University of Tennessee Research FoundationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 20212021000627 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/349,779 11/11/2016 Wenxuan Yao 1441-11 1938 159692 7590 12/22/2021 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. (UTRF) PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER ALKAFAWI, EMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): myersbigel_PAIR@firsttofile.com uspto@myersbigel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WENXUAN YAO, JIECHENG ZHAO, YI CUI, YILU LIU, and THOMAS J. KING Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as University of Tennessee Research Foundation. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a monitoring device for monitoring an impact of Geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) or an E3 component of electromagnetic pulses (EMP-E3) on electronic equipment and power grids. (Spec. ¶2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A monitoring device for monitoring an impact of Geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) or an E3 component of electromagnetic pulses (EMP-E3), the monitoring device comprising: a transducer configured to generate a transduced signal in response to a magnetic field of a current carrying element of a transmission line, wherein the transduced signal reflects harmonic characteristics of a current of the current carrying element; an amplifier configured to generate an amplified signal from the transduced signal; a low pass filter to generate a filtered signal by low pass filtering the amplified signal; and a microprocessor comprising: a harmonic measurement module configured to determine a total harmonic distortion (THD) associated with the current of the current carrying element responsive to the filtered signal; and a threshold detection module configured to detect excessive GMD or EMP-E3impact based on whether a change in the THD meets a threshold THD change value. Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, US 2016/0126738 A1, in view of Berler, US 2017/0227592 A1. II. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, Berler and further in view of Lanzerotti, US 5,745,384. III. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, Berler and further in view of Tomic, US 8,954,608 B1. IV. Claims 6–8 and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, Berler and further in view of Lipka, US 2004/0036638 A1. V. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, Berler and further in view of Smith, US 2012/0095709 A1. VI. Claim 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Moore, Berler, Smith and Lipka. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .” (citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential))). Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 4 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 with the understanding that our analysis also applies to independent claim 11. The Examiner finds Moore teaches a monitoring device for monitoring an impact of Geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) or an E3 component of electromagnetic pulses (EMP-E3). (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds Moore is silent in regards to total harmonic distortion (THD) associated with the current of the current carrying element responsive to the filtered signal. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner also finds Moore fails to disclose a threshold detection module that is configured to detect excessive GMO or EMP-E3 impact based on whether a change in the THD meets a threshold THD change value. (Final Act. 5). Addressing these differences, the Examiner finds Berler discloses a harmonic measurement module configured to determine a total harmonic distortion (THD) and a threshold detection module configured to detect excessive GMO or EMP-E3 impact based on whether a change in the THD meets a threshold THO change value. (Final Act. 5; Berler ¶¶ 14–22, Figs 1, 2.) The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to apply the well-known technique of determining excessive THD, which infers GMO or EMP exceeding the defined threshold of Berler, to the teaching of Moore as both teachings are drawn to detecting disturbance within the same art. (Final Act. 6.) Appellant argues Berler does not provide any disclosure of detecting a GIC event or HEMP-El event based on a whether a change in the THD that was determined meets a threshold THD change value. (Appeal Br. 8.) Appellant argues Berler compares the THD value that was determined to a defined threshold and sets a status flag based on the results of the comparison. (Appeal Br. 7.) Appellant further argues: Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 5 Berler explains that alarms can be based on both absolute levels and rate of change for the bushing power factor, the bushing capacitance magnitude, the bushing imbalance current, and the DC neutral current. But with respect to harmonic voltages, Berler only describes triggering an alarm based on the voltage magnitudes for the first through tenth harmonics. Berler does not use THD as a factor for determining when to trigger an alarm. Furthermore, even with respect to individual harmonics, Berler does not disclose or suggest using rate of change of the voltage magnitudes for the individual harmonics as a basis for triggering an alarm. Thus, Berler makes no mention of using the magnitude of the THD or the rate of change of the THD as a basis for an alarm. (Appeal Br. 8.) The Specification discusses change in total harmonic distortion (THD) as follows: [S]ome embodiments may perform a threshold detection using the change in THD, denoted as C, from i to i+ l using the following equation C = THDi+l -THDi Eq. 13 where i is the time sequence of THD. A threshold value ε for THD and a threshold value δ for C may be specified prior to the threshold detection. The threshold values will vary depending on the parameters of the power system, including the transmission line. For example, some power systems may be able to handle higher THD or higher C than other power systems. In step 624, if it is determined that 1HDz+1 and the change of THD C exceed their respective threshold values ε and δ, the microprocessor 30 will issue a command to activate the alarm system 60. The alarm system may enact appropriate protective measures, such as reducing the amount of load connected to the power system, or activating a neutral blocking device (NBD) located in the neutral path of a transformer to which the transmission line or bus is connected. The alarm system 60 may remain activated at Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 6 least until THDi+1 goes below the thresholds. Deactivation of the alarm may optionally be further conditioned on C going below δ. (Spec. ¶¶ 45, 46.) Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Berler does not teach using the rate of change for THD as a basis for setting alarm levels. Berler teaches an alarm can be set based upon harmonic voltage magnitude for the 1st through 10th harmonics however, this disclosure does not describe the alarm is set based upon rate of change for THD. (Berler ¶¶ 21, 22.) For the foregoing reasons and those Appellant presents, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 over the combination of Moore and Berler. The additional references cited in Rejections II–VI, in addition to Moore and Berler, do not address the deficiency in the rejection of the independent claims discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15 103 Moore, Berler 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15 3, 13 103 Moore, Berler, Lanzerotti 3, 13 4, 14 103 Moore, Berler, Tomic 4, 14 Appeal 2021-000627 Application 15/349,779 7 6–8, 16–18 103 Moore, Berler, Lipka 6–8, 16–18 9, 19 103 Moore, Berler, Smith 9, 19 10, 20 103 Moore, Berler, Smith, Lipka 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation