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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO et al. (JP 2015122701; hereinafter SAITO) in view of Mahalingam et al. (US 20130096853).
Regarding claim 1, SAITO teaches in figure(s) 1-4 a contact resistance measurement device comprising:
a first AC current source (2a; fig. 1) configured to supply a contact determination AC current (current @ 1a) to a current path including a determination target contact part (pg. 2 - measure a resistance value R of the measurement target 100);
a synchronous detection unit (12,13,22) configured to synchronously detect an AC voltage (11,Vi) corresponding to a frequency of the contact determination AC current and generated at the determination target contact part when the contact determination AC current is supplied from the first AC current source with a synchronization signal having a frequency (pg. 2 – 128 Hz) identical to the frequency of the AC voltage and output a DC voltage (Vdc*) whose voltage value changes according to a voltage value of the AC voltage (@ A/D 15,23); and
a processing unit (5/1) configured to execute a quality determination process for the determination target contact part (pg. 6 - resistance calculation process for
calculating the resistance value R of the object 100 and an output process for outputting the calculated resistance value R are executed) based on the DC voltage output from the synchronous detection unit,
wherein the first AC current source is configured to be able to supply a plurality of the contact determination AC currents defined at different frequencies (pg. 6 - data for sine wave output stored in advance in an internal memory or the like in synchronization with a reference clock having a frequency sufficiently higher than 128 Hz by the CPU) to the current path,
the synchronous detection unit synchronously detects a plurality of the AC voltages (voltages @ 1b based on S0) generated at the determination target contact part when the plurality of the contact determination AC currents (currents @ 1a based on S0) are supplied to the current path with the synchronization signals respectively having frequencies each identical to the corresponding one of the different frequencies of the plurality of the AC voltages, and outputs a plurality of the DC voltages whose voltage values change according to voltage values of the plurality of the AC voltages corresponding to the different frequencies (frequencies of S0), and
SAITO does not teach explicitly the processing unit executes the quality determination process for each of the different frequencies.
However, Mahalingam teaches in figure(s) 1-6 the processing unit (118; fig. 1) executes the quality determination process (good or damaged breaker; fig. 2) for each of the different frequencies (different frequencies; figs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SAITO by having the processing unit executes the quality determination process for each of the different frequencies as taught by Mahalingam in order to provide use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way as evidenced by "processing unit is further configured to determine an impedance of the contacts using the determined to determine a condition of the pair(s) of contacts" (para. 7 of Mahalingam).
Regarding claim 2, SAITO in view of Mahalingam teaches the contact resistance measurement device according to claim 1,
Mahalingam additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-6 wherein the first AC current source is configured to be able to combine the plurality of the contact determination AC currents respectively having the different frequencies and supply the combined contact determination AC current to the current path (para. 21 - signal generator 102 generates an electrical signal 103 having a frequency range that includes a plurality of different frequencies), the synchronous detection unit is configured including a plurality of synchronous detection circuits provided in a one-to-one correspondence with the different frequencies, each of the plurality of synchronous detection circuits synchronously detects the AC voltage having a frequency corresponding to the different frequencies on a one-to-one basis with the synchronization signal having a frequency identical to the frequency of the AC voltage, and outputs the DC voltage whose voltage value changes according to the voltage value of the AC voltage corresponding to the frequency (para. 24 - different surface conditions of the contact pair 104 may affect the response of the electrical signal 103 at different frequencies, such as pitting, dust deposits, roughness of the surface of the contact pair 104, carbon deposits, sulphide corrosion, rust, moisture, decay, deterioration, and/or oxidation, among others. In various embodiments, the response, such as the resulting or measured electrical signal is used to determine and identify the surface condition of the contact pair 104), and the processing unit executes the quality determination process for each of the different frequencies.
Regarding claim 3, SAITO in view of Mahalingam teaches the contact resistance measurement device according to claim 1,
Mahalingam additionally teaches in figure(s) 1-6 wherein the synchronous detection unit sequentially and synchronously detects each of the plurality of the AC voltages with a synchronization signal having a frequency identical to the corresponding one of the different frequencies of the plurality of the AC voltages (para. 21 - signal generator 102 may generate an electrical signal 103 with frequencies up to 20 MHz. It should be noted that the one or more frequencies may be based on a particular contact condition to be monitored or identified), and sequentially outputs a DC voltage whose voltage value changes according to a voltage value of each of the plurality the AC voltages corresponding to the different frequencies (para. 24 - based on the injected frequencies and the measured responses, electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) as described in more detail herein, may be used to determine the particular condition (and the extent of the condition) affecting the surface of the contact pair 104.), and the processing unit executes the quality determination process for each of the different frequencies.
6. Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of Mahalingam, and further in view of Nakada et al. (US 20050054944).
Regarding claim 4, SAITO in view of Mahalingam teaches the contact resistance measurement device according to claim 1,
SAITO does not teach explicitly wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that a contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good when determined to be good for more than half the number of times of the executed determination process.
However, Nakada teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that a contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good when determined to be good for more than half the number of times of the executed determination process (S63 in fig. 7; para. 119 - When the value of R.sub.B does not fall within this range, it is determined that the contact is not normal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SAITO by having wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that a contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good when determined to be good for more than half the number of times of the executed determination process as taught by Nakada in order to provide "apparatus capable of carrying out an accurate bioelectrical impedance measurement by determining whether contact of a living body with electrodes used at the time of the bioelectrical impedance measurement is normal or not more accurately" (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, SAITO in view of Mahalingam teaches the contact resistance measurement device according to claim 1,
SAITO does not teach explicitly wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is bad when determined to be bad in all the executed determination processes.
However, Nakada teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is bad when determined to be bad in all the executed determination processes (S63 in fig. 7; para. 119 - When the value of R.sub.B does not fall within this range, it is determined that the contact is not normal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SAITO by having wherein the processing unit executes, as the quality determination process, a determination process for determining that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is good for each of the different frequencies when the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is smaller than a resistance value defined in advance, and ultimately determines that the contact resistance of the determination target contact part is bad when determined to be bad in all the executed determination processes as taught by Nakada in order to provide "apparatus capable of carrying out an accurate bioelectrical impedance measurement by determining whether contact of a living body with electrodes used at the time of the bioelectrical impedance measurement is normal or not more accurately" (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the first AC current source supplies the contact determination AC current to at least one current path among the current path including contact parts between the Hi side source terminal and the one end of the measurement target and between the Lo side source terminal and the other end of the measurement target and the current path including contact parts between the sense terminal for signal detection on Hi side and the one end of the measurement target and between the sense terminal for signal detection on Lo side and the other end of the measurement target; and the processing unit executes, for each of the different frequencies, the quality determination process in which each of the contact parts in the at least one current path is regarded as the determination target contact part” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 7-9 are objected for dependent upon the objected base claim 6.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ball et. al. (US 4954782) discloses “Self-checking Ohmmeter That Checks For Contact Resistance Of Its Probes”.
Nakano et. al. (US 20170222489) discloses “detection apparatus, electric power receiving apparatus, electric power transmission apparatus, wireless electric power transmission system, and detection method”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights