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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips et al. (US 20110196535).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips et al. teach A power line sensor (10, Fig. 1) comprising: a housing (Note housing of 10, Fig. 1) configured to couple to a power line (11, Fig. 1); and a radiation sensor (ultraviolet camera 13) configured to sense a leakage current (corona) on the power line. (Note par. 0028, the robot includes a high definition camera 13 with vision processing to inspect right of way and component conditions, an optical infrared camera to identify hot spots on transmission line components, a ultraviolet camera to identify the location of unwanted corona and arcing)
Regarding claim 2, Phillips et al. teach comprising a transceiver configured to communicate with an external device. (Note antennas 17 and 21, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, Phillips et al. teach wherein the power line sensor, via the transceiver, outputs the sensed leakage current to the external device. (Note par. 0029, The robot 10 is designed to travel autonomously on a preprogrammed path and transmit data back wirelessly about the condition of the line and the robot 10 to the systems operator. The robot 10 collects data and processes the data on board, and then transmits only key results back to the operator.)
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20110196535) in view of Drouere et al. (US 10545184).
Phillips et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Phillips et al. does not teach wherein the external device determines a potential event based on the sensed leakage current to the external device.
Drouere et al. teach wherein the external device (current control module 630, column 7, line 34) determines a potential event based on the sensed leakage current to the external device. ((38) The current control module 630 receives the values of the residual current phasor { (IR)} and comprises a sub-module 631 for calculating a binary variable IRvalid, according to the formula:
IRvalid=(∥{(IR)}∥>SIR)
(39) Where SIR is a current threshold.
(40) This formula means that the binary variable IRvalid is 1 if the threshold SIR is exceeded, and 0 otherwise.
(41) The variable IRvalid is initialised to the value 0 prior to any calculation and when the module of the residual voltage phasor becomes less than 0.75 times the threshold SVR.
(42) The detection of the fault is validated if the module of the phasor of the residual current is greater than the threshold SIR, at least one time during the five iterations. The threshold SIR is for example chosen between 1 A and 5 A.) (Note column 7, lines 34-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al. to include the teaching of wherein the external device determines a potential event based on the sensed leakage current to the external device to validate a fault. (Note column 7, lines 47-48)
Regarding claim 5, Phillips et al. does not teach wherein the external device outputs a notification based on the potential event.
Drouere et al. teach wherein the external device outputs a notification based on the potential event. (Note column 8, lines 1-9, If the variable ValidationIR is strictly positive, then the sub-module 634 transmits an activation order to the sub-module 644.
(48) The sub-module 644 calculates the sum of the variables SD(k) calculated and memorised over the last five cycles. The sub-module 644 carries out a test on this sum in order to determine if it is greater than or equal to 3 or if it is less than or equal to −3, in order to determine a piece of information L for locating the earth fault.)
Phillips et al. to include the teaching of wherein the external device outputs a notification based on the potential event determine further information to locate a earth fault.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al. to include the teaching of wherein the external device outputs a notification based on the potential event. (Note column 8, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 6, Phillips et al. teach A method of determining a potential event of a power line, the method comprising:
sensing, via a radiation sensor (10, Fig. 1), a leakage current on the power line (11, Fig. 1); . (Note par. 0028, the robot includes a high definition camera 13 with vision processing to inspect right of way and component conditions, an optical infrared camera to identify hot spots on transmission line components, a ultraviolet camera to identify the location of unwanted corona and arcing)
and
Phillips et al. does not teach
determining, via an electronic processor, the potential event based on the leakage current on the power line.
Drouere et al. teach determining, via an electronic processor, the potential event based on the leakage current on the power line. ((38) The current control module 630 receives the values of the residual current phasor { (IR)} and comprises a sub-module 631 for calculating a binary variable IRvalid, according to the formula:
IRvalid=(∥{(IR)}∥>SIR)
(39) Where SIR is a current threshold.
(40) This formula means that the binary variable IRvalid is 1 if the threshold SIR is exceeded, and 0 otherwise.
(41) The variable IRvalid is initialised to the value 0 prior to any calculation and when the module of the residual voltage phasor becomes less than 0.75 times the threshold SVR.
(42) The detection of the fault is validated if the module of the phasor of the residual current is greater than the threshold SIR, at least one time during the five iterations. The threshold SIR is for example chosen between 1 A and 5 A.) (Note column 7, lines 34-51)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al. to include the teaching of determining, via an electronic processor, the potential event based on the leakage current on the power line to the external device to validate a fault. (Note column 7, lines 47-48)
Regarding claim 7, Phillips et al. teach coupling the radiation sensor (10, Fig. 1) on the power line. (Note 11, Fig. 1)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20110196535) in view of Drouere et al. (US 10545184) further in view of Xie et al. (CN 105866649A) .
Phillips et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Phillips et al. does not teach wherein the electronic processor is remote from the radiation sensor.
Xie et al. teach wherein the electronic processor (8, Fig. 2) is remote from the radiation sensor.(6, Fig. 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al. to include the teaching of the electronic processor is remote from the radiation sensor to eliminate the need to be in close proximity to the sensor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US 20110196535) in view of Drouere et al. (US 10545184) further in view of Li et al. (CN 205826142 U)
Phillips et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Phillips et al. does not teach wherein the radiation sensor is incorporated into a current transformer.
Li et al. teach wherein the radiation sensor (4, Fig. 1)is incorporated into a current transformer (6, Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al. to include the teaching of wherein the radiation sensor is incorporated into a current transformer to make a compact device and reduce complexity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US 20200072814) in view of Phillips et al. (US 20110196535).
Regarding claim 10, Bailey et al. teach A system for determining a potential event on a power line, the system comprising:
a first line sensor including a first radiation sensor configured to sense a first leakage current at a first location on the line; [0040] In some embodiments, the system can be used for determining a potential event on a power line. The system includes a first line sensor, a second line sensor, and a processor(s). The first line sensor includes a first near field sensor configured to sense a first leakage current at a first location on the line. The second line sensor includes a second near field sensor configured to sense a second leakage current at a second location on the line.
a second line sensor including a second radiation sensor configured to sense a second leakage current at a second location on the line; [0040] In some embodiments, the system can be used for determining a potential event on a power line. The system includes a first line sensor, a second line sensor, and a processor(s). The first line sensor includes a first near field sensor configured to sense a first leakage current at a first location on the line. The second line sensor includes a second near field sensor configured to sense a second leakage current at a second location on the line.
an electronic processor configured to receive data corresponding to the first leakage current and the second leakage current, ([0040] The processor(s) is configured to receive data corresponding to the first leakage current and the second leakage current, and determine a location of a potential event on the line based on the data.) and
determine a location of the potential event on the line based on the data. ([0040] The processor(s) is configured to receive data corresponding to the first leakage current and the second leakage current, and determine a location of a potential event on the line based on the data.)
Bailey et al. does not teach a first and second radiation sensor.
Phillips et al. teach using radiation sensors to detect leakage current (corona). (Note par. 0028, the robot includes a high definition camera 13 with vision processing to inspect right of way and component conditions, an optical infrared camera to identify hot spots on transmission line components, a ultraviolet camera to identify the location of unwanted corona and arcing)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bailey et al. to include the teaching of radiation sensors to detect leakage current to identify corona activity, (Note Phillips et al. par. 0028)
Claims 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US 20200072814) in view of Phillips et al. (US 20110196535) further in view of further in view of Li et al. (CN 205826142 U)
Bailey et al. as modified by Phillips et al. first radiation sensor and second radiation sensor. (Note rejection of claim 10)
Regarding claim 11, Bailey et al. do not teach the first and second radiation sensors incorporated into current transformers.
Li et al. teach the first and second radiation sensors (4, Fig. 1) incorporated into current transformers (6, Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bailey et al. to include the teaching of wherein the radiation sensor is incorporated into a current transformer to make a compact device and reduce complexity.
Regarding claim 13, Bailey et al. does not teach the first radiation sensor incorporated into a current transformer.
Li et al. not teach the first radiation sensor (4, Fig. 1) incorporated into a current transformer. (6, Fig. 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bailey et al. to include the teaching of wherein the radiation sensor is incorporated into a current transformer to make a compact device and reduce complexity.
Regarding claim 12, Bailey et al. teach wherein the electronic processor (110, Fig. 2) is remote from at least one selected from a group consisting of the first line sensor (104, Fig. 2) and the second line sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights