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
Claim 2 is 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.
MPEP 2173.05(b) outlines specific guidelines for the term "about", provided the specification provides objective guidelines or examples so a person of ordinary skill in the art understands its scope. The claim is indefinite if the scope is too vague, but it is acceptable if the specification provides enough clarity (e.g., margins of error, test data, or calculation guidelines). Claim 2 recites the word “about” with respect to the first threshold voltage. After closer examination, the specification fails to provide any margins of error or ranges in the context of the use of the word “about” as it pertains to the first threshold voltage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, 15-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Verkhovskiy (US PAT 6,075,448).
With respect to claim 1, Verkhovskiy discloses an absence of voltage tester (See the circuit shown in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy) for detecting absence of voltage (See the abstract of Verkhovskiy which discloses “differentiating between a short-circuit and a low resistance” which is equivalent to detecting between an absence of voltage and a voltage) comprising: a housing assembly (See [121] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy); circuitry electrically connected to a power source (See [B1] in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy); the circuitry configured to detect the absence of voltage (See the abstract of Verkhovskiy which discloses “differentiating between a short-circuit and a low resistance” which is equivalent to detecting between an absence of voltage and a voltage); the circuitry configured to test for connectivity to the power source (See the arrangement of elements connecting the input points [18] and [28] to power source [B1] in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy); means for a user to initiate a test for the absence of voltage (See the abstract of Verkhovskiy which discloses “differentiating between a short-circuit and a low resistance” which is equivalent to detecting between an absence of voltage and a voltage); a supervisory test circuit within the circuitry to verify that the AVT is functioning properly (See the circuit shown in figure 2 of Verkhovskiy); a set of visual indicators (See [LED1] and [LED2] in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy) comprising: a first visual indicator to confirm the absence of voltage after an absence of voltage test has been performed (See [LED1] in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy); a second visual indicator (See [LED2] in figure 1 of Verkhovskiy) to display voltage presence between a first threshold (See Col. 1, lines 40-61 of Verkhovskiy) and a second threshold (See Col. 1, lines 40-61 of Verkhovskiy); a set of visual indicators to display positive or negative voltage on each line of the power source when line voltage is present (See Col. 3, lines 39-49 of Verkhovskiy); and a secondary power source operatively connected to the supervisory test circuit for powering the supervisory test circuit (See [B2] in the circuit shown in figure 2 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 2, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the first threshold is about 3 volts (See Col. 1, lines 50-55 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 3, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 2 wherein the second threshold is between 3-20 volts (See Col. 1, lines 54-56 of Verkhovskiy which recites “the voltage across the LED circuit will be about two volts or more when the resistance of the circuit under test is about ten ohms or less”).
With respect to claim 4, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the set of visual indicators illuminate during testing where voltage is present (See Col. 3, lines 51-67 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 5, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein each of the set of visual indicators is a red LED (See Col. 3, lines 39-50 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 6, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the second visual indicator is a yellow LED (See Col. 3, lines 51-67 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 11, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the means for a user to initiate the test for the absence of voltage comprises a switch (See [122] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 12, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 11 wherein the switch is a button (See [122] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 13, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 11 wherein the switch is positioned at a face of the AVT for locating at a panel (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 15, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the first visual indicator (See [131] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy), the second visual indicator (See [157] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy), and the set of visual indicators (See [130] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy) are positioned on a face of the AVT (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 16, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 15 wherein the means for the user to initiate the test is positioned at the face of the AVT (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 17, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 further comprising voltage sense lead and continuity terminations operatively connected to conductors of the power source (See [151] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 21, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 wherein the first visual indicator (See [131] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy), the second visual indicator (See [157] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy), and the set of visual indicators to display positive or negative voltage on each line of the power source each comprise an LED (See [130] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reimer et al. (US PUB 2021/0197689), hereinafter Reimer.
With respect to claim 7, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 but fails to disclose further comprising a low charge visual indicator which is configured to illuminate based on charge level associated with the secondary power source. However, Reimer does disclose a low charge visual indicator which is configured to illuminate based on charge level associated with the secondary power source (See paragraph [0039] of Reimer). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the features disclosed by Reimer because doing so enables user notifications of low voltage conditions.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verkhovskiy and Reimer, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN103605083), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Reimer discloses the AVT of claim 7 but fails to disclose wherein the low charge visual indicator is an orange LED. However, Zhang does disclose wherein the low charge visual indicator is an orange LED (See paragraph [0015] of Zhang). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by the combination of Verkhovskiy and Reimer to include the feature disclosed by Zhang because doing so enables a color coded notification of a low-charge condition.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hogan (US PUB 2023/0216326).
With respect to claim 9, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 but fails to disclose further comprising a charging visual indicator which is configured to illuminate while the secondary power source is charging. However, Hogan does disclose a charging visual indicator which is configured to illuminate while the secondary power source is charging (See paragraph [0033] of Hogan). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the feature disclosed by Hogan because doing so enables a color-coded identification of the battery charging condition.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Hogan discloses the AVT of claim 9, wherein the charging visual indicator is a blue LED (See paragraph [0033] of Hogan).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Troutman (US PUB 2017/0171952).
With respect to claim 14, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the switch is a magnetic switch. However, Troutman does disclose wherein the switch is a magnetic switch (See paragraph [0078] of Troutman). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the feature disclosed by Troutman because doing so reduces contact wear over the lifespan of the AVT device.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wiesemann (US PUB 2016/0327599).
With respect to claim 18, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 17 but fails to disclose wherein the voltage sense lead and continuity terminations comprise printed circuit boards (PCBs). However, Wiesemann does disclose wherein the voltage sense lead and continuity terminations comprise printed circuit boards (PCBs) (See paragraph [0035] of Wiesemann). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the feature disclosed by Wiesemann because doing so enables circuit miniaturization and stability.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Wiesmann discloses the AVT of claim 18 wherein each of the printed circuit boards is rearward of the housing assembly (See figure 11 of Wiesemann which shows that the PCB extends to the rearward portion of the housing).
Claim(s) 19, 26-34, 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PUB 2012/0268136), hereinafter Lee.
With respect to claim 19, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 17 but fails to disclose wherein there is a printed circuit board for each phase of the power source with two conductors. However, Lee does disclose a printed circuit board for each phase of the power source (See [61] in figure 10 of Lee) with two conductors (See [169] in figure 11 of Lee). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the features disclosed by Lee because doing so enables circuit miniaturization and stability.
With respect to claim 26, Verkhovskiy discloses a method for performing testing of a power source with an absence of voltage tester (AVT) (See Col. 1, lines 5-13 of Verkhovskiy), the method comprising receiving input from a user to initiate a test (See [122] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy); initiating the test to determine absence of voltage for the power source after receiving the input from the user to initiate the test (See Col. 6, lines 48-57 of Verkhovskiy); during the voltage measurement testing showing visual indicators that the testing is performed (See Col. 6, lines 42-57 of Verkhovskiy); visually displaying at a face of the absence of voltage tester a green indicator (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy) to confirm the absence of voltage above a first threshold after the voltage measurement testing (See Col. 1, lines 40-61 of Verkhovskiy); visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage tester indicators of voltage of the power source having a magnitude greater than a second threshold (See Col. 1, lines 40-61 of Verkhovskiy); and visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage tester an indicator that voltage present is between the first threshold and a third threshold (See Col. 10, lines 10-33 of Verkhovskiy) but fails to disclose performing voltage measurement testing for each phase of the power source. However, Lee does disclose performing voltage measurement testing for each phase of the power source (See paragraph [0016] of Lee). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the features disclosed by Lee because doing so enables testing of three phase circuits and loads.
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 wherein the green indicator comprises an illuminated LED (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 28, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 wherein the green indicator is a green LED (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 29, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 wherein the visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage tester indicators of voltage at each phase of the power source is performed using red illumination (See Col. 3, lines 39-50 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 30, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 29 wherein the red illumination is performed using red LEDs (See Col. 3, lines 39-50 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 31, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 30 wherein the visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage the indicator that voltage present is between the first threshold and a third threshold is performed using yellow illumination (See Col. 3, lines 51-67 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 32, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 31 wherein the yellow illumination is performed using a yellow LED (See Col. 3, lines 51-67 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 33, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 further comprising flashing the indicators of voltage at each phase of the power source during the voltage measurement testing (See paragraphs [0016] and [0073] of Lee).
With respect to claim 34, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 further comprising visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage tester a charging indicator (See paragraphs [0016] and [0073] of Lee).
With respect to claim 38, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 wherein the receiving the input from the user to initiate the test comprises receiving a signal from a switch (See [122] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy) mounted at a face of the absence of voltage tester (See [123] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
With respect to claim 39, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 38 wherein the switch is a push button switch (See [122] in figure 4 of Verkhovskiy).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Hogan.
With respect to claim 35, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 34 wherein the charging indicator comprises a flashing LED to indicate that the absence of voltage tester is charging (See paragraph [0087] of Lee) but fails to disclose that the flashing LED is blue. However, Hogan does disclose a blue LED (See paragraph [0033] of Hogan). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee to include the method step disclosed by Hogan because doing so enables a color-coded identification of the battery charging condition.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Reimer.
With respect to claim 36, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 26 further comprising visually displaying at the face of the absence of voltage tester a charge low indicator (See paragraph [0039] of Reimer). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee to include the method steps disclosed by Reimer because doing so enables user notifications of low voltage conditions.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verkhovskiy, Lee and Reimer, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Zhang.
With respect to claim 37, the combination of Verkhovskiy, Lee and Reimer discloses the method of claim 36 but fails to disclose wherein the charge low indicator comprises an illuminated orange LED. However, Zhang does disclose wherein the charge low indicator comprises an illuminated orange LED (See paragraph [0015] of Zhang). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Verkhovskiy, Lee and Reimer to include the method step disclosed by Zhang because doing so enables a color coded notification of a low-charge condition.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Troutman.
With respect to claim 40, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee discloses the method of claim 38 but fails to disclose wherein the switch is a magnetic switch. However, Troutman does disclose wherein the switch is a magnetic switch (See paragraph [0078] of Troutman). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Verkhovskiy and Lee to include the method step disclosed by Troutman because doing so reduces contact wear over the lifespan of the AVT device.
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkhovskiy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holmes et al. (US PAT 11,112,418), hereinafter Holmes.
With respect to claim 22, Verkhovskiy discloses the AVT of claim 1 but fails to disclose further comprising a charging interface operatively connected to the secondary power source. However, Holmes does disclose a charging interface operatively connected to the secondary power source (See Col. 88, lines 36-56 of Holmes). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Verkhovskiy to include the features disclosed by Holmes because doing so enables repeated energy storage cycles without the need of replacing the power source.
With respect to claim 23, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Holmes discloses the AVT of claim 22 wherein the charging interface is a solar interface (See Col. 88, lines 36-56 of Holmes).
With respect to claim 24, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Holmes discloses the AVT of claim 22 wherein the charging interface is an inductive charging interface (See Col. 88, lines 36-56 of Holmes).
With respect to claim 25, the combination of Verkhovskiy and Holmes discloses the AVT of claim 22 wherein the charging interface comprises a photodiode (See Col. 45, line 45 of Holmes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights