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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 4, 2024 and March 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the capacitive voltage testing system performs a voltage test the termination,” in ll. 1-2. Suggest rewording to read, “wherein the capacitive voltage testing system performs a voltage test at the termination.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull et al. (US 6042407, Pat. Date Mar. 28, 2000, hereinafter, Scull), in view of Bertini et al. (US 2017/0317478 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 2, 2017, hereinafter, Bertini), and further in view of Schweitzer (US 4263550, Pat. Date Apr. 21, 1981, hereinafter, Schweitzer).
Regarding independent claim 1, Scull, teaches:
A capacitive voltage test system ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]), comprising:
a capacitive test point capacitively coupled to a cable of a termination (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [Col. 3, ll. 35-58], [Col. 4, ll. 39-67], & [Col. 5, ll. 1-26]: Elbow connector 120, cable 128, cable entry leg 126, capacitive test point 160);
Scull, is silent in regard to:
and a test point cap mounted on the capacitive test point, the test point cap having a signal contact and a ground contact, the ground contact establishes a conductive contact with a grounded surface of the termination only when the test point cap is correctly mounted on the capacitive test point and an electrical connection is established between the capacitive test point and the signal contact.
However, Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, further teach:
and a test point cap mounted on the capacitive test point (Scull: [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]: capacitive test point 160, eyelet cap 162; Bertini: [0058]: Cap 140; injection port 116, skirt portion 144, provides supplementary information; Schweitzer: [Col. 2, ll. 27-36], [Col. 4, ll. 35-47], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 16], [Claim 17], [Claim 18], & [Claim 22]: test point cap 16, test point terminal 16, provides supplementary information), the test point cap having a signal contact and a ground contact, the ground contact establishes a conductive contact with a grounded surface of the termination (Scull: [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]: rib 164, elbow connector 120, lacks signal contact; Bertini: [0058]-[0059]: skirt portion 144, outer insulation shield 332, MIC body 310, teaches ground contact; Schweitzer: [Col. 2, ll. 27-36] & [Col. 4, ll. 7-22 & 35-58]: helical spring contact (signal) 38, test point terminal contact 18, annular end flange 25 (ground), lip 28, connector sheath 13, shell 20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the eyelet cap 162 of Scull with the semi-conductive grounding skirt portion of Bertini. The combination of Scull and Bertini teaches a capacitive test voltage system comprising a capacitive test point 160 coupled to a cable 128 of a termination and a test point cap 162 mounted on the test point. Scull discloses a capacitive test point and an eyelet cap 162 on an elbow connector 120. Bertini teaches a cap 140 having a semi-conductive skirt portion 144 that establishes a conductive contact with a grounded surface, specifically the semi-conductive outer insulation shield 332 of the body 310 when mounted. This predictable variation is a known technique to improve similar devices to ensure the cap 162 provides a continuous ground plane across the connection, safely preventing hazardous flashovers for the operator, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
However, Schweitzer, further teaches:
only when the test point cap is correctly mounted on the capacitive test point and an electrical connection is established between the capacitive test point and the signal contact ([Col. 4, ll. 7-23 & 35-58]: voltage indicator/cap 17, test point terminal 16, annular end flange 25, exterior annular rib 27, spring contact 38, annular flange 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the spring contact 38 and snap-fit mechanical arrangement of the annular end flange 25 of Schweitzer into the modified cap of Scull and Bertini. Schweitzer discloses a test point cap 17 incorporating a signal contact, a helical spring contact 38, and a ground contact, an annular end flange 25 of the outer shell 20 that engages a lip 28 of a connector sheath 13. Further teaches an interlock arrangement wherein the spring contact 38 is resiliently pressed against the annular flange 19 while the annular end flange 25 requires snapping over an exterior annular rib 27, ensuring the ground and signal connections are simultaneously established only when the cap is correctly seated. This substitution of elements is a known technique to improve similar devices by ensuring reliable electrical engagement and safety grounding are achieved when the cap is fully and properly mounted, eliminating the risk of partial, ungrounded connections, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 1 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]), wherein the capacitive voltage testing system performs a voltage test the termination ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 5-12], [Col. 3, ll. 5-26], [Col. 4, ll. 39-55], [Col. 5, ll. 1-14 & 23-26], [Col. 8, ll. 40-47], & [Claim 1]): teaches the capacitive voltage test system performing a voltage test at the termination).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 2 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]), wherein the cable of the termination is a medium to high voltage cable ([Col. 1, ll. 33-46], [Col. 2, ll. 29-35], [Col. 3, ll. 5-26], [Col. 4, ll. 39-55], & [Claim 1]: high voltage cable 128, cable entry leg 126).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 3 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]), wherein the termination is an elbow plug ([Col. 1, ll. 33-67], [Col. 2, ll. 2-12 & 18-23], [Col. 3, ll. 35-58], [Col. 4, ll. 39-67], [Col. 5, ll. 23-26 & 44-59], [Col. 7, ll. 12-20 & 57-63], [Col. 8, ll. 1-8], & [Claim 9]: elbow connector 120).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull, in view of Bertini, in view of Schweitzer, and further in view of Siebens (US 2011/0025342 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 3, 2011, hereinafter, Siebens).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 1 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, are silent in regard to:
further comprising an evaluation device connected to both the signal contact and the ground contact
However, Schweitzer, in combination with Siebens, further teach:
further comprising an evaluation device connected to both the signal contact and the ground contact (Schweitzer: [Col. 4, ll. 7-23 & 35-47]: voltage indicator 17 (evaluation device), helical spring contact 38 (signal contact), shell 20 (ground contact); Siebens: [0007], [0018]-[0021, [0026], & [0030]: remote test point assembly 165, voltage sensing device (evaluation device))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the integrated voltage indicator 17 evaluation device of Schweitzer to be connected to the helical spring contact 38 and the grounded outer shell 20 via the insulated cable 175 signal line of Siebens. Schweitzer teaches a capacitive voltage test system comprising an evaluation device connected to both the signal contact and the ground contact. Siebens teaches a voltage detection system that utilizes a signal line, such as an insulated cable 175 having a core conductor portion 255 and an outer shielded portion 260, to bridge the cap’s internal contacts to an evaluation device, such as a volt meter, at a remote test point assembly 165. This simple substitution of direct, localize wiring with extended signal line is a predictable variation and a known technique to improve similar electrical testing devices. Implementing this remote signal line connection provides the functional benefit of allowing field technicians to safely monitor in high-voltage conditions using the evaluation device at an accessible, centralized location (e.g., mounting panel 180) when the primary termination equipment is positioned in an inaccessible, confined, or hazardous environment, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
via a signal line.
However, Siebens, further teaches:
via a signal line ([0020], [0024]-[0026], [0029]-[0030], & [Claim 4]: insulated cable 175 (signal line), core conductor portion 255, outer shielded portion 260).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cap assembly of Scull, Bertini, and Schweitzer with the insulated cable 175 signal line of Siebens to remotely connect to the evaluation device. The base combination of Scull, Bertini, and Schweitzer teaches a capacitive test system having an evaluation device connected to the signal and ground contacts. Siebens teaches a voltage detection system where a remoted evaluation device, such as a volt meter, is connected to the cap’s internal contact 230 and outer housing 225 via a signal line, such as insulated cable 175 having a core conductor portion 255 and an outer shielded portion 260. This predictable variation is a known technique to improve similar devices by allowing operators to safely monitor voltage conditions using an evaluation device at an accessible, centralized location (e.g., mounting panel 180) when the original termination equipment is positioned in an inaccessible or hazardous environment, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 7-11 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull, in view of Bertini, in view of Schweitzer, in view of Siebens, and further in view of Haines et al. (US 2014/0254050 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 11, 2014, hereinafter, Haines).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 6 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, Schweitzer, and Siebens, are silent in regard to:
wherein the evaluation device detects an open ground contact and triggers a warning signal even if the signal contact remains connected to the capacitive test point.
However, Haines, further teaches:
wherein the evaluation device detects an open ground contact and triggers a warning signal even if the signal contact remains connected to the capacitive test point ([Abstract], [0013], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0057], [0062]-[0063], [0079], [0110], [0175]-[0177], [0179], [0182]-[0185], [0187]-[0190], [0194], [0205]-[0206], [0219], [0221], [0250], [0253]-[0257], & [Claim 1]: discloses a ground continuity monitor that detects an open ground condition and issues a fault signal while the primary/hot contacts remain live, providing the necessary diagnostics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the active ground continuity monitoring circuit taught by Haines into the capacitive voltage test system of Scull. Haines teaches an evaluation device (a ground continuity monitor) configured to detect an open ground (a ground discontinuity condition) and trigger a warning or fault signal (a test failure signal) while the primary electrical contacts remain live. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices would yield a system where the evaluation device detects an open ground contact and triggers a warning signal even if the signal contact remains connected to the capacitive test point. The motivation to combine these teachings is to improve the operational to safety of the capacitive testing device by ensuring the user is alerted to a compromised ground connection, preventing a dangerous high-voltage floating condition on the test equipment, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 7 ([Abstract], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein the grounded surface is connected to a system ground via a ground connection line.
However, Siebens, and Haines, further teach:
wherein the grounded surface is connected to a system ground via a ground connection line (Siebens: [0004], [0015], [0019]-[0022], & [0024]; Haines: [0007], [0009], [0013], [0015], & [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounded outer housing 225 of Scull by utilizing the ground connection line taught by Siebens/Haines. Haines, teaches an electrical distribution system where a ground connection is established via a ground connection line, ground conductor 106 terminating at an earth ground. The motivation to incorporate this ground conductor 106 is to establish an earth ground path that safely directs unintended fault currents away from human operators, preventing electrical shock hazards. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard grounding wires, resulting in the predictable variation of a safer electrical testing configuration, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 8 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, Schweitzer, and Siebens, are silent in regard to:
wherein the ground connection line passes through a low-pass filter.
However, Haines, further teaches:
wherein the ground connection line passes through a low-pass filter ([0177]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounded configuration of Scull by utilizing the low-pass filter 800 on the ground connection line taught by Haines. Haines, teaches an electrical distribution system where a line ground conductor is monitored for continuity and passes through a low-pass filter 800 to filter out AC voltages. The motivation to incorporate this low-pass filter 800 is to accurately isolate the DC voltage component across a sense resistor Rs by removing high-frequency AC noise, ensuring reliable ground continuity measurements without false triggers. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard filtering circuitry, resulting in the predictable variation of a stable and accurate electrical testing configuration, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 9 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, Schweitzer, and Siebens, are silent in regard to:
wherein the low-pass filter is integrated on a ground side of a contact point.
However, Haines, further teaches:
wherein the low-pass filter is integrated on a ground side of a contact point ([Abstract], [0026]-[0028], [0177], [Claim 1], [Claim 35], & [Claim 43]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounded configuration of Scull by integrating the low-pass filter 800 on the ground side of the contact point as taught by Haines. Haines, teaches an electrical distribution system utilizing a line-side ground contact where a ground continuity monitor includes a low-pass filter 800 located on the ground conductor side to filter out AC voltages. The motivation to incorporate this low-pass filter 800 on the ground side is to isolate the DC voltage component across a sense resistor Rs by removing high-frequency AC noise, ensuring reliable ground continuity measurements without false fault triggers. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard filtering circuitry to a ground line, resulting in the predictable variation of a stable and accurate electrical testing configuration, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 10 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein a shield of the cable is connected to the ground connection line.
However, Siebens, in combination with Haines, further teach:
wherein a shield of the cable is connected to the ground connection line (Siebens: [Claim 19]; Haines: [Abstract], [0007], & [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shielded configuration of Scull by connecting the outer conductive shield to the ground connection line taught by Haines/Siebens. Haines, teaches an electrical distribution system utilizing a power cable that includes a dedicated ground connection line, specifically the ground conductor 106 terminating at an earth ground. The motivation to incorporate and connect this ground connection conductor 106 to the shield is to establish an earth ground path that safely directs unintended fault currents or induced voltages away from human operators, preventing severe electrical shock hazards. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard grounding wires to conductive outer layers, resulting in the predictable variation of a safer electrical testing configuration, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 7 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein the grounded surface is a semiconducting material of a housing of the termination.
However, Scull, in combination with Siebens, further teach:
wherein the grounded surface is a semiconducting material of a housing of the termination (Scull: [Col. 3, ll. 5-26] & [Claim 17]; Siebens: [0005]-[0006] & [0018]-[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the termination apparatus of Scull by incorporating the capacitive voltage test system and grounded semiconducting housing of Siebens. Siebens, teaches a voltage detection test point assembly that receives a capacitive voltage and features an outer housing 225 formed of a semiconductive material that is directly connected to ground. The motivation to utilize a grounded semiconducting material for the housing is to safely manage the electrical field around the test point and prevent dangerous charge buildup, protecting human operators from severe electrical shock hazards while ensuring accurate voltage sensing connection conductor 106 to the shield is to establish an earth ground path that safely directs unintended fault currents or induced voltages away from human operators, preventing severe electrical shock hazards. This combination represents a substitution of one known housing material and testing mechanism for another, yielding the predictable variation of a shielded, capacitively-coupled termination monitoring setup with improved safety characteristics, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 12-13 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull, in view of Bertini, in view of Schweitzer, in view of Siebens, in view of Haines , and further in view of Stollwerck et al. (US 2023/0115600 A1, Pub. Date Apr. 13, 2023, hereinafter, Stollwerck).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 10 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein a plurality of higher-frequency signals from the shield are routed away from the system ground through the contact point, the grounded surface, the ground contact, and the signal line to the evaluation device.
However, Siebens, in combination with Stollwerck, further teach:
wherein a plurality of higher-frequency signals from the shield are routed away from the system ground through the contact point, the grounded surface, the ground contact, and the signal line to the evaluation device (Siebens: [0018]-[0021]; Stollwerck: [0070], [0074], [0090], [0092], [0099], [0125], [0139]-[0141], & [Claim 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensing configuration of Scull by configuring the downstream sensing device to extract and evaluate the higher-frequency signals taught by Stollwerck. Stollwerck, teaches a sensored insulation plug where specific higher-frequency signals, are extracted from the cable via a coupling capacitor and routed to an evaluation device like a signal processing circuit 353. The motivation to route and evaluate these higher-frequency signals is to monitor the cable for partial discharges that indicate insulation degradation, facilitating the location of related defects before catastrophic failure occurs. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying advanced signal processing to an existing diagnostic test point, resulting in the predictable variation of a robust electrical monitoring system, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 12 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, Schweitzer, Siebens, and Haines, are silent in regard to:
wherein the evaluation device detects a partial discharge.
However, Stollwerck, further teaches:
wherein the evaluation device detects a partial discharge ([0024], [0070], [0074], [0090], [0092], [0099], [0105]-[0108], [0115]-[0120], [0125]-[0127], [0129]-[0130], [0132], [0135], [0137], [0139]-[0141], & [Claim 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensing configuration of Scull by configuring the evaluation device to detect a partial discharge as taught by Stollwerck. Stollwerck, teaches a sensored insulation plug where an evaluation device, functioning as a signal processing circuit 353, receives signal voltages to perform functions including the “sensing of partial discharges in a power cable.” The motivation to configure the evaluation device for this detection is to accurately monitor the condition of the cable’s insulation and pinpoint related defects before a catastrophic electrical failure or arc flash occurs. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by expanding the analytical capabilities of an existing monitoring circuit, resulting in the predictable variation of a comprehensive diagnostic testing system, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 14 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein the grounded surface is connected to a system ground and a plurality of high-frequency signals from a shield of the cable are routed through a contact point, a DC blocking capacitor, the ground contact, and the signal contact to the evaluation device.
However, Siebens, in combination with Stollwerck, further teach:
wherein the grounded surface is connected to a system ground and a plurality of high-frequency signals from a shield of the cable are routed through a contact point, a DC blocking capacitor, the ground contact, and the signal contact to the evaluation device (Siebens: [Claim 19]; Stollwerck: [0070], [0074], [0090], [0092], [0099], [0119]-[0125], [0139]-[0141], & [Claim 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensing routing path of Scull by utilizing the coupling capacitor, grounding contacts, and evaluation device arrangement taught by Stollwerck. Stollwerck, teaches routing specific high-frequency signals, such as partial discharges, from a cable through a coupling capacitor, which acts as a series DC blocking capacitor, as well as through a grounding contact 340 and a signal contact 360 to an evaluation device, specifically a signal processing circuit 353. The motivation to route these signals through a coupling capacitor and associated contacts to the evaluation device is to extract and isolate high-frequency diagnostic data while blocking high-voltage DC components, enabling the detection of cable insulation defects before catastrophic failure occurs. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying advanced signal isolation and processing circuits, resulting in the predictable variation of a sensitive, multi-functional diagnostic testing system, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 15 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, Schweitzer, Siebens, and Haines, are silent in regard to:
wherein the evaluation device detects a partial discharge.
However, Stollwerck, further teaches:
wherein the evaluation device detects a partial discharge ([0070], [0074], [0090], [0092], [0099], [0119]-[0125], [0139]-[0141], & [Claim 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sensing configuration of Scull by configuring the evaluation device to detect a partial discharge as taught by Stollwerck. Stollwerck, teaches a sensored insulation plug where an evaluation device, functioning as a signal processing circuit 353, receives signal voltages to perform functions including the “sensing of partial discharges in a cable.” The motivation to configure the evaluation device for this specific detection is to monitor the condition of the cable’s insulation and pinpoint related defects before a catastrophic electrical failure or arc flash occurs. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by expanding the analytical capabilities of an existing monitoring circuit, resulting in the predictable variation of a comprehensive diagnostic testing system, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Scull, teaches:
The capacitive voltage test system of claim 15 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 47-59], & [Col. 5, ll. 23-26]),
Scull, in combination with Bertini, and Schweitzer, are silent in regard to:
wherein a low-pass filter integrated on a ground side of the contact point blocks the high-frequency signals from leaking from the shield into the system ground.
However, Siebens, in combination with Haines, further teach:
wherein a low-pass filter integrated on a ground side of the contact point blocks the high-frequency signals from leaking from the shield into the system ground (Siebens: [Claim 19]; Haines: [0138] & [0177]) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounded configuration of Scull by integrating the low-pass filter 800 on the ground side of the contact point as taught by Haines. Haines, teaches an electrical monitoring system where a low-pass filter 800 is integrated on a ground conductor side to block and filter out high-frequency AC noise and voltages from propagating or feeding back through the ground connection. The motivation to incorporate this low-pass filter 800 is to prevent high-frequency diagnostic signals from shorting or leaking into the system ground, ensuring the signals are blocked from grounding out so they can be preserved for accurate diagnostic evaluation while maintaining a safe DC ground path. This modification represents a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard frequency-selective filtering circuitry to a grounding line, resulting in the predictable variation of a stable and electrically isolated diagnostic testing configuration, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull, in view of Siebens.
Regarding independent claim 18, Scull, teaches:
A high voltage testing assembly, comprising ([Abstract], [Col. 5, ll. 23-36], & [Claim 17]):
a termination including a grounded surface and a cable ([Abstract], [Col. 5, ll. 23-36], & [Claim 17]); and
Scull, is silent in regard to:
a capacitive voltage test system including a capacitive test point capacitively coupled to the cable and a test point cap mounted on the capacitive test point, the test point cap having a signal contact and a ground contact, the ground contact establishes a conductive contact with the grounded surface of the termination only when the test point cap is correctly mounted on the capacitive test point and an electrical connection is established between the capacitive test point and the signal contact.
However, Siebens, further teaches:
a capacitive voltage test system including a capacitive test point capacitively coupled to the cable and a test point cap mounted on the capacitive test point, the test point cap having a signal contact and a ground contact ([0018]-[0021] & [Claim 19]), the ground contact establishes a conductive contact with the grounded surface of the termination only when the test point cap is correctly mounted on the capacitive test point and an electrical connection is established between the capacitive test point and the signal contact ([Abstract], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 13], & [Claim 19]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the testing assembly of Scull by incorporating the specific capacitive test point cap mounting configuration of Siebens. Siebens, teaches a capacitive voltage test system including a test point and a test point cap having both a signal contact and a grounder outer housing acting as a ground contact. Further discloses that the test point cap’s ground contact connects to the termination’s grounded surface simultaneously with the signal contact communicating with the test point only when the cap is properly mounted. The motivation for this substitution is to ensure that voltage testing signals are only transmitted when a secure and safe ground connection is simultaneously established, improving the safety and accuracy of the device by preventing false readings or severe shock hazards from improperly seated caps, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scull, in view of Siebens, and further in view of Stollwerck.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Scull, teaches:
The high voltage testing assembly of claim 18 ([Abstract], [Col. 5, ll. 23-36], & [Claim 17]),
Scull, is silent in regard to:
wherein the termination is a medium voltage to a high voltage termination.
However, Siebens, in combination with Stollwerck, further teaches:
wherein the termination is a medium voltage to a high voltage termination (Siebens: [Abstract], [0024], [0042], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], & [Claim 13]; Stollwerck: [0003], [0008], [0010]-[0011], [0021], [0025], [0029], [0032], [0034], [0036], [0042], [0048], [0090], [0092], [0107], [0115]-[0120], [0125], [0140], [0145], & [Claim1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the testing assembly termination of Scull to be rated and sized as a medium voltage to a high voltage termination as taught by Siebens/Stollwerck. Stollwerck, teaches a testing plug configuration designed to be inserted into a separable connector serving as a termination within “medium-voltage or high-voltage power distribution networks.” The motivation to adapt the termination for this specific medium to high voltage range is to provide the appropriate dielectric strength and insulating material thickness to safely operate across standard utility distribution levels without catastrophic electrical breakdown. This modification represents a substitution of known electrical rating design parameters for a termination component, yielding the predictable variation of a testing assembly safely compatible with standard electrical grid voltage profiles, that further yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, 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 an examiner’s statements of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 6: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach, suggest, disclose or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, “the ground contact lags both mechanically and electrically behind the signal contact.”
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 18, 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 an examiner’s statements of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 20: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach, suggest, disclose or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, “the ground contact lags both mechanically and electrically behind the signal contact,”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 25, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights