University of Tennessee Research Foundation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2021

2021000627 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021)

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