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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in item 506 of Figure 6 and item 556 of Figure 7 the term “Monitor” should be amended to --Monitored--. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, and 20 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.
In re Claims 4 and 8, the final paragraph describes the processor transmitting the data to itself. However, paragraph 76 of the instant specification teaches that the data is transmitted to the central controller. This inconsistency between the claims and the specification raises an issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 4.
In re Claim 17 and 20, the final paragraph describes the local control station transmitting the data to itself. However, paragraph 76 of the instant specification teaches that the data is transmitted to the central controller. This inconsistency between the claims and the specification raises an issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 18 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 17.
For the purpose of examination the claims will be interpreted as follows:
CLAIM 4:
In the penultimate line, replace “the electronic processor” with --a central utility controller--.
CLAIM 8:
In the penultimate line, replace “the electronic processor” with --a central utility controller--.
CLAIM 17:
In the penultimate line, replace “the local control station” with --a central utility controller--.
CLAIM 20:
In the penultimate line, replace “the local control station” with --a central utility controller--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mobley et al (2021/0091559) in view of McCammon et al (2016/0209454).
In re Claim 1, Mobley teaches a power distribution control panel (508) as seen in Figure 5, comprising: one or more power protection devices (502, 504, 506, paragraph 55); a controller (514) configured to control an operation of the one or more power protection devices (paragraph 59); and an electronic processor (516) in electronic communication with the controller, wherein the electronic processor is configured to, receive electronic field data associated with a conductor (534) coupled to a detector (540) that determines when the conductor has fallen (paragraphs 57-59); based on the received data, determine whether an adverse condition associated with the conductor has occurred (paragraph 58); determine whether the adverse condition occurred at a portion of the power distribution network on a load side of the one or more power protection devices (via location subsystem 518, the location of the broken conductor detector 540 is determined, paragraph 60); and in response to determining that the adverse condition occurred at the portion of the power distribution network on the load side of the one or more power protection devices, instruct the controller to control the power protection devices to perform the protective operation (paragraph 59).
Mobley does not specifically teach that the detector 540 is an insulator sensor is embedded in an insulator positioned between the conductor and a conductor support.
McCammon teaches an insulator sensor 1000 as seen in Figure 3 that detects a downed power line (paragraphs 89-91) and is embedded in an insulator 100 (paragraph 66) positioned between the conductor (top of 100) and conductor support 400.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the detector of Mobley with that of McCammon since McCammon teaches that they can be utilized interchangeably to indicate a down conductor.
In re Claim 2, Mobley teaches that the protective operation disconnects power to the load side of the power protection devices as seen in Figure 5.
In re Claim 3, Mobley teaches the adverse condition is a short circuit event (paragraph 67).
In re Claim 7, the indication of a fallen conductor is considered to indicate a permanent adverse condition.
In re Claim 9, see discussion of claim 1. Additionally, Mobley teaches that multiple detectors may be utilized (paragraphs 56 and 60).
In re Claim 10, McCammon teaches the data is tension data (paragraphs 89-90).
In re Claim 11, a leaning conductor that leans to a certain degree would cause a fallen conductor event.
In re Claim 14, see discussion of claim 1. Additionally, 508 of Mobley is considered the claimed “local control station”.
In re Claim 15, see discussion of claim 1.
In re Claim 16, see discussion of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claims 4-6, 8, and 17-20, McCammon teaches that the conductor is determined to have fallen based on tension data (paragraphs 89-90). However, neither Mobley nor McCammon teach transmitting the tension data including data indicating that a falling conductor event was determined to a central utility controller.
In re Claims 12 and 13, Mobley as modified by McCammon fails to teach whether the leaning conductor support structure event occurs in response to the data received from one of the first insulator sensor and the second insulator sensor indicating a measured tension exceeding a first predetermined threshold and the data received from the other of the first insulator sensor and the second insulator sensor indicating a measured tension is below a second predetermined threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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 J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights