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 7-10, 18 and 19 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.
The applicant’s use of the acronym “(DP)” should be referenced immediately after all mentions of “Degree of Polymerization” in the rejected claims listed above so as to avoid any confusion or indefiniteness.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rice (US PAT 6,928,861).
With respect to claim 1, Rice discloses a method for real-time monitoring of the health of a transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 1, lines 18-47 of Rice) comprising: obtaining real-time concentration measurements of a plurality of furanic compounds within the transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 7, lines 34-43 of Rice); calculating, based on a first real-time concentration measurement of a first furanic compound and using more than one calculation approach, a degree of polymerization associated with the transformer (See Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8 line 15 of Rice in view of Col. 8, lines 15-44 of Rice); detecting, based on the degree of polymerization and the types of plurality of furanic compounds, an abnormal condition of the transformer (See Col. 6, lines 46-59 of Rice); and responsively performing a remedial action to address the abnormal condition (See Col. 4, lines 24-37 of Rice).
With respect to claim 2, Rice discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the real-time concentration measurements are obtained from at least one local furanic sensor installed within the transformer (See Col. 7, lines 29-33 of Rice).
With respect to claim 4, Rice discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of furanic compounds comprise: 2Furaldehyde (2FAL), 5-Methyl-2-Furaldehyde (5M2F), 2-Acetylfuran (2ACF), 5 Hydroxymethyl-2-Furaldehyde (5H2F), 2-Furfuryl Alcohol (2FOL) (See Col. 9, lines 52-66 of Rice. NOTE, there is no mention in the specification that the compounds listed must all be present, therefore the examiner will broadly interpret the claim to require only one of the listed compounds).
With respect to claim 5, Rice discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first furanic compound is 2 Furaldehyde (2FAL) (See Col. 9, lines 52-66 of Rice).
With respect to claim 11, Rice discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the remedial action comprises at least one of: removing the transformer from service, outputting an audible alert, outputting an alert on a display device, or adjusting operation of the transformer (See Col. 4, lines 24-37 of Rice).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavallini et al. (US PUB 2012/0290229), hereinafter Cavallini.
With respect to claim 3, Rice discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the method is performed by an embedded system comprising a microcontroller, a local display, and a communication device. However, Cavallini does disclose wherein the method is performed by an embedded system comprising a microcontroller (See [12] in figure 1 of Cavallini), a local display (See paragraph [0138] of Cavallini), and a communication device (See [8] in figure 1 of Cavallini). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Rice to include the method steps disclosed by Cavallini because doing so enables user control and feedback.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Yudiastawan (Degree of Polymerization, October 16, 2024), in view of Duanaputri et al. (A method for estimating the remaining life of power transformers considering loading, hotspot temperature, and oil assessment, December 30 2024), hereinafter Duanaputri and further in view of Cheim et al. (Furan Analysis for Liquid Power Transformers, March/April, 2012 — Vol. 28, No. 2), hereinafter Cheim.
With respect to claim 6, Rice discloses the method of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the more than one calculation approach comprises more than one of: a Chendong approach, a Stebbin approach, a first Myers approach, or a second Myers approach. However, Yudiastawan does disclose a Chendong approach (See page 4 section “Kraft Paper” of Yudiastawan). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Rice to include the method step disclosed by Yudiastawan because doing so provides a high correlation equation for the relationship of the furan concentration to Degree of Polymerization. Neither Rice nor Yudiastawan discloses a Stebbin approach. However, Duanaputri does disclose a Stebbin approach (See page [370] section 2.1 of Duanaputri). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Rice and Yudiastawan to include the method step disclosed by Duanaputri because doing so enables a more adaptable determination of the Degree of Polymerization. Neither Rice, Yudiastawan nor Duanaputri discloses a first Myers approach, or a second Myers approach. However, Cheim does disclose a first Myers approach, and a second Myers approach (See page 13, sections A and B of Cheim). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Rice, Yudiastawan and Duanaputri to include the method step disclosed by Cheim because doing so enables a high accuracy determination of the Degree of Polymerization.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Rice, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the Chendong approach comprises calculating the degree of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Cƒµr is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per million (ppm) (See page 4 section “Kraft Paper” of Yudiastawan).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Rice, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the Stebbin approach comprises calculating the degree of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Cƒur is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per million (ppm) (See page [370] section 2.1 of Duanaputri).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Rice, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first Myers approach comprises calculating the degree
of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image3.png
60
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Cĵr is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per billion (ppb) (See page 13, sections A and B of Cheim).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Rice, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the second Myers approach comprises calculating the degree of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image4.png
50
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where Cƒur is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per billion (ppb) (See page 13, sections A and B of Cheim).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suss et al. (US PUB 2004/0130329), hereinafter Suss.
With respect to claim 12, A system for real-time monitoring of the health of a transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 1, lines 18-47 of Rice), the system comprising: at least one processor (See [65] in figure 18 of Rice);obtaining real-time concentration measurements of a plurality of furanic compounds within the transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 7, lines 34-43 of Rice); calculating, based on a first real-time concentration measurement of a first furanic compound and using more than one calculation approach, a degree of polymerization associated with the transformer (See Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8 line 15 of Rice in view of Col. 8, lines 15-44 of Rice); detecting, based on the degree of polymerization and the types of plurality of furanic compounds, an abnormal condition of the transformer (See Col. 6, lines 46-59 of Rice); and responsively performing a remedial action to address the abnormal condition (See Col. 4, lines 24-37 of Rice) but fails to disclose a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations. However, Suss does disclose a memory storing instructions that (See paragraph [0037] of Suss), when executed by the at least one processor (See paragraph [0035] of Suss), cause the at least one processor to perform operations (See paragraph [0035] of Suss). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Rice to include the features disclosed by Suss because doing so enables systematic and repeatable test execution.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Rice and Suss discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the real-time concentration measurements are obtained from at least one local furanic sensor installed within the transformer (See Col. 7, lines 29-33 of Rice).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Rice and Suss discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of furanic compounds comprise: 2 Furaldehyde (2FAL), 5-Methyl-2-Furaldehyde (5M2F), 2-Acetylfuran (2ACF), 5 Hydroxymethyl-2-Furaldehyde (5H2F), 2-Furfuryl Alcohol (2FOL) (See Col. 9, lines 52-66 of Rice. NOTE, there is no mention in the specification that the compounds listed must all be present, therefore the examiner will broadly interpret the claim to require only one of the listed compounds).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Rice and Suss discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the first furanic compound is 2 Furaldehyde (2FAL) (See Col. 9, lines 52-66 of Rice).
With respect to claim 20, Rice discloses a real-time monitoring of the health of a transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 1, lines 18-47 of Rice), the operations comprising: obtaining real-time concentration measurements of a plurality of furanic compounds within the transformer (See Col. 11, lines 1-5 of Rice in view of Col. 10, lines 38-42 of Rice and further in view of Col. 7, lines 34-43 of Rice); calculating, based on a first real-time concentration measurement of a first furanic compound and using more than one calculation approach, a degree of polymerization associated with the transformer (See Col. 7, line 67-Col. 8 line 15 of Rice in view of Col. 8, lines 15-44 of Rice); detecting, based on the degree of polymerization and the types of plurality of furanic compounds, an abnormal condition of the transformer (See Col. 6, lines 46-59 of Rice); and responsively performing a remedial action to address the abnormal condition (See Col. 4, lines 24-37 of Rice) but fails to disclose a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations. However, Suss does disclose a non-transitory computer storage medium encoded with instructions (See paragraph [0037] of Suss) that, when executed by one or more computers (See paragraph [0035] of Suss), cause the one or more computers to perform operations (See paragraph [0035] of Suss). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Rice to include the features disclosed by Suss because doing so enables systematic and repeatable test execution.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rice and Suss, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Yudiastawan, in view of Duanaputri and further in view of Cheim.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Rice and Suss discloses the system of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the more than one calculation approach comprises more than one of: a Chendong approach, a Stebbin approach, a first Myers approach, or a second Myers approach. However, Yudiastawan does disclose a Chendong approach (See page 4 section “Kraft Paper” of Yudiastawan). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Rice and Suss to include the feature disclosed by Yudiastawan because doing so provides a high correlation equation for the relationship of the furan concentration to Degree of Polymerization. Neither Rice, Suss nor Yudiastawan discloses a Stebbin approach. However, Duanaputri does disclose a Stebbin approach (See page [370] section 2.1 of Duanaputri). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Rice, Suss and Yudiastawan to include the feature disclosed by Duanaputri because doing so enables a more adaptable determination of the Degree of Polymerization. Neither Rice, Suss, Yudiastawan nor Duanaputri discloses a first Myers approach, or a second Myers approach. However, Cheim does disclose a first Myers approach, and a second Myers approach (See page 13, sections A and B of Cheim). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Rice, Suss, Yudiastawan and Duanaputri to include the feature disclosed by Cheim because doing so enables a high accuracy determination of the Degree of Polymerization.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Rice, Suss, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the Chendong approach comprises calculating the degree of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Cƒµr is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per million (ppm) (See page 4 section “Kraft Paper” of Yudiastawan).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Rice, Suss, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the Stebbin approach comprises calculating the degree of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Cƒur is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per million (ppm) (See page [370] section 2.1 of Duanaputri).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Rice, Suss, Yudiastawan, Duanaputri and Cheim discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first Myers approach comprises calculating the degree
of polymerization as:
PNG
media_image3.png
60
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Cĵr is the first concentration of 2FAL in parts per billion (ppb) (See page 13, sections A and B of Cheim).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rice and Suss, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cavallini.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Rice and Suss discloses the system of claim 12, but fails to disclose further comprising: an embedded system comprising a microcontroller, a local display, and a communication device. However, Cavallini does disclose further comprising: an embedded system comprising a microcontroller (See [12] in figure 1 of Cavallini), a local display (See paragraph [0138] of Cavallini), and a communication device (See [8] in figure 1 of Cavallini). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by the combination of Rice and Suss to include the features disclosed by Cavallini because doing so enables user control and feedback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights