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 .
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 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 11 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeder (US 2016/0241017).
With regard to claims 11 and 14-16, Schroeder, in Figures 3 & 4, discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (122) storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (120), causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving first voltage or current values associated with a first location (Outlet A); receiving second voltage or current values associated with a second location (Outlet B); determining whether an electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location or is occurring at the second location by analyzing the first voltage or current values and the second voltage or current values (paragraphs 0019-0023); and performing one or more remedial actions in response to determining that the electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location (paragraph 0023) (re claim 11), wherein the first voltage values are associated with a line-to-line voltage or a line to neutral voltage (as seen in Fig. 4, the voltage measurement is taken across the power and neutral line) (re claim 14), wherein the first voltage or current values include measurements of voltage or current at the first location during a plurality of power cycles (the device continuously detects for an arc fault which would necessarily be across a plurality of power cycles) (re claim 15), wherein the one or more remedial actions comprises at least one of: disconnecting an electrical circuit at the first location from an electrical utility; transmitting the first voltage or current readings to a central office or an edge device; transmitting a message indicating that the electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location to the central office or the edge device; or generating an alert to inform a user associated with the first location that the electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location (paragraph 0023 teaches disconnecting the electrical circuit from the utility) (re claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Nicolescu (US 2015/0381111).
With regard to claim 13, Schroeder teaches the computer-readable media of claim 11.
Schroeder does not teach that analyzing the first voltage or current values comprises: determining a frequency spectrum of the first voltage or current values; and determining that the electrical arcing is occurring in response to determining that one or more portions of the frequency spectrum have an energy level greater than a threshold energy level.
Nicolescu, in Figure 1, teaches a device for providing arc detection by analyzing a first voltage or current value wherein analyzing the first voltage or current values comprises: determining a frequency spectrum of the first voltage or current values; and determining that the electrical arcing is occurring in response to determining that one or more portions of the frequency spectrum have an energy level greater than a threshold energy level (paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schroeder with Nicolescu, by using the frequency analysis of Nicolescu to detect the arcing, for the purpose of providing an arc detetion method that is less likely to trip falsely.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-10 & 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 1 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with determining, by the network device, whether an electrical arcing condition is associated with the first site or the second site by comparing the first voltage or current readings with the second voltage or current readings; and performing, by the network device, a remedial operation in response to determining that the electrical arcing condition is associated with the first site.
Claims 2-10 are allowable as they depend from claim 1, which is also allowable.
Claim 17 is allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a utility monitoring device comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with determining, based on a comparison of the first voltage or current measurements with the second voltage or current measurements, whether electrical arcing is occurring in a first electrical circuit powered by the first power line or electrical arcing is occurring in a second electrical circuit powered by the second power line; and performing a remedial action in response to determining that there is electrical arcing occurring in the first electrical circuit.
Claims 18-20 are allowable as they depend from claim 17, which is also allowable.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with determining whether an electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location or is occurring at the second location by analyzing the first voltage or current values and the second voltage or current values; and performing one or more remedial actions in response to determining that the electrical arcing condition is occurring at the first location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Behrends (US 2014/0119072) and Pettissalo (US 2020/0341006) both teach methods of detecting arcing faults in power systems with similarities to Applicant’s invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm 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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights