CTNF 18/836,978 CTNF 81338 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US Pat. 8,525,522) in view of SASU (US PGPUB 2020/0044464) . Regarding claims 1 and 6, Gong et al. teaches an estimation device (800) and method for estimating (using mainly 802, 804 and 850) a position of occurrence of an accident (for example, 860) on a feeder in a power supply system in which a plurality of bases (S1-S6) are connected by the feeder, the estimation device comprising: a processor (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-45): and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-45): acquire (904) information from each base when the accident occurs (as shown in fig. 9A and disclosed in col. 9, lines 16-62); and estimate (910) the position of occurrence of the accident in the feeder by comparing the information between the bases (as shown in fig. 9A and disclosed in col. 9, line 57 through col. 10, line 26). Gong et al. fails to specifically teach a DC power supply system in which a plurality of bases each having a power supply device are connected by the feeder. SASU teaches a DC power supply system (2) in which a plurality of bases (“n” power supply units 3) each having a power supply device are connected by the feeder (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0152). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a DC power supply system in which a plurality of bases each having a power supply device are connected by the feeder as taught by SASU with the invention of Gong et al. in order to have a system which offers superior efficiency and high reliability. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gong et al. and SASU teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Gong et al. teaches wherein the information is a resistance value of a fuse provided in a feeder in a base, a current value flowing in the feeder in the base (current, as shown in fig. 9A step 904), or an amount of electricity flowing in the feeder in the base. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gong et al. and SASU teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Gong et al. teaches wherein the program instructions cause the processor to estimate a distance along a feeder between a base (any of S1-S6) and the position of occurrence of the accident (for example, 860) on the basis of a ratio between reciprocals of the current values or the amounts of electricity of the bases (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 18-38). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gong et al. and SASU teaches the limitations of claim 6, in addition, Gong et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for causing a computer to perform the estimation method according to claim 6 (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 33-45) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US Pat. 8,525,522) and SASU (US PGPUB 2020/0044464) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cannon (US Pat. 7,400,150) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gong et al. and SASU teaches the limitations of claim 2. The combination of Gong et al. and SASU fails to specifically teach wherein the program instructions cause the processor to estimate that the larger the resistance value, the current value, or the amount of electricity is at a certain base, the closer the position of the accident is to said base. Cannon teaches wherein the program instructions cause the processor to estimate that the larger the resistance value, the current value, or the amount of electricity is at a certain base, the closer the position of the accident is to said base (as disclosed in col. 10, lines 9-38). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and estimate that the larger the resistance value, the current value, or the amount of electricity is at a certain base, the closer the position of the accident is to said base as taught by Cannon with the invention of the combination of Gong et al. and SASU in order to accurately and promptly identify a disruption . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US Pat. 8,525,522) and SASU (US PGPUB 2020/0044464) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TANG et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0137557) . Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gong et al. and SASU teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Gong et al. and SASU fails to specifically teach the program instructions cause the processor to display the position of occurrence of the accident on a path of the feeder. TANG et al. teaches the program instructions cause the processor to display the position of occurrence of the accident on a path of the feeder (as disclosed in para. 0133). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the program instructions cause the processor to display the position of occurrence of the accident on a path of the feeder as taught by TANG et al. with the invention of the combination of Gong et al. and SASU in order for inspectors to quickly and easily find the location of the fault (TANG et al. para. 0133). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm. 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. /ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/836,978 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/836,978 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/836,978 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/836,978 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/836,978 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights