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/IDSs) submitted on 12/12/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS/IDSs is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Patent No. EP3276363A1 to Juge et al.
Regarding claim 1, Juge teaches a sensor arrangement for a gas-insulated switchgear device, comprising:
a connector having a housing defining a hollow interior (figure 6: element 24 is part of a connector having a housing and the area where reference numeral 18 is in the figure is the hollow interior);
a current conductor passing through the hollow interior of the connector (see figures 2 & 3: the current conductor 4 is surrounded by element 34 and therefore passes through the hollow interior);
a low power instrument transformer (reference numerals , collectively) comprising:
an electrode having a ring shape and including a voltage sensor for measuring a voltage of the current conductor (28; “The reference plate 26 and the sensing plate 28 are ring-shaped.”), and
a current sensor positioned to measure a current of the current conductor (34);
a shielding field electrode disposed between the current sensor and the current conductor (26); and
a resin cooperating with and surrounding the current conductor, the voltage sensor, the current sensor and the shielding field electrode to fill the hollow interior (“The casing 24 is made of a dielectric material. Such a dielectric material is, for example, an epoxy resin, an epoxy and aluminium oxide mixture, or plastic. Such a plastic is, for instance, polyurethane, polyester or high-density polyethylene.”).
Regarding claim 2, Juge teaches the sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the current sensor is a Rogowski coil that surrounds a current conductor of the low power instrument transformer (“Rogowski coil 34”).
Regarding claim 7, Juge teaches a gas-insulated switchgear device (“For instance, the transmission line 2 is a part of a gas insulated switchgear.”), comprising:
a sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 1.
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.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juge.
Regarding claim 3, Juge teaches the sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 2, but does not teach explicitly wherein the current sensor includes a first Rogowski coil and a second Rogowski coil, wherein the second coil operates in response to a failure of the first Rogowski coil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two or more Rogowski coils in order to provide redundancy and thereby reduce operational downtime in case of failure because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juge in view of WIPO Patent Document No. WO2015113795A1 to Bieletzki et al.
Regarding claim 4, Juge teaches teaches the sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the shielding field electrode includes a shielding mesh.
However, Bieletzki teaches wherein the shielding field electrode includes a shielding mesh (figures 1 & 2 elements 3a,3b,3c).
It 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 to use the mesh of Bieletzki as shielding in order to better spread current density across the shield and therefore prevent “hot spots” where current density tends to gather like in solid electrodes, thereby allowing for more consistent shielding.
Regarding claim 5, Juge in view of Bieletzki teaches the sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 4, and Bieletzki further teaches wherein the shielding mesh comprises a metallic mesh (“wire mesh or expanded metal”).
Regarding claim 6, Juge in view of Bieletzki teaches the sensor arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the shielding field electrode includes a first end and a second end that each flare away from the current conductor (see, e.g., figures 5 & 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20150069998 to Nero discloses a power line takeoff clamp assembly which has a converting unit that includes a core made from material in which magnetic flux is established and wire is wound about a first or second portion of a core.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20080246507 to Gunn et al. discloses a body capacitance electric field powered device for high voltage lines.
United States Patent No. 6489782 to Baier et al. discloses an electrical system with a stand-off insulator-sensor for on-line partial discharge monitoring of the state of high-voltage insulation.
United States Patent No. 5432438 to Baumgartner et al. discloses a combined current and voltage transformer for a metal-enclosed gas-insulated high-voltage switching station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights