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 § 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)(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 1, 3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dent (US 2013/0057997).
Regarding limitations of Claim 1 recited in the alternatives, it is noted that only one of the alternative limitations needs to be met to reject the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, Dent discloses a device (Figures 4, 7-13) interposed between an electrical load (105, Figures 4, 7-13) and a DC voltage source (100, Figures 4, 7-13) having a positive pole (101, Figures 4, 7-13) and a negative pole (102, Figures 4, 7-13), said device comprising:
an electric supply line (103, 104, Figures 4, 7-13) between said electrical load and said DC voltage source for delivering a requisite electrical energy for operating said load (103, 104 coupled between 100 and 105 to deliver electrical energy from 100 to 105, Figures 4, 7-13);
said electric supply line including four individual conductors (two conductors 103 and two conductors 104, Figures 4, 7-13);
said four individual conductors being adjacently routed, identically configured, individually insulated and being of equal length (redundant conductors 103 and redundant conductors 104, Figures 4, 7-13);
a first two individual conductors of said four individual conductors connecting said positive pole to said load and a second two individual conductors of said four individual conductors connecting said negative pole to said load (conductors 103 connecting 101 to 105 and conductors 104 connecting 102 to 105, Figures 4, 7-13);
each of said four individual conductors forming an independent electrical connection between said DC voltage source and said electrical load (each of 103 and each of 104 having its own terminal connection at 100 and 105, Figures 4, 7-13);
wherein said four individual conductors are combined in a common connecting cable (comprising 400, Figure 3);
wherein all the individual conductors are rated for at least the nominal current of said load connected thereto (Paragraph 51, “….In FIG. 11, the redundant conductors (103 for the positive conductors or 104 for the negative conductors) each are expected to carry half the normal current… If one conducting path becomes of such high resistance that the other path passes the entire current, which can be up to double its normal current…”);
a monitor arranged between said first two individual conductors and said second two individual conductors (comprising 106a, 106b, Figures 4, 7-13); and,
wherein one of the following applies:
i) said monitor is configured to execute a comparison of respective currents flowing in said individual conductors (Paragraphs 10-11, 82); and, to do at least one of the following in response to a current difference in said individual conductors: a) generate a signal output (Paragraphs 10-11, 65, 67); and, b) trigger a cutoff device (Paragraphs 45, 53, 55, 67, 69, 76, 81); or,
ii) said monitor is configured to capture electromagnetic fields associated with currents flowing in said individual conductors and to execute a mutual comparison of electromagnetic fields associated with currents flowing in two respective individual conductors (Paragraphs 14-15, Paragraph 40, “…when the current in the two redundant conductors is equal, as it should be in the absence of a fault, no net current flow is sensed within sensor (103). Sensor 103 can for example be a magnetic current sensor such as a Hall Effect device that senses the magnetic field induced by the net 185 current flow. Zero induced magnetic field is an indication of wiring integrity, while a non-zero magnetic field is indicative of a wiring fault….” and, in response to a field difference to do at least one of: a) generate a signal output (Paragraph 40, “…upon generation of an electrical control signal indicative of the fault, automatic countermeasures may be initiated, such as disconnecting the photovoltaic strings at source from the solar combiner output circuit”); and, b) to trigger a cut-off device (Paragraph 40, “…upon generation of an electrical control signal indicative of the fault, automatic countermeasures may be initiated, such as disconnecting the photovoltaic strings at source from the solar combiner output circuit”); or,
iii) said monitor is configured to capture the temperature at a respectively preselected connection point of said individual conductors and to execute a mutual comparison of temperatures at the preselected connection points of the individual conductors and, in response to a temperature difference, to do at least one of: a) generate a signal output; and, b) trigger a cut-off device.
Regarding Claim 3, Dent discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein said individual conductors exhibit at least one of the following properties: a) assume an equal electrical resistance; b) are of an equal cross-section; and, c) are formed of an identical material; and, d) are formed of an identical alloy (redundant conductors 103 and redundant conductors 104, Figures 4, 7-13).
Regarding Claim 5, Dent discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein said DC voltage source has a supply voltage between 24 V and 120 V (Paragraphs 4, 47).
Regarding Claim 6, Dent discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein said monitor is arranged between said first two individual conductors defining a first conduction path, which connects the positive pole of the DC voltage source to said load (106a between individual conductors 103, Figures 4, 7-13), and between said second individual conductors defining a second conduction path which connects said negative pole of the DC voltage source to said load (106b between individual conductors 104, Figures 4, 7-13).
Regarding Claim 7, Dent discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein: for capturing currents flowing in corresponding ones of said individual conductors, a plurality of current sensors are provided in corresponding ones of said individual conductors (comprising R1, R2 in respective 103 conductors and R3, R4 in respective 104 conductors, Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Dent discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein said individual conductors define respective connector points which are each a soldered connection, a terminal connection, a plug-in connection or a connection to a circuit board (soldered/plug-in connection points of 103, 104 at source 100 terminals 101, 102 and load 105 terminals 107, Figures 3, 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (US 2013/0057997) in view of Rannestad (US 2018/0292467).
Regarding Claim 9, Dent does not specifically disclose the device of Claim 1, wherein said monitor includes a socket for connecting said electric supply line which is routed to said load.
Rannestad discloses device (Figures 1-3) comprising a monitoring for a power deice (monitor 4 for power converter 3, Figures 1-3), wherein the monitor comprises a socket to receive a plug of a the power cable of the power device (connection means 6, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 87, “…the connection means 6 may be designed to a specific type of converter 2. When this is possible rigid connection means 6 may be preferred in that plug and socket like connection between the monitoring unit 4 and the converter 2 may be facilitated”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the monitor of in the device of Dent, a socket as taught by Rannestad, to facilitate easy, secure connection of the conductors (Rannestad, Paragraph 87, “…connection means 6 may be preferred in that plug and socket like connection between the monitoring unit 4 and the converter 2 may be facilitated”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, on Pages 3-4 of the Remarks, toward conduit 400 and Claim 2 limitations, now in Claim 1, that the individual conductors are routed so as to be freely movable in the interior space of metal conduit 400.
In response, examiner respectfully notes that there is no support for Applicant’s argument that the conductor in conduit 400 are freely movable, and Figure 3 of Dent shows all four conductors in straight fixed position all through 400. It respectfully noted that Dent’s four induvial conductors 401, 402 combined in common connecting cable 400 meets the recited limitation of, “said four individual conductors are combined in a common connecting cable”.
Applicant argues, on Pages 4-5 of the Remarks that if one individual line fails, connected load is not adequately supplied.
In response, examiner respectfully notes that in Paragraph 51, Dent discloses that even if one line fails, the load remains operable, “If one conducting path becomes of such high resistance that the other path passes the entire current, which can be up to double its normal current, then there is no problem as long as the current remains below the rating of fuses or overcurrent devices (211,212)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Costa et al. (US 10,734,799) discloses a power supply circuit (Figures 1-12) comprising redundant positive conductors and redundant negative conductors (VDCA and return/conductors connected to ground, Figure 5) and current sensing and monitoring circuit (comprising R1, R2, R3, R4 and 440-644, 450, 460, Figure 5) for monitoring current in each of the conductors and a interrupt a circuit breaker based on the output of the monitoring circuit (FAULT B output to SWITCH 430, Figure 5).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 9/12/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights