Fig.1 through 6 wherein all of the systems are measurement instruments.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights