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 .
Claims 29-45 of U.S. Application 18/938,433 filed on November 06, 2024 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 29-45 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,214. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application is broader than the Patent in regards to the offset along the length of the conductor.
US App: 18/938,433
US Pat No 12,169,214
An electromagnetic apparatus (EMA) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property of an electrical conductor, the EMA comprising:
1. An electromagnetic apparatus (EMA) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property of an electrical conductor, the EMA comprising:
a plurality of electromagnetic sensors (EMSs) disposed in an array along a length, a width, or both a length and a width of the EMA,
a plurality of electromagnetic sensors (EMSs) disposed in an array along a length, or both the length and a width of the EMA
and circuitry comprising a microprocessor, communication circuitry, and power circuitry,
and circuitry comprising a microprocessor, communication circuitry, and power circuitry,
wherein the circuitry is in electrical communication with the EMSs.
wherein the circuitry is in electrical communication with the EMSs,
Claims 30-45 of application 18/938,433 are also rejected as they depend on claims 2-7, 10-17, 20, and 18 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 43, the claim is dependent of claim 41 and makes claim to 29. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 29, 33, 35-38, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiermann et al (USPGPub 20160238638) in view of Bilbao de Mendizabal et al (USPGPub 20190212372).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Scheiermann
Regarding claim 29, Scheiermann discloses an electromagnetic apparatus (1) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property (such as operating state) of an electrical conductor (21), the EMA comprising (par 43 discloses detecting supply cable): a plurality of electromagnetic sensors (11) disposed in an array along both the length and a width of the EMA (par 44 discloses there can be a plurality of sensors along the device. Therefore an array along a length and width), and circuitry (using 12-15) comprising a microprocessor, communication circuitry, and power circuitry, wherein the circuitry is in electrical communication with the EMSs (as shown in figs 1-3 where circuitry is in electrical communication with the sensors).Scheiermann does not fully disclose wherein the EMA is configured for association with the electrical conductor such that at least two EMSs are offset along the length of the electrical conductor.
However, Bilbao discloses wherein the EMA is configured for association with the electrical conductor (12) such that at least two EMSs (30) are offset along the length of the electrical conductor (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both. )It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 33, Scheiermann discloses comprising a housing assembly configured to bias the EMA and/or EMSs toward the electrical conductor (fig 1 and par 27 discloses an enclosure of 1 as a way to surround the conductor).
Regarding claim 35, Scheiermann discloses electrical conductor comprising a power cord for supplying power to a machine (shown in figs 1-3 and par 44 discloses a plurality of sensors. Therefore, along the length). Scheiermann does not fully disclose at least two EMSs are offset along both the length and a width of the electrical conductor.
However, Bilbao discloses at least two EMSs are offset along both the length and a width of the electrical conductor (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 36, Scheiermann discloses comprising a power cord for supplying power to a machine comprising the steps of: attaching the EMA as described in claim 29 with a power cord (shown in figs 1-3 and par 44 discloses a plurality of sensors. Therefore along the length). Scheiermann does not fully disclose wherein at least two EMSs are offset along both the length and a width of the power cord.
However, Bilbao discloses wherein at least two EMSs are offset along both the length and a width of the power cord (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 37, Scheiermann discloses a method of using an EM measurement system comprising the steps of: (A) calibrating the EM measurement system by employing the steps of (pars 11-15 discloses calibration): (i) associating an EMA as described with a power cord supplying power (21) to a machine (2) to form an EM measurement system, (ii) operating the machine at a plurality of operating states (e.g. unplugged, plugged in but off, low, high, etc.) (pars 10,11, and 33 discloses operating states) and obtaining a signal from the EMA during the plurality of set operating states (par 40 discloses pars 40 and claim 18 discloses obtaining signals), (iii) quantifying the signals obtained in step (ii) and associating quantified values to the operational state the signal was obtained to form a operating state reference values, and (iv) storing the operating state reference values (pars 29-35 discloses obtaining operating states and storing in memory). Scheiermann does not fully disclose wherein at least two EMSs are offset along both the length and a width of the power cord.
However, Bilbao discloses wherein at least two EMSs are offset along the length or both the length and a width of the power cord (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 38, Scheiermann discloses determining a present operating state of the machine comprising the steps of: (i) operating the machine in a present operating state (e.g. unplugged, plugged in but off, low, high, etc.) and obtaining an operating signal from the EMA, (ii) quantifying the operating signal obtained in step (B)(i) to form a quantified value of the present operating state of the machine, and (iii) comparing the quantified value of the present operating state of the machine with the stored operating state reference values stored in step (A)(iv) to determine a present operating state of the machine (pars 7-9 discloses comparing values stored to determine operating states).
Regarding claim 44, Scheiermann disclose a method of using an electromagnetic system EM, comprising the steps of: (A) Determining a parameter (abstract discloses operation states) about the machine by employing the steps of: (i) associating an EMA as described in along a length of an electrical conductor comprising a power cord supplying power (21) to a machine (2) to form an EM measurement system, operating the machine at a set operating states (e.g. plugged in but off, low, high, etc.) (pars 10,11, and 33 discloses operating states) and (iii)obtaining signal from the set operating state, (iii) quantifying the signal obtained in step (ii) to form an operating state reference value, and (iv) comparing the operating state reference value to a lookup table (abstract discloses reference values known would also include a lookup table) to determine an amount of offset from said stored value, thereby determining a parameter of the machine ((pars 29-35 discloses obtaining operating states and storing in memory using comparison of values). Scheiermann does not fully disclose wherein at least two EMSs are offset along the length or both the length and width of the power cord.
However, Bilbao discloses wherein at least two EMSs are offset along the length or both the length and a width of the power cord (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Regarding claim 45, Scheiermann disclose a system comprising an electromagnetic (EM) measurement system comprising an electromagnetic apparatus (1) (EMA) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property of an electrical conductor such as a power cord (21) supplying power to a machine (2) , and computer circuitry comprising instructions (pars 35-37 discloses using devices that implement instructions), wherein: the EMA comprises: a plurality of electromagnetic sensors (11) disposed in an array along a length and a width of the EMA (par 44 discloses there can be a plurality of sensors along the device. Therefore, an array along the length, width or both); and circuitry (using 12-15) comprising a microprocessor, communication circuitry, and power circuitry, wherein the circuitry is in electrical communication with the EMSs; and the EMA is associated with the electrical conductor (as shown in figs 1-3 where circuitry is in electrical communication with the sensors). Scheiermann does not fully disclose wherein at least two EMSs are offset along the length or both the length and width of the electrical conductor.
However, Bilbao discloses wherein at least two EMSs are offset along the length or both the length and a width of the electrical conductor (shown in figs 3A and 3B, pars 56-58 and 61 discloses how sensors 30 can be offset in the width direction but is along the length. Therefore both). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in order to determine current along the conductor.
Claims 30-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiermann et al (USPGPub 20160238638) in view of Bilbao de Mendizabal et al (USPGPub 20190212372) in further view of Usselman et al (USPGPub 20140261551).
Regarding claim 30, Scheiermann in view of Bilbao does not fully disclose wherein the EMSs are offset along the length and the width of the conductor
However, Usselman discloses wherein the EMSs are offset along the length and the width of the conductor (pars 61-65 discloses sensors positioned radially around 116. Therefore offset along the length and width of the conductor).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in further view of Usselman in order to detect current using the sensors.
Regarding claim 31, Scheiermann in view of Bilbao does not fully disclose wherein the EMA further has a circumference wherein at least two EMSs are offset about the circumference of the EMA, optionally wherein the EMA has an inner circumference and an outer circumference where at least two EMSs disposed on and are offset about the inner circumference of the EMA, and optionally wherein the EMA is disposed on a flexible circuit capable of conforming about the electrical conductor.
However, Usselman discloses wherein the EMA further has a circumference wherein at least two EMSs (200) are offset about the circumference of the EMA, (shown in figs 6A and 6B) optionally wherein the EMA has an inner circumference and an outer circumference shown in figs 6Aand 6B) where at least two EMSs disposed on and are offset about the inner circumference of the EMA, and optionally wherein the EMA is disposed on a flexible circuit (boards 1 and 2) capable of conforming about the electrical conductor (pars 60-67 discloses radially around the device). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in further view of Usselman in order to detect presence of current.
Regarding claim 32, Scheiermann in view of Bilbao does not fully disclose wherein the circuitry further comprises analog and digital converters and signal conditioners, and wherein the EMSs are in electrical communication with the circuity via electronic conductor buses, wherein the electronic conductor buses comprise two separate conductors.
However, Usselman discloses wherein the circuitry further comprises analog and digital converters (240) and signal conditioners (204), and wherein the EMSs are in electrical communication with the circuity via electronic conductor buses, wherein the electronic conductor buses comprise two separate conductors (fig 2B show converter and converters and in combination with the circuitry). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in further view of Usselman in order to detect presence of current.
Regarding claim 34, Scheiermann in view of Bilbao does not fully disclose wherein the housing assembly is cylindrical and comprises a cylindrical enclosure sleeve and two inner semi-cylindrical halves, wherein: the two inner semi-cylindrical halves each have a recessed portion for receiving a portion of the power cord and engage with each other to form a cylindrical shaped structure for receiving a power cord within the respective channels and that can be received within the cylindrical enclosure sleeve, wherein the recessed portion of either or both of the two inner semi-cylindrical halves comprise a cord-grip device selected from the group consisting of: magnets, rubber, bumps, and ridges, wherein the cylindrical enclosure sleeve is configured with a hinge to open the sleeve about a hinge axis parallel to the length of a power cord received therein OR wherein the housing comprises a rotatable cam mechanism which has a power cord hole offset from the axis of the cam mechanism, wherein when a power cord is received within the power cord hole, rotation of the rotatable cam mechanism biases the power cord toward one or more of the plurality of EMSs.
However, Usselman discloses wherein the housing assembly (604,608) is cylindrical and comprises a cylindrical enclosure sleeve (shown in 6F) and two inner semi-cylindrical halves (680 and 684), wherein: the two inner semi-cylindrical halves each have a recessed portion for receiving a portion of the power cord (116) and engage with each other to form a cylindrical shaped structure for receiving a power cord within the respective channels and that can be received within the cylindrical enclosure sleeve (680 684 and pars 32 and 60-68 discloses to cover the power cord), wherein the recessed portion of either or both of the two inner semi-cylindrical halves comprise a cord-grip device selected from the group consisting of: magnets, rubber, bumps, and ridges (ridges as shown in figs 6A and 6B), wherein the cylindrical enclosure sleeve is configured with a hinge to open the sleeve about a hinge axis (at pivot 612) parallel to the length of a power cord received therein (as shown in figs 6 as the 2 halves help surrounds the conductor). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Scheiermann in view of Bilbao in further view of Usselman in order fasten the cord around the EMA based on the ridges and pivot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40-43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 40, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest an electromagnetic apparatus (EMA) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property of an electrical conductor, the EMA comprising: comprising the step of: (C) determining if the EMA has been moved or dislodged from the power cord after its association therewithin step (A)(i) comprising the steps of: (i) operating the machine in a present operating state (e.g. unplugged, plugged in but off, low, high. etc.) and obtaining an operating signal from the EMA, (ii) quantifying the operating signal obtained in step (B)(i) to form a quantified value of the present operating state of the machine, (iii) comparing the quantified value of the present operating state of the machine with the stored operating state reference values stored in step (A)(iv), wherein when it is determined in step (C)(iii) that the quantified value of the present operating state of the machine does not meet or fall within a predetermined range of the stored operating state reference values stored in step (A)(iv), then (iv) determining the EMA has been moved or dislodged from the power cord after its association therewithin step (A)(i) in combination with the other limitations of the claim
Claims 41-43 are also objected to as they depend on claim 40.
Claim 39 is 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.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest an electromagnetic apparatus (EMA) for measuring at least one electromagnetic property of an electrical conductor, the EMA comprising: a step of estimating a machine maintenance time comprising a combination of steps (B)(iv) to (B)(vi) selected from the group consisting of:}(iv) determining the length of time the machine is operated at the present operating state and recording in a computer memory the length of time, }(v) repeating steps (B)(i) to (B)(iv) a plurality of times over a given time period and then adding the operating time values stored in step (B)(iv) to determine a total length of time the machine was in operation over a given time period, and }(vi) comparing the length of time the machine was in operation over a given time period determined in step (B)(v) to a reference range to estimating a machine maintenance time, (iv) determining the length of time the machine is operated at the present operating state and recording in a computer memory the length of time at the present operating state, }(v) performing steps (B)(i) to (B)(iv) a plurality of times over a given time period and then comparing the operating time values stored in step (B)(iv) to determine variance of the operating time values over the given time period, and }(vi) comparing the determined variance of the operating time values over the given time period determined in step (B)(v) to a reference range to estimating a machine maintenance time in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yakymyshyn et al (US Pat No. 7,164,263): discloses current sensors positioned along the conductor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights