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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/03/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 13 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because new ground of rejection has been applied to amended limitations.
Drawings/Objections
The drawings are objected to because the replacement drawing uses reference character 20 and 6 to refer to the same part.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites limitation “active conductors (L1, L1)” in line 4 and it should be “active conductors (L1, L2)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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 1-13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "measuring and control electronics (20)" in line 5 and this renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether “a measuring device (6)” of claim 1 is same or different from "measuring and control electronics (20)" of claim 4. The reference characters 6 and 20 have both been used to designate a single element in the replacement drawings. For purpose of examination, Examiner interprets both are same.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites limitation “the active conductors” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites limitation “the grounding device (M1)” in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites limitation “the active conductors” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites limitation “the grounding device (M1)” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites limitation “the active conductor (L, L2)” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
13. 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 7 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.
Claim 7 is an improper dependent claim. Specifically, it fails to include all limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 refers to an insulation monitor device including grounding device according to claim 1. The ground device M1 is only one portion of the measuring arrangement of claim 1 and therefore claim 7 does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It is unclear if the other elements of claim 1 are required in claim 7.
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.
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, 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) 1-2, 4-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (see Fig. 1 and para [0040]-[0043] of the pending application); hereinafter AAPA) in view of Burroughs et al. (Patent NO. US 4,962,347; hereinafter Burroughs).
Regarding Claim 1, AAPA teaches a measuring arrangement (M (M1, M2, K)) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]) for measuring a loop impedance (Zs) of a residual current loop (W) formed by an active conductor (L1, L2) and a protective conductor (PE) in an ungrounded power supply system (2) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0042]-[0043]),
the measuring arrangement (M (M1, M2, K)) having a measuring device (6) connected to a consumer point (4) and serving to measure a conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) and to compute the loop impedance (Zs), characterized in that a controlled grounding device (M1) is disposed between the active conductors (L1, L2) (See Fig. 11 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]) and
the protective ground (PE) at a feeding point (3) of the ungrounded power supply system (2) (See Fig. 1 and Fig below; See [0040]-[0043]) and
switches the grounding of one of the active conductors (L1, L2) (a/b switches L1/L2 ground in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]), and
in that a unidirectional communication channel (K) is formed between an extended measuring device (M2) and the grounding device (M1) (the wire between M1 and M2 is unidirectional communication channel in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]),
control information being transmitted from the extended measuring device (M2) to the grounding device (M1) via the communication channel (K) in order to control the grounding device (M1) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA teaches switches (a/b in fig. 1),
However AAPA is silent about a three-way switch (S3) configured to switch.
Burroughs teaches three-way switch (S3) configured to switch (See three-way switch 144 in Fig. 10; See Col. 2, Lines 20-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention wad made to modify the switch of AAPA by using a three-way switch (S3) configured to switch, as taught by Burroughs in order to achieve quick and efficient testing system (Burroughs; Col. 2, Lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 2, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 1. AAPA further teaches wherein the communication channel (K) is formed by the residual current loop (W) (W in Fig. 1), a modulated residual current, which transmits the control information, flowing in the residual current loop (W) (modulated residual current flows in current loop W to 4, 6 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 4, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 1. AAPA further teaches wherein the extended measuring device (M2) (4, 6 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]) has a coupling change-over switch (S2) for the controlled overriding of one of the active conductors (L1, L2) (4 has switch inside to control L1, L2 in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]), a load resistance (R1) (load resistance R1 in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]), via which the conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) is registered (See U0, U1 in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]), a make contact (S1) for the controlled overriding of the load resistance (R1) (switch a, b makes contact in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]) and measuring and control electronics (20), the measuring and control electronics (20) being configured to measure the conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) (control electronics 6 measure conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]), to control the coupling change-over switch (S2) and the make contact (S1), to generate and transmit the control information to the grounding device (M1) via the communication channel (K) and to compute the loop impedance (Zs) (See Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 4. AAPA further teaches wherein the make contact (S1) is designed as a semiconductor switch (a, b is semiconductor switch in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches an insulation monitoring device (IMD) for determining the insulation resistance in an ungrounded power supply system (2) including the grounding device (M1) according to claim 1 (AAPA; See [0004]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 8, AAPA teaches a measuring method for measuring a loop impedance (Zs) of a residual current loop (W) formed by an active conductor (L1, L2) and a protective conductor in an ungrounded power supply system (2) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0042]-[0043]), the method comprising the following steps:
measuring a conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) and computing the loop impedance (Zs) by means of an extended measuring device (M2) connected to a consumer point (4) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]),
wherein the grounding of one of the active conductors (L1, L2) is switched by means of a controlled grounding device (M1) disposed at a feeding point (3) of the ungrounded power supply system between the active conductors and the protective conductor (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]), and
in that control information is transmitted to the grounding device (M1) from the extended measuring device (M2) by means of a unidirectional communication channel (K) (the wire between M1 and M2 is unidirectional communication channel in Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]) formed between the extended measuring device (M2) and the grounding device (M1) in order to control the grounding device (M1) (See Fig. 1 and Fig. below; See [0040]-[0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA teaches switches (a/b in fig. 1),
However AAPA is silent about a three-way switch (S3) configured to switch.
Burroughs teaches three-way switch (S3) configured to switch (See three-way switch 144 in Fig. 10; See Col. 2, Lines 20-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention wad made to modify the switch of AAPA by using a three-way switch (S3) configured to switch, as taught by Burroughs in order to achieve quick and efficient testing system (Burroughs; Col. 2, Lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 2, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 1. AAPA further teaches wherein the communication channel (K) is formed by the residual current loop (W) (W in Fig. 1), a modulated residual current, which transmits the control information, flowing in the residual current loop (W) (modulated residual current flows in current loop W to 4, 6 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 9, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring device according to claim 8. AAPA further teaches wherein the control information is transmitted by a modulated residual current which flows in the residual current loop (W) (W in Fig. 1) forming the communication channel (K) (modulated residual current flows in current loop W to 4, 6 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 11, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring method according to claim 8. AAPA further teaches further including a controlled overriding of one of the active conductors (L1, L2) by means of a coupling change-over switch (S2) of the extended measuring device (M2) (4, 6 in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]),
a detection of the conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) via a load resistance (R1) in the extended measuring device (M2) (See U0, U1 in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]),
a controlled overriding of the load resistance (R1) by means of a make contact (S1) of the extended measuring device (M2) (switch a, b makes contact in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]),
a measurement of the conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) by means of measuring and control electronics (20) of the extended measuring device (M2) (control electronics 6 measure conductor-to-ground voltage (U0, U1) in Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]),
a control of the coupling change-over switch (S2) and the make contact (S1) (See Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]),
a generation and transmission of the control information by means of the measuring and control electronics (20), and a computation of the loop impedance (Zs) by means of the measuring and control electronics (20) (See Fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 12, AAPA in view of Burroughs teaches the measuring method according to claim 11. AAPA further teaches wherein the load resistance (R1) is overridden by means of a make contact (S1) designed as a semiconductor switch (a, b is semiconductor switch in fig. 1; See [0040]-[0043]).
Examiner Note
Claims 3, 6, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 USC 112a and b as set forth above. No prior art rejection is provided as the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following:
Regarding Claim 3, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 2, wherein, during a setting time (Ts), the modulated residual current has the shape of a residual-current pulse sequence binary encoded by via amplitude modulation, the active conductor to be grounded being encoded in the residual-current pulse sequence as the control information.
Regarding Claim 6, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the measuring arrangement (M) according to claim 1, wherein the grounding device (M1) has a measuring and evaluation electronics (10) for evaluating the modulated residual current using a measuring resistance (Rm) connected between the active conductors (L1, L1) and the protective conductor (PE) via coupling capacitors (Ce1, Ce2).
Regarding Claim 10, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the measuring method according to claim 9, wherein the modulated residual current is transmitted as a binary-encoded residual-current pulse sequence during a setting time (Ts), the active conductor (L1, L2) to be grounded being encoded in the residual-current pulse sequence as control information.
Regarding Claim 13, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the measuring method according to claim 9, further including an evaluation of the modulated residual current by means of measuring and evaluation electronics (10) using a measuring resistance (Rm) connected via coupling capacitors (Ce1, Ce2).
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday Friday 8am-5pm est.
6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rodak Lee can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/
Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858