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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 20, 205 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 11-13, it is clearly seen that these claims are process claims which present a process of using the measuring system for measuring current values pertaining to an alternating current flowing through a conductor and for correcting the measured current values with regard to capacitive interference injection as claimed in claims 1-10. In brief, claims 11-13 present a method according to the apparatus of claims 1-10. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-10 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-13.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chartouni (US 20150362532 A1).
Chartouni teaches an apparatus for compensating for capacitive coupling effects of current sensors comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
1160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 11, a measuring system (FIG. 2, electricity meter) for measuring current values pertaining to an alternating current flowing through a conductor (FIG. 8, primary conductor of the current sensor) and for correcting the measured current values with regard to capacitive interference injection (capacitive coupling effects) (Abstract; paragraphs: [0006] and [0015]; and claims 1 and 10), the measuring system (FIG. 2, electricity meter) comprising: a Rogowski coil (FIG. 8, Rogowski coil) configured for inducing a voltage by way of alternating current (FIG. 8; and paragraph: [0072]); a signal processing device (FIG. 2, electricity meter including current sensor 201, low pass filters 202 and 206, multichannel ADC 203 and 207, offsets removed at blocks 204 and 208, and numerical filter 205 and 209) for acquiring and processing values of the voltage induced in said Rogowski coil (FIG. 8, Rogowski coil) (Paragraphs: [0042]-[0049]); a device (FIG. 2, integrator 210) for determining a current value by integrating the voltage processed by said signal processing device (FIG. 2, electricity meter including current sensor 201, low pass filters 202 and 206, multichannel ADC 203 and 207, offsets removed at blocks 204 and 208, and numerical filter 205 and 209) (Paragraph: [0049]); and a device (FIG. 2, electricity meter including multipliers 211, 212 and 214, and subtractor 215) for correcting the current value with regard to capacitive interference injection (capacitive coupling effects), said device (FIG. 2, electricity meter including multipliers 211, 212 and 214, and subtractor 215) for correcting the current value being configured to make the correction by using an approximation (UADCkap1(t)) of a voltage drop caused by the capacitive interference injection (capacitive coupling effects) (Paragraphs: [0042]-[0049]) (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0006]-[0021] and [0036]-[0068]; and claims 1-11).
With regard to claims 2 and 11, the approximation (UADCkap1(t)) (capacitive coupling compensation value) describes the voltage drop (difference in voltage) caused by the capacitive interference injection (capacitive coupling effects) based on at least one calibration coefficient (CK1.1) (capacitive coupling compensation coefficient Kcoup), the at least one calibration coefficient (CK1.1) (capacitive coupling compensation coefficient Kcoup) being determinable by using calibration measurement (FIGS. 9 and 10; paragraphs: [0009]-[0011] and [0073]; and claims 1, 5 and 6).
With regard to claims 3 and 11, the approximation (capacitive coupling compensation value) contains at least one term being proportional to a product of the calibration coefficient (C.sub.K1.1), a derivative of a voltage (dUµ(t))/dt) attributable to the conductor (FIG. 8, primary conductor of the current sensor) and a resistance (Ri_RoGo) attributable to said Rogowski coil (Paragraphs: [0008]-[0009] and [0040]; and claims 1, 3 and 4).
With regard to claims 4 and 11, a plurality of phases are considered and a term is provided for each phase being considered (FIGS. 3-5; paragraphs: [0017]-[0021], [0039] and [0041]).
With regard to claims 6 and 11, the correction is made by using the approximation (UADCkap1(t)) (capacitive coupling compensation value) of a voltage drop (difference in voltage) caused by the capacitive interference injection (capacitive coupling effects) in such a way that the expression for current values (I1(t)) (FIG. 2 i(t)) relating to the conductor (FIG. 8, primary conductor of the current sensor) is used containing an integral of the approximation (FIG. 2).
With regard to claim 7, the form of the approximation (UADCkap1(t)) (capacitive coupling compensation value) is such that the integral thereof is a linear function term based on a voltage (Uμ(t)) attributable to the conductor (FIG. 8, primary conductor of the current sensor) (FIGS. 5-7).
With regard to claims 8, 12 and 13, the form of the approximation (UADCkap1(t)) (capacitive coupling compensation value) is such that the integral thereof is a linear function term based on a voltage (Uμ(t)) attributable to the conductor (FIG. 8, primary conductor of the current sensor) and of other phases considered for the approximation (FIGS. 5-7).
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.
Claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chartouni.
Chartouni teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 including the approximation (UADCkap1(t)) (capacitive coupling compensation value), but it does not specifically teach expressions in forms of equations as recited in claims 5, 9 and 10.
With regard to claims 5, 9 and 10, it is noted that the equation is obtained by algebraic calculation expressing as a function of I1(t) and the voltage Uµ(t). Thus, no inventive step can be acknowledged for such an equation. The recitation of equations within a claim requires the terms to be defined if they are to be given patentable weight and some dedicated claim language that indicates how the claimed equation is to be treated in the applicant's invention (sometimes true, always obeyed, seldom fulfilled, etc.). No new matter should be introduced. For examination purposes, the equations are not given patentable weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for compensating for capacitive coupling effects of current sensors of Chartouni to apply the missing features as identified above since such an arrangement is beneficial to improve upon what is already generally known to determine a capacitive coupling compensation value for compensating for capacitive coupling effects in an inductive current sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Dames et al. (BR 0013073 B13) teaches a fiscal electricity meter.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 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 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights