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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Romero Gonzalez (ES #2438618).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Romero Gonzalez teaches:
A current sensor, comprising:
a first coil comprising at least one first conductor and at least one second conductor twisted in a first twist direction (Fig.1 Elements 2, 2A, & 2B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation. See also Fig. 6A & 6B Elements 2A & 2B.); and
a second coil comprising at least one third conductor and at least one fourth conductor twisted in a second twist direction (Fig.1 Elements 3, 3A, & 3B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation. See also Fig. 6A & 6B Elements 3A & 3B.).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the first and second coils each comprise a Rogowski coil (Fig.1 Elements 2 & 3. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation wherein they are disclosed as Rogowski coils.).
Regarding claim 3, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the first Rogowski coil runs alongside the second Rogowski coil (Fig.1 Elements 2 & 3. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation wherein these Rogowski coils are intertwined next to each other.).
Regarding claim 6, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the current sensor is configured to measure a plasma current of a tokamak fusion machine (Fig.1 Elements 2 & 3. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation wherein the coils can measure electric current no matter the form it takes.).
Regarding claim 7, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the current sensor is configured to be disposed in a channel of a vacuum vessel of a tokamak plasma fusion machine (Fig.1 Elements 2 & 3. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation wherein the coils can measure electric current no matter the form it takes and can be placed wherever necessary .).
Regarding claim 8, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the first Rogowski coil is a first twisted-pair Rogowski coil and the second Rogowski coil is a second twisted-pair Rogowski coil (Fig.1 Elements 2, 3, 2A, 2B, 3A, & 3B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation wherein they are disclosed as twisted pair Rogowski coils.).
Regarding claim 14, Cancelled
Regarding Independent claim 15, Romero Gonzalez teaches:
A method of measuring an electromagnetic parameter, the method comprising:
processing signals from both of:
a first coil comprising at least one first conductor and at least one second conductor twisted in a first twist direction (Fig.1 Elements 2, 2A, & 2B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation.); and
a second coil comprising at least one third conductor and at least one fourth conductor twisted in a second twist direction (Fig.1 Elements 3, 3A, & 3B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation.).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Cancelled.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rohollahi (Rohollahi, Akbar. Experimental Studies Using Compact Torus Injector. Diss. University of Saskatchewan, 2017.).
Regarding Independent claim 9, Rohollahi teaches:
An apparatus, comprising:
a vacuum vessel having at least one channel in an exterior of the vacuum vessel (See examiner amended Fig. 2.5 below. See copied text below.);
wherein a current sensor is disposed in the at least one channel (See examiner amended Fig. 2.5 below. See copied text below.).
PNG
media_image4.png
58
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
430
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
546
606
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Rohollahi teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi teaches the apparatus comprises a plasma fusion reactor (See Fig. 2.5 wherein it is a version of a tokamak reactor.).
Regarding claim 11, Rohollahi teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi teaches the current sensor comprises at least one Rogowski coil (See Fig. 2.5 wherein the Rogowski coil is explicitly listed.).
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.
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.
Claims 4-5 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero Gonzalez (ES #2438618) in view of Kojovic (U.S. PGPub # 2008/0106253).
Regarding claim 4, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez does not explicitly teach circuitry configured to determine a sum of a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil.
Kojovic teaches circuitry configured to determine a sum of a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil (See paragraphs 0034, 0043, & 0053 wherein addition and subtraction of signals is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Kojovic to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that circuitry would be configured to determine a sum of a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil because this is a common, well-known calculation that would be performed to determine an average, for example.
Regarding claim 5, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez does not explicitly teach circuitry configured to determine a difference between a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil.
Kojovic teaches circuitry configured to determine a difference between a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil (See paragraphs 0034, 0043, & 0053 wherein addition and subtraction of signals is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Kojovic to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that circuitry would be configured to determine a difference between a first signal from the first Rogowski coil and a second signal from the second Rogowski coil because this is a common, well-known calculation that would be performed to determine possible amounts of error between two different coils in their respective measurements.
Regarding claim 16, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the measuring comprises subtracting a signal from the first coil from a signal from the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises a current.
Kojovic teaches the measuring comprises subtracting a signal from the first coil from a signal from the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises a current (See paragraphs 0034, 0043, & 0053 wherein addition and subtraction of signals is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Kojovic to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that the measuring comprises subtracting a signal from the first coil from a signal from the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises a current because this is a common, well-known calculation that would be performed to determine possible amounts of error between two different coils in their respective measurements.
Regarding claim 17, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 15, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the measuring comprises adding a signal from the first coil to a signal form the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises diamagnetic flux.
Kojovic teaches the measuring comprises adding a signal from the first coil to a signal form the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises diamagnetic flux (See paragraphs 0034, 0043, & 0053 wherein addition and subtraction of signals is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Kojovic to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that the measuring comprises adding a signal from the first coil to a signal form the second coil and the electromagnetic parameter comprises diamagnetic flux because this is a common, well-known calculation that would be performed to determine an average, for example.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohollahi (Rohollahi, Akbar. Experimental Studies Using Compact Torus Injector. Diss. University of Saskatchewan, 2017.).
Regarding claim 13, Rohollahi teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi does not explicitly teach the at least one channel has a depth of no more than 5 mm.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the at least one channel has a depth of no more than 5 mm because the 18 AWG wires of the plasma current Rogowski coils would be wires of about 1,02mm that would not require a channel to be much mor than the diameter to neatly fit within.
Claims 12 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohollahi (Rohollahi, Akbar. Experimental Studies Using Compact Torus Injector. Diss. University of Saskatchewan, 2017.) in view of Romero Gonzalez (ES #2438618).
Regarding claim 12, Rohollahi teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi does not explicitly teach the at least one Rogowski coil comprise a twisted-pair Rogowski coil or a Rogowski coil with a center conductor.
Romero Gonzalez teaches the at least one Rogowski coil comprise a twisted-pair Rogowski coil or a Rogowski coil with a center conductor (Fig.1 Elements 2, 2A, & 2B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Rohollahi to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that the at least one Rogowski coil comprise a twisted-pair Rogowski coil or a Rogowski coil with a center conductor because Rohollahi already suggests pairs of wires on page 33 last paragraph wherein it states that “the plasma current Rogowski coil is made of 18 AWG enameled wires.” Also, as stated in the translation of Romero Gonzalez paragraph 0025, “the coil of the invention provides a correct and highly accurate measurement of the current flowing through a conductor, regardless of the relative positioning and orientation between the measuring loop and the conductor whose current is to be measured.”
Regarding claim 18, Rohollahi teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi teaches the exterior of the vacuum vessel has comprising: a neutron and/or shield or a thermal shield, the neutron shield or thermal shield comprising shielding tiles, wherein the at least one channel is formed between adjacent shielding tiles (See Fig. 2.5 wherein a tokamak reactor necessarily has all of these limitations in order to operate without destroying itself.); and (a Rogowski coil) disposed within the at least one channel (See examiner amended Fig. 2.5.).
Rohollahi does not explicitly teach wherein the current sensor comprises at least one twisted pair.
Romero Gonzales teaches the current sensor comprises at least one twisted pair (Fig.1 Elements 2, 2A, & 2B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Rohollahi to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that the current sensor comprises at least one twisted pair because Rohollahi already suggests pairs of wires on page 33 last paragraph wherein it states that “the plasma current Rogowski coil is made of 18 AWG enameled wires.” Also, as stated in the translation of Romero Gonzalez paragraph 0025, “the coil of the invention provides a correct and highly accurate measurement of the current flowing through a conductor, regardless of the relative positioning and orientation between the measuring loop and the conductor whose current is to be measured.”
Regarding claim 19, Rohollahi & Romero Gonzales teach all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Rohollahi does not explicitly teach at least one second twisted pair within the at least one channel.
Romero Gonzales teaches at least one second twisted pair within the at least one channel (Fig.1 Elements 3, 3A, & 3B. See paragraph 0067 of the provided translation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Rohollahi to the teachings of Romero Gonzalez such that at least one second twisted pair is within the at least one channel because Rohollahi already suggests pairs of wires on page 33 last paragraph wherein it states that “the plasma current Rogowski coil is made of 18 AWG enameled wires.” Also, as stated in the translation of Romero Gonzalez paragraph 0025, “the coil of the invention provides a correct and highly accurate measurement of the current flowing through a conductor, regardless of the relative positioning and orientation between the measuring loop and the conductor whose current is to be measured.”
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero Gonzalez (ES #2438618) in view of Rohollahi (Rohollahi, Akbar. Experimental Studies Using Compact Torus Injector. Diss. University of Saskatchewan, 2017.).
Regarding claim 21, Romero Gonzalez teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Romero Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the at least one first conductor has a width of no more than 2 millimeters.
Rohollahi teaches the at least one first conductor has a width of no more than 2 millimeters (See bottom of page 33 wherein it states that “the plasma current Rogowski coil is made of 18 AWG enameled wires,) which equates to 1.02 mm.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Romero Gonzalez to the teachings of Rohollahi such that the at least one first conductor has a width of no more than 2 millimeters because this allows for more precise measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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 Rodak 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights