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 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 3-5 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 3 recites, determining the second voltage difference by subtracting a second voltage measurement obtained from the second side of the transition point at the second time from a second voltage measurement obtained from the second side of the transition point at the second time” in lines 6-8. It is indefinite as the same voltage measurements are limited as being subtracted from each other. For examination purposes, the above phrase is considered as, “determining the second voltage difference by subtracting a second voltage measurement obtained from the first side of the transition point at the second time from a second voltage measurement obtained from the second side of the transition point at the second time”. Claims 4-5 are rejected due to dependency to a rejected Claim.
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, 7, 9-10, 11, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliot (US 2020/0028349).
Regarding Claim 1, Elliot discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-5, Paragraph 10), the IED comprising:
data processing circuitry (comprising 48, Figures 2-5, Paragraph 24); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media (comprising 50, Figures 2-5) comprising instructions that, when executed by the data processing circuitry, cause the IED to perform operations (Paragraphs 13, 24) comprising:
comparing a first electrical measurement across a transition point formed by a plurality of connected conductors in the electric power delivery system measured at a first time with a second electrical measurement across the transition point measured at a second time (comparing voltage measurements across transition point between 56 and 58 by voltage sensors 52 and 54 respectively, a first electrical measurements at a first/normal operation and a second electrical measurements at a second time/during a fault, Figures 2-3, Paragraphs 31, 34, 38, Paragraph 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”); and
identifying an occurrence of an electrical secondary arc across the transition point when the second electrical measurement at the second time is greater than the first electrical measurement at the first time by more than a threshold (Paragraphs 31, 34, Paragraph 38, “…voltage difference due to an arc fault 42 would likely include abrupt or sudden voltage changes…”, Paragraph 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”).
Regarding Claim 2, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 1, wherein the first electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a first voltage difference across the transition point at the first time and the second electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a second voltage difference across the transition point at the second time (difference between voltages measured by 52, 54 at the first time and second time, Figures 2-3, Paragraphs 34, 38).
Regarding Claim 3, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the data processing circuitry, cause the IED to perform operations comprising:
determining the first voltage difference by subtracting a first voltage measurement obtained from a first side of the transition point at the first time from a first voltage measurement obtained from a second side of the transition point at the first time (determining the first voltage difference by subtracting voltage measured at 56 from voltage measured at 58 at the first time/non-fault operation, Figure 2, Paragraph 34); and
determining the second voltage difference by subtracting a second voltage measurement obtained from the second side of the transition point at the second time from a second voltage measurement obtained from the second side of the transition point at the second time (determining the second voltage difference by subtracting voltage measured at 56 and voltage measured at 58 at the second time, Figure 2, Paragraphs 34, 38, Paragraph 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”).
Regarding Claim 7, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 1, wherein comparing the first electrical measurement with the second electrical measurement comprises accumulating a positive difference signal between the first electrical measurement and the second electrical measurement (Paragraph 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”).
Regarding Claim 9, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the data processing circuitry, cause the IED to perform operations comprising: based on the identification of the occurrence of the electrical secondary arc across the transition point, controlling a component of the electric power delivery system to mitigate an impact of the electrical secondary arc (controlling 40, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 41, “….Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …” ).
Regarding Claim 10, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 9, wherein controlling the component of the electric power delivery system comprises tripping a circuit breaker (tripping 40, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …. such an example, disconnecting the switchable element 40 or SSPC 34 can operate as a circuit breaker to extinguish he arc fault 42”).
Regarding Claim 11, Elliot discloses method (Figure 1-5) comprising:
obtaining electrical measurements across a transition point between a bus of an electric power delivery system and a circuit breaker at a first time (electric power delivery system 30, circuit breaker 34, bus 38, electrical measurements between 56 and 58 using voltage sensors 52, 54 respectively at a first time/during non-fault operation, Figure 2, Paragraph 34);
obtaining electrical measurements across the transition point between the bus of the electric power delivery system and the circuit breaker at a second time (electrical measurements across 56 and 58 at a second time, Figure 2,Paragraph 38);
determining a difference between the electrical measurements obtained at the first time and the electrical measurements obtained at the second time (Paragraph 34, Paragraph 38, “…voltage difference due to an arc fault 42 would likely include abrupt or sudden voltage changes…”, Paragraph 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”); and
undertaking protective measures or preventive maintenance to mitigate an electric secondary arc across the transition point based on the difference between the electrical measurements obtained at the first time and the electrical measurements obtained at the second time exceeding a threshold value (tripping 40, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 40, Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …. such an example, disconnecting the switchable element 40 or SSPC 34 can operate as a circuit breaker to extinguish he arc fault 42”).
Regarding Claim 16, Elliot discloses an article of manufacture comprising one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine- readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by a data processing system (control module 46 comprising memory 50 and processor 48, Figures 1-5, Paragraphs 10, 24), cause the data processing system to:
receive a first electrical measurement across a transition point conductor in an electric power delivery system obtained at a first time (46 receiving electrical measurements from sensors 52, 54 across transition point conductor 38 in power delivery system 30 at a first time/non-fault operation time, Figure 2);
receive a second electrical measurement across the transition point conductor obtained at a second time, wherein the second time is after the first time ((46 receiving electrical measurements from sensors 52, 54 across transition point conductor 38 in power delivery system 30 at a second time/during a fault/likely fault, Figure 2);
based on the second electrical measurement being more than a threshold value higher than the first measurement, identify an electrical secondary arc across the transition point conductor (Paragraphs 31, 34, 39, “….the value, threshold, range, or the like can include a timing component or factor, which needs to be satisfied for determining an arc fault 42 has or is occurring (e.g. exceeding a 5 V difference for longer than 1 millisecond, or exceeding a 1.5 V difference for longer than 1 second can result in a determination of an arc fault)….”); and
based on the identification of the electrical secondary arc across the transition point conductor, provide a signal indicative of a protective action to mitigate the electrical secondary arc (tripping 40, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …. such an example, disconnecting the switchable element 40 or SSPC 34 can operate as a circuit breaker to extinguish he arc fault 42”).
Regarding Claim 17, Elliot discloses the article of manufacture of Claim 16, wherein the first electrical measurement and the second electrical measurement comprise measurements of voltage difference across the transition point conductor (difference between voltages measured by 52, 54 at the first time and second time, Figure 2, Paragraphs 34, 38).
Regarding Claim 19, Elliot discloses the article of manufacture of Claim 16, wherein providing the signal indicative of the protective action comprises issuing an alarm to alert an operator that the electrical secondary arc has been detected (Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …”).
Regarding Claim 20, Elliot discloses the article of manufacture of Claim 16, wherein providing the signal indicative of the protective action comprises issuing a control signal to control a circuit breaker to disconnect the transition point conductor from a load (tripping 40, Figure 2-3, Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …. such an example, disconnecting the switchable element 40 or SSPC 34 can operate as a circuit breaker to extinguish he arc fault 42”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 2020/0028349) in view of Schweitzer, III et al. (US 9,160,158).
Regarding Claim 4, Elliot discloses the IED of Claim 3, wherein the IED comprises communication circuitry (controller module 46 coupled to 52, 54 via communication line 50, 60 respectively, Figure 2) to receive:
the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the first side of the transition point from a first voltage sensor (first voltage measurement from voltage sensor 52 at 56 at the first time, Figure 2);
the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the first side of the transition point from the first voltage sensor (second voltage measurement from voltage sensor 52 at 56 at the second time, Figure 2);
the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the second side of the transition point from a second potential transformer (first voltage measurement from voltage sensor 54 at 58 at the first time, Figure 2); and
the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the second side of the transition point from the second potential transformer (second voltage measurement from voltage sensor 54 at 58 at the second time, Figure 2); and wherein the transition point is disposed between an electrical bus and a circuit breaker (transition point between electrical bus 38, 58 and circuit breaker 40, 34 at 56, Figure 2).
Elliot does not specifically disclose the first and second voltage sensors being potential transformers.
Schweitzer, III discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-10, IED 212, 414, Figure 8), the IED comprising:
data processing circuitry (comprising 1010, 1014, Figure 10); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media (part of 1010, Figure 10);
the IED configured to receive electrical measurements across a transition point on a bus at a first time and a second time (412 receiving 800, 414 receiving 802, Figure 8), wherein a sensors for measuring the electrical measurements comprise potential transformer (1020, Figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the voltage sensors in the IED of Elliot as potential transformers as taught by Schweitzer, III, to step-down the bus voltage to a secondary voltage waveform that can be readily monitored (see, Schweitzer, III, Column 14, lines 26-30)
Regarding Claim 5, Elliot does not specifically disclose the IED of Claim 3, comprising network circuitry to receive, from another IED, at least one of: the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the first side of the transition point and the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the first side of the transition point; or the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the second side of the transition point and the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the second side of the transition point.
Schweitzer, III discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-10, IED 212, 414, Figure 8), the IED comprising:
data processing circuitry (comprising 1010, 1014, Figure 10); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media (part of 1010, Figure 10);
the IED configured to receive electrical measurements across a transition point on a bus at a first time and a second time (412 receiving 800, 414 receiving 802, Figure 8), and
comprising network circuitry (comprising two IEDs 412, 414, Figure 8) to receive, from another IED, at least one of: the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the first side of the transition point and the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the first side of the transition point (412 receiving 800, Figure 8); or the first voltage measurement obtained at the first time from the second side of the transition point and the second voltage measurement obtained at the second time from the second side of the transition point (414 receiving 802, Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the IED of Elliot, another IED as taught by Schweitzer, III, voltage measurements can be locally measured and communicated between the IEDs to reduce wiring and circuitry in case of a long transition point.
Regarding Claim 6, Elliot does not disclose the IED of Claim 1, wherein the first electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a first measurement of harmonic content across the transition point at the first time and the second electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a second measurement of harmonic content across the transition point at the second time.
Schweitzer, III discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-10, IED 212, 414, Figure 8), the IED comprising:
data processing circuitry (comprising 1010, 1014, Figure 10); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media (part of 1010, Figure 10);
the IED configured to receive electrical measurements across a transition point on a bus at a first time and a second time (412 receiving 800, 414 receiving 802, Figure 8),
wherein the first electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a first measurement of harmonic content across the transition point at the first time (804, 800, Figure 8) and the second electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a second measurement of harmonic content across the transition point at the second time (806, 802, Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the IED of Elliot, to provide measurements of harmonic content as taught by Schweitzer, III, to accurately and quickly determine the fault/arcing event (Schweitzer, III, Column 12, lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 8, Elliot does not disclose the IED of Claim 1, wherein the first electrical measurement across the transition point comprises a plurality of electrical values corresponding to different phases of multiphase power that flows over the transition point.
Schweitzer, III discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-10, IED 212, 414, Figure 8), the IED comprising:
data processing circuitry (comprising 1010, 1014, Figure 10); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media (part of 1010, Figure 10);
the IED configured to receive electrical measurements across a transition point on a bus at a first time and a second time (412 receiving 800, 414 receiving 802, Figure 8),
wherein the power delivery system is configured as a three phase power system (Column 1, lines 18-23, “….Although illustrated as a one-line diagram for purposes of simplicity, electrical power generation and delivery system 100 may also be configured as a three phase power system”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the IED of Elliot, plurality of electrical measurements corresponding to three phases to determine fault events in all three phases when the power delivery system is configured as three phase system as taught by Schweitzer, III.
Regarding Claim 18, Elliot does not disclose the article of manufacture of Claim 16, wherein the first electrical measurement and the second electrical measurement comprise measurements of harmonic content or frequency content across the transition point conductor.
Schweitzer, III discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system (Figures 1-10, IED 212, 414, Figure 8), the IED configured to receive electrical measurements across a transition point on a bus at a first time and a second time (412 receiving 800, 414 receiving 802, Figure 8), wherein the first electrical measurement and the second electrical measurement comprise measurements of harmonic content or frequency content across the transition point conductor (802, 800 and 806, 804, Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the article of manufacturing of Elliot, to provide measurements of harmonic content as taught by Schweitzer, III, to accurately and quickly determine the fault/arcing event (Schweitzer, III, Column 12, lines 16-23).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliot (US 2020/0028349).
Regarding Claim 12, Elliot discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the first time and the second time are being tailored/adjusted to predict an arc event (Paragraphs 38, 40) and the power delivery system AC or DC (Paragraph 21). Elliot does not specifically disclose the first time and the second time separated by an integer number of electrical cycles of the power delivery system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the first time and the second time being separated by a set integer number of electrical cycles of the power delivery system, to increase accuracy of measurements and thus to reduce nuisance trips and to predict an arc event to take preventative steps to avoid arcing to occur in a power system with aged, or contaminated components .
Regarding Claim 13, Elliot discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the protective measures comprise tripping a circuit breaker (tripping circuit breaker 40, Figures 2, 4, Paragraph 41, “…Upon determining an arc fault 42, such as a series arc fault 44 is or has occurred, …. can employ remedial measures, actions, alerts or notifications, or the like to stop, reduce, identify, call attention to, or extinguish the arc fault 42. …. such an example, disconnecting the switchable element 40 or SSPC 34 can operate as a circuit breaker to extinguish he arc fault 42”).
Regarding Claim 14, Elliot discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein the first time and the second time are being tailored/adjusted to predict an arc event (Paragraph 40). Elliot does not specifically disclose the first time and the second time separated by at least one week. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a longer duration between the first time and the second time, to predict an arc event to take preventative steps to avoid arcing to occur in a power system with aged, or contaminated components.
Regarding Claim 15, Elliot discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the preventive maintenance comprises replacing or cleaning conductors of the transition point to prevent the electrical secondary arc across the transition point from occurring (Paragraphs 40-41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potter (US 11,870,234) discloses an intelligent electronic device (IED) for an electric power delivery system, the IED comprising: data processing circuitry (microprocessor in 410, Figures 4A,4B); and
comparing electrical measurements at a first point and a second point of a transition point formed by a plurality of connected conductors in the electric power delivery system measured at a first time to determine a differential electrical measurement (differential voltage sensor 210 comparing voltage input from a first point and second point of the transition point between ECB and load, Figures 2-3, comparing input 1 and input (x+1), Figure 4); and identifying an occurrence of an electrical secondary arc across the transition point when the differential electrical measurement is greater than a threshold (Paragraph 23, Claims 2, 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 7/25/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights