DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 4-5 are objected to.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A method of operation of a measurement apparatus for performing a measurement of a quality indicator for an electrical insulator, the quality indicator comprising a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time, the method comprising:
sampling an output from an electrical circuit for measuring the electrical parameter for the electrical insulator to produce at least one sample;
performing steps of sampling the output from the electrical circuit to produce one or more further samples at successive increments in time and processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter to time;
calculating a predicted value for the quality indicator on a basis comprising the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function for the second time; and
generating an electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement based on at least the predicted value of the quality indicator.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a method which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time” that is a mathematical operation which may be which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, mathematical operation and human mental activity are abstract ideas.
Yes, claim 1 recites “processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter to time” that is a mathematical operation which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, mathematical operation and human mental activity are abstract ideas.
Yes, claim 1 recites “calculating a predicted value for the quality indicator on a basis comprising the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function for the second time” that is a mathematical operation which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, mathematical operation and human mental activity are abstract ideas.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “sampling an output from an electrical circuit for measuring the electrical parameter for the electrical insulator to produce at least one sample” that is merely a general data collection step which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “performing step of sampling the output from the electrical circuit to produce one or more further samples at successive increments in time” that is merely a general data collection step which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “generating an electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement based on at least the predicted value of the quality indicator” that is general insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6-8, each of claims 2-3 and 6-8 corresponds to extra-solution activity which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 9-14, each of claims 9-14 corresponds to a mathematical operation which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, mathematical operation and human mental activity are abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 15:
15. Measurement apparatus for performing a measurement of a quality indicator for an electrical insulator, the quality indicator comprising a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time, the measurement apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to cause the measurement apparatus to:
sample an output from an electrical circuit for measuring the electrical parameter for the electrical insulator to produce at least one sample;
perform steps of sampling the output from the electrical circuit to produce one or more further samples at successive increments in time and processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter to time;
calculate a predicted value for the quality indicator on a basis comprising a value of the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function for the second time; and
generate an electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement based on at least the predicted value of the quality indicator.
Analysis Steps for claim 15:
Step 1: Is claim 15 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 15 recites measurement apparatus which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 15 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 15 recites “a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time” that is a mathematical operation which may be which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, human mental activity is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 15 recites “processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter to time” that is a mathematical operation which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, human mental activity is abstract idea.
Yes, claim 15 recites “calculate a predicted value for the quality indicator on a basis comprising a value of the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function for the second time” that is a mathematical operation which may be done by human mental activity using pen and paper, as a result, therefore, human mental activity is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 15 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 15 recites additional elements “at least one processor” that is a general component of a general computer which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 15 recites additional elements “sample an output from an electrical circuit for measuring the electrical parameter for the electrical insulator to produce at least one sample” that is merely a general data collection step which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 15 recites additional elements “perform step of sampling the output from the electrical circuit to produce one or more further samples at successive increments in time” that is merely a general data collection step which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
No, claim 15 recites additional elements “generate an electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement based on at least the predicted value of the quality indicator” that is general insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 16-17, each of claims 16-17 corresponds to extra-solution activity which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 18-19, each of claims 18-19 corresponds extra-solution activity that is merely used in performing measurement which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 require the limitation "non-transitory" as directed to the computer-readable storage medium.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium, particularly when the specification does not expressly state that the computer readable medium is not a signal per se (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurek et al. (US 2020/0096544), and further in view of Gao et al. (US 2014/0163912).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 20, Zurek teaches a method of operation of a measurement apparatus for performing a measurement of a quality indicator for an electrical device (e.g. fig. 1, [0050], operating test apparatus 1 for measuring testing the resistance of electrical device 2), the quality indicator comprising a first value of an electrical parameter and a second value of the electrical parameter (e.g. figs. 1 and 6c, [0050], resistance is based on measured voltage and applied current), the method comprising:
sampling an output from an electrical circuit for measuring the electrical parameter for the electrical device to produce at least one sample (e.g. fig. 1, [0051], sampler 7 samples an output from sensor 5 to produce samples);
performing steps of sampling the output from the electrical circuit to produce
one or more further samples at successive increments in time (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0054], iteratively performing sampling the output from the sensor to produce one or more further samples) and processing at least some of the samples to generate the measured electrical parameter to time (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 6a-6c, [0068]-[0070], samples are processed to generate resistance over time);
calculating a predicted value for the quality indicator on a basis comprising the electrical parameter for the second time (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 6b, predict a resistance value based on current as shown in fig. 6b); and
generating an electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement based on at least the predicted value of the quality indicator (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 6a-6c, output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
However, Zurek is silent with regards to a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time; and to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter; and the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function.
Gao teaches resistance is a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time (e.g. [0084], Rs is a ratio of Us to Io); and to generate an approximate function relating the electrical parameters (e.g. [0084], Rs is a ratio of Us to Io); and the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function (e.g. [0084], Rs is a ratio of Us to Io).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zurek by applying the teaching of Gao to explicitly have a ratio of a first value of an electrical parameter at a first time to a second value of the electrical parameter at a second time; and to generate an approximate function relating the measured electrical parameter; and the electrical parameter indicated by the approximate function, for the purpose of performing approximation to improve precision (e.g. Gao, [0004]) and simplifying estimation process.
Regarding claim 2, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the electrical parameter is a current (e.g. Zurek, figs. 1 and 6c, [0050], applied current).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the electrical parameter is a resistance (e.g. Zurek, figs. 1 and 6c, [0050], it is obvious to calculated resistance based on applied current in order to use the calculated resistance as parameter for further display).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement indicates that the measurement is complete (e.g. Zurek, figs. 2, 6c and 8, stopping measurement when 100% is reaches (as shown in fig. 6c) based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches comprising stopping the measurement in response to the electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement (e.g. Zurek, figs. 2, 6c and 8, stopping measurement when 100% is reaches (as shown in fig. 6c) based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches comprising generating an electrical signal causing display of the predicted value for the quality indicator in dependence on the electrical signal indicating the state of the measurement (e.g. Zurek, fig. 2, display resistance on display 14 based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein said processing some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating measured resistance to time comprises discarding a set of samples (e.g. Zurek, [0057], discarding at least a sample).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein said processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating measured resistance to time comprises linear regression (e.g. [0096], Zurek, linear regression).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches the electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement indicates that the measurement is complete (e.g. Zurek, figs. 2, 6c and 8, stopping measurement when 100% is reaches (as shown in fig. 6c) based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20), wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the measurement apparatus to stop the measurement in response to the electrical signal indicating a state of the measurement (e.g. Zurek, figs. 2, 6c and 8, stopping measurement when 100% is reaches (as shown in fig. 6c) based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
Regarding claim 17, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the measurement apparatus to generate an electrical signal causing display of the predicted value for the quality indicator in dependence on the electrical signal indicating the state of the measurement (e.g. Zurek, fig. 2, display resistance on display 14 based on output indicating a state of the measurement 20).
Regarding claim 18, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the measurement apparatus is a meter (e.g. fig. 1, [0050], Zurek, hand-held digital meter).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein the measurement apparatus comprises a meter (e.g. fig. 1, [0050], hand-held digital meter) and a user device comprising a processor in communication with a processor in the meter (e.g. fig. 1, [0064], on-board computer has processor is connected to hand-held digital meter to process large number of measurements).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurek et al. (US 2020/0096544) in view of Gao et al. (US 2014/0163912), and further in view of Tu (CN 103558149 B).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein said processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating measured resistance to time (e.g. as rejected in claim 1).
However, combination of Zurek and Gao is silent with regards to comprises least squares curve fitting.
Tu teaches comprises least squares curve fitting (e.g. [0052], fitting such as a least squares function curve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zurek and Gao by applying the teaching of Werelius to explicitly have comprises least squares curve fitting, for the purpose of obtaining better measurement estimation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurek et al. (US 2020/0096544) in view of Gao et al. (US 2014/0163912), and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2015/0123676).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Zurek and Gao teaches wherein said processing at least some of the samples to generate an approximate function relating measured resistance to time (e.g. as rejected in claim 1).
However, combination of Zurek and Gao is silent with regards to comprises non-linear regression.
Lu teaches comprises non-linear regression (e.g. [0024], non-linear regression).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zurek and Gao by applying the teaching of Werelius to explicitly have comprises non-linear regression, for the purpose of obtaining better measurement estimation.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurek et al. (US 2020/0096544) in view of Gao et al. (US 2014/0163912), and further in view of Werelius et al. (US 2016/0041219).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Zurek and Gao is silent with regards to wherein the quality indicator for the electrical insulator is a polarization index.
Werelius teaches a quality indicator for an electrical insulator is a polarization index (e.g. abstract, [0044], polarization index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zurek and Gao by applying the teaching of Werelius to explicitly have wherein the quality indicator for the electrical insulator is a polarization index, for the purpose of obtaining detail information related to the electrical insulator in order to obtain better measurement results.
Regarding claim 14, combination of Zurek and Gao is silent with regards to wherein the quality indicator for the electrical insulator is a dielectric absorption ratio.
Werelius teaches wherein the quality indicator for the electrical insulator is a dielectric absorption ratio (e.g. abstract, [0044], dielectric absorption ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zurek and Gao by applying the teaching of Werelius to explicitly have wherein the quality indicator for the electrical insulator is a dielectric absorption ratio, for the purpose of obtaining detail information related to the electrical insulator in order to obtain better measurement results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (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 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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights