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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2025 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Notes
2. Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(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.
4. Claims 32 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savary et al. (US. Pub. 20100045301; hereinafter “Savary”).
Regarding claim 32, Savary discloses a method for identifying and managing risk state, stress conditions or aging state associated with at least one capacitor associated with electrical equipment in an electrical power system (a method for monitoring a capacitor in a electric power transmission and distribution system and predicting end-of-life of high voltage the capacitor. See paragraph [0002] and abstract), comprising: monitoring internal pressure of the at least one capacitor using at least one pressure sensing device (a pressure sensor 520 measured internal pressure of the capacitor 510. See [0070] and Fig. 5); analyzing the monitored internal pressure on at least one processing device coupled to the at least one pressure sensing device to identify pressure variations in the at least one capacitor (a processing module 530 electrically connected with the pressure sensor via a connection bus 540. The pressure sensor 520 may be incorporated into a cover of the enclosure of the capacitor 510, It samples the internal pressure within the enclosure of the capacitor 510, generates a signal representing the pressure, and transmits the signal to the processing module 530. The processor 531 configured to read/analyze the output of the pressure sensor 520 and generated an audio/visual warning to an audio/visual device 535. See Fig. 5 and [0071-72]); and in response to the identified pressure variations exceeding a threshold or having a pattern or patterns indicative of an issue or possible or probable failure, triggering at least one protection mechanism to reduce or significantly eliminate the possibility of hazardous conditions resulting from the identified pressure variations (The pressure level at which an indication of capacitor failure is triggered may be set above the highest internal pressure of the capacitor 510 expected throughout the life of the capacitor 510. A processing module may be implemented as one or more analog or digital comparators that compare a signal received from a pressure sensor to one or more thresholds, triggering an indication of capacitor failure when a threshold is violated, …., an audio/visual warning device connected to an output of the processor, and providing an indication of capacitor state in response to detection of an approaching end-of-life of the monitored capacitor, and the capacitor may be replaced in response to the warning. See [0071] and also see [0056,58-60]).
Regarding claim 37, Savary discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the threshold corresponds to a pressure level or pressure rate (see at least in [0071]).
Regarding claim 38, Savary discloses the method of claim 32, further comprising: characterizing the identified pressure variations to identify at least one possible source of the identified pressure variations (see [006, 13, 69, 71]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savary in view of Ashino (JP 2003294572; hereinafter “Ashino”). Regarding claim 33, Savary discloses method of claim 32, except for explicitly specifying further comprising: characterizing the identified pressure variations to determine if the at least one capacitor is air-tight or not air-tight. Ashino discloses a airtightness inspection method comprising characterizing the identified pressure variations to determine if the at least one capacitor is air-tight or not air-tight (see at least in paragraph [008] or page 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the system for monitoring capacitors of Savary by analyzing the identified pressure variations to determine if the at least one capacitor is air-tight or not air-tight as taught by Ashino for purpose of a method for quality determination of the capacitors is performed in a short time for discriminating excellent and inferior capacitors, by inspecting the electrolyte liquid component in the compressed gas (see the summary).
Regarding claim 34, Savary discloses the method of claim 32, except for explicitly specifying wherein decreasing relative pressure level is indicative of risk of failure of existing electro-mechanical protection.
Ashino discloses a airtightness inspection method, the method comprises decreasing relative pressure level is indicative of risk of failure of existing electro-mechanical protection (Detection of the specific component included in the compressed gas means leakage (equivalent to decreasing relative pressure level) of the specific component inside the inspected capacitor 1 to the outside, and defective airtightness is determined, see abstract. “Due to the decompression inside the closed container 20, the specific component inside the electrolytic capacitor 1 leaks to the outside, and it is determined that the airtightness is poor” )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the system for monitoring capacitors of Savary by decreasing relative pressure level is indicative of risk of failure of existing electro-mechanical protection as taught by Ashino for purpose of a method for quality determination of the capacitors is performed in a short time for discriminating excellent and inferior capacitors, by inspecting the electrolyte liquid component in the compressed gas (see the summary).
7. Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savary.
Regarding claim 35, Savary discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the at least one pressure sensing device is coupled to at least one interior surface of the at least one can type capacitor (see [0063] and Fig. 5), except for explicitly specify that wherein the at least one capacitor includes at least one can type capacitor. However having the capacitor in a specific type is a known practice in the art and the specifics would simply be a matter of inventor design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the system for monitoring capacitors of Savary by having the at least one capacitor includes at least one can type capacitor, in order to meet the system design and specification requirement.
Regarding claim 36, Savary discloses the method of claim 32, except for explicitly specify that wherein the at least one capacitor includes at least one can type capacitor, and the at least one pressure sensing device is coupled to at least one exterior surface of the at least one can type capacitor. However having the capacitor in a specific type and arranging the pressure sensor coupled to at an exterior surface of the capacitor is a known practice in the art and would simply be a matter of inventor design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the system for monitoring capacitors of Savary by having the at least one capacitor includes at least one can type capacitor, and the at least one pressure sensing device is coupled to at least one exterior surface of the at least one can type capacitor, in order to meet the system design and specification requirement.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG LE whose telephone number is (571)272-9349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (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 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.
/THANG X LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights