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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “displaying, via a user interface of the electrical element, a numerical value of the amperage of the electrical element” on line 1-2 lacks proper written description. The above phrase states that the displaying is done via a user interface of the electrical element. However, as best understood, the electrical element, such as the fuse, does not have and is not disclosed to include any form of user interface, or the ability to display such data. As evidenced by Figure 1, and Claim 11, for example, the user interface is on the measurement device, such as the various buttons and display in Figure 1, and not the electrical element. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the electrical element being tested, such as a fuse, has a user interface that displays the numerical value as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature, as such a person would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a feature in light of the disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “impedance data” on line 4 is indefinite. Applicant previously recited “impedance” on line 3, but impedance data and impedance are not the same thing. Impedance data would reasonably include impedance, and thus these features are not distinct, but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these two recitations of impedance and impedance data are therefore unclear.
The phrase “the impedance” on the third to last line is indefinite. While applicant does previously recited that each of the electrical elements have an impedance, applicant expressly recites that what is accessed from the data storage location is “impedance data.” As best understood, what applicant is therefore using to determine the amperage is the accessed impedance data, and not the impedance previously recited. To that point, it is unclear which the above phrase is intended to refer to the prior impedance or the prior impedance data. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the “impedance” from the above phrase is actually the accessed “impedance data,” which can therefore include impedance or other features, such as impedance related “data.”
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “displaying, via a user interface of the electrical element, a numerical value of the amperage of the electrical element” on line 1-2 is indefinite. The above phrase states that the displaying is done via a user interface of the electrical element. However, as best understood, the electrical element, such as the fuse, does not have and is not disclosed to include any form of user interface, or the ability to display such data. As evidenced by Figure 1, and Claim 11, for example, the user interface is on the measurement device, such as the various buttons and display in Figure 1, and not the electrical element. As such, it is unclear what user interface of the electrical element this phrase is referencing. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean the user interface is of the measurement device and not the electrical element.
As to Claims 5, 12, and 18,
The phrase “the status” on line 2 is indefinite, as no status was previously recited, and more than one status exists in the disclosure. As such, it is unclear what status this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 9 and 15,
The phrase “impedance data of the electrical element’s impedance” on lines 12-13of Claim 9 and lines 9-10 of Claim 15 is indefinite. Applicant previously recited “impedance” on line 3, but impedance data and impedance are not the same thing. Impedance data would reasonably include impedance, and thus these features are not distinct, but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these two recitations of impedance and impedance data are therefore unclear. Furthermore, the metes and bounds of what impedance data is in relation to impedance is unclear. Meaning, instead of claiming that the device accesses a stored impedance of an electrical element, applicant claims that impedance data is accessed, and where this data is of the element’s impedance. However, impedance data can be impedance, but it can also be other values, such as voltage, current, a ration therebetween, or any other related values that are reasonably impedance related. As such, this phrase is indefinite.
The phrase “the impedance” on the fourth to last line is indefinite. While applicant does previously recited that each of the electrical elements have an impedance, applicant expressly recites that what is accessed from the data storage location is “impedance data.” As best understood, what applicant is therefore using to determine the amperage is the accessed impedance data, and not the impedance previously recited. To that point, it is unclear which the above phrase is intended to refer to the prior impedance or the prior impedance data. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the “impedance” from the above phrase is actually the accessed “impedance data,” which can therefore include impedance or other features, such as impedance related “data.”
As to Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtis (US 2014/0340094).
As to Claims 1 and 21,
Curtis discloses A method, comprising: receiving, by a processor of an electrical measurement device, one or more user inputs selecting an electrical element from a list of electrical elements (Paragraphs [0026],[0032]), each electrical element of the list of electrical elements having an impedance associated therewith; accessing, from a data storage location, impedance data of the electrical element’s impedance / a stored impedance value (resistance or the voltage drop/current relationship are both reasonably stored impedance values (Paragraph [0021] / note all electrical elements have an associated impedance); measuring voltage drop across an in-circuit electrical path passing through the electrical element in response to a first conductive probe element (one 12) of the electrical measurement device being in contact with a first terminal of the electrical element and a second conductive probe element (another 12) of the electrical measurement device being in contact with a second terminal of the electrical element (Paragraph [0019]); determining, using the processor of the electrical measurement device and from the voltage drop and the impedance, amperage of the electrical element (Paragraphs [0021],[0032] / note the resistance and associated voltage drop/current relationship is stored in memory, which must therefore include impedance (resistance), impedance data (resistance, voltage drop / current relationship), and a voltage drop); and transmitting a signal to one or more indicators / communication interfaces for indicating a status of the electrical element (Paragraphs [0025], [0032] / note outputting a message).
As to Claims 9, 15, and 27,
Curtis discloses A system for indicating amperage of an electrical component including an electrical measurement device, comprising: a first conductive probe element (one 12) ; a second conductive probe element (another 12) ; a processor (36) in electrical communication with the first conductive probe element and the second conductive probe element (Figures 1,4), (Paragraph [0028]); a communication interface (18) communicatively coupled to the processor (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0025], and a data storage location communicatively coupled to the processor and storing executable code that, when executed, causes the processor to: receive one or more user inputs selecting an electrical element from a list of electrical elements (Paragraphs [0026],[0032] / note there must be memory with a program on it for the microprocessor to execute), each electrical element of the list of electrical elements having an impedance associated therewith (Paragraph [0021] / note all electrical elements have an associated impedance); access, from the data storage location, impedance data of the electrical element’s impedance (Paragraph [0021] / note all electrical elements have an associated impedance); measure voltage drop across an in-circuit electrical path passing through the electrical element in response to the first conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device being in contact with a first terminal of the electrical element and the second conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device being in contact with a second terminal of the electrical element (Paragraphs [0021],[0032] / note the resistance and associated voltage drop/current relationship is stored in memory, which must therefore include impedance (resistance), impedance data (resistance, voltage drop / current relationship), and a voltage drop); determine, from the voltage drop and the impedance, amperage of the electrical element (Paragraphs [0021],[0032] / note the resistance and associated voltage drop/current relationship is stored in memory, which must therefore include impedance (resistance), impedance data (resistance, voltage drop / current relationship), and a voltage drop); and transmit a signal to one or more indicators / communication interfaces for indicating a status of the electrical element / for communicating the amperage (Paragraphs [0025], [0032] / note outputting a message), (Paragraph [0036] / note outputting of the current to the display).
As to Claim 2,
Curtis discloses the electrical element includes a vehicle fuse, and the first terminal is a first fuse terminal, the second terminal is a second fuse terminal (Paragraph [0019] / note the probes must be contacting the fuse terminals to test it).
As to Claim 3,
Curtis discloses the data storage location includes a database internal to the electrical measurement device (Paragraph [0021] / note look-up table)
As to Claim 4,
Curtis discloses displaying, via a user interface of the electrical element, a numerical value of the amperage of the electrical element (Paragraph [0019] / note the user interface is the input device 20 and output device 18), (Paragraph [0036] / note outputting of the current to the display).
As to Claim 5,
Curtis discloses the one or more indicators include indicator lights that provide a visual indication of the status of the electrical element, the status being selected from the group consisting of “Inactive,” “Active,” and “Broken” (Paragraph [0025] / note an indication of the presence of absence of the component is reasonably an indication of inactive or active, and a display must include plural lights to indicate as such).
As to Claim 6,
Curtis discloses the first conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device and the second conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device are both at least partially integrated with the electrical measurement device itself (Figure 1 / note the probes are part of the measurement device).
As to Claim 8,
Curtis discloses a front face of a housing of the electrical measurement device includes a lighting element directed towards the first conductive probe element and the second terminal of the electrical element (Paragraph [0025]), (Figure 1 / note the light or display is a lighting element as it must emit light, and it is directed towards the probes as seen in the figure).
As to Claims 7, 14, and 20,
Curtis discloses the electrical measurement device includes a first input for selecting a mode associated with the electrical element, a second input for turning on or off a light emitting diode (LED), and a third input for adjusting the brightness of the backlight of the display screen (Paragraph [0026]), (Figure 1 / note that the inputs have an intended use, but the actual configuration is merely a physical object useable by a user, and the three inputs seen in Figure 1 can be used for these purposes, and that the actual electrical connections necessary for these features are not claimed).
As to Claims 10 and 16,
Curtis discloses the electrical element includes a vehicle fuse, and the first terminal is a first fuse terminal, the second terminal is a second fuse terminal (Paragraph [0019] / note the probes must be contacting the fuse terminals to test it).
As to Claims 11 and 17,
Curtis discloses the communication interface includes a user interface, and the executable code, when executed, further causes the processor to display, via the user interface, a numerical value of the amperage of the electrical element (Paragraph [0019] / note the user interface is the input device 20 and output device 18), (Paragraph [0036] / note outputting of the current to the display).
As to Claims 12 and 18,
Curtis discloses the one or more indicators include indicator lights that provide a visual indication of the status of the electrical element, the status being selected from the group consisting of “Inactive,” “Active,” and “Broken” (Paragraph [0025] / note an indication of the presence of absence of the component is reasonably an indication of inactive or active, and a display must include plural lights to indicate as such).
As to Claim 13 and 19,
Curtis discloses the first conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device and the second conductive probe element of the electrical measurement device are both at least partially integrated with the electrical measurement device itself (Figure 1 / note the probes are part of the measurement device).
As to Claims 22 and 28,
Curtis discloses a range of the amperage is between 0A – 100A (Paragraphs [0022],[0027]),
As to Claims 23 and 29,
Curtis discloses the range of the amperage is between 0A – 80A (Paragraphs [0022],[0027]).
As to Claims 24 and 30,
Curtis discloses the range of the amperage is between 0A – 30A (Paragraphs [0022],[0027]).
As to Claims 25 and 31,
Curtis discloses the stored impedance value is selected from impedance data of a plurality of impedance values stored to one or more data storage locations (Paragraph [0021] / note the stored impedance data is obtained from impedance (resistance) and must be stored in one or more data storage locations).
As to Claims 26 and 32,
Curtis discloses the stored impedance value is selected based on receiving one or more user inputs identifying the electrical element (Paragraphs [0019],[0021],[0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2021/0156886 to Russell which discloses a test probe used to measure a circuit and 2) US 10,837,994 to Whisenand et al. which discloses an electrical test device including a speaker, display, and a processor that calculates an electrical resistance based on a voltage drop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights