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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heisey (US 4,130,790 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Heisey discloses a current limiting device (apparatus of Fig 4; an electrical power supply, Abstract), comprising: a transformer (45, Fig 4) including: a primary winding (47, Fig 4) configured to accept an input current (current coming from L1 and L2, Fig 4; input terminal means for connection to alternating current power source, Claim 1); a core (49 and 53, Fig 4) electromagnetically coupled to the primary winding (47 is electromagnetically coupled to 49, Fig 4); and a secondary winding (51, Fig 4) electromagnetically coupled to the core (51 is electromagnetically coupled to 53, Fig 4), the secondary winding configured to provide a current limiting energy source based on the input current (secondary circuit including a secondary winding 51, Column 5, Lines 20-23; current level in secondary circuit, which is sufficient to prevent secondary core section from being held in saturation, may be set, current output level of direct current electrical power signal is thereby limited to a predetermined maximum level, Column 5, Lines 44-54; 51 is acting as a current limiting energy source due its interaction with 47), the current limiting energy source being limited to a predetermined maximum current based on at least one characteristic of the core (current level in secondary circuit, which is sufficient to prevent secondary core section from being held in saturation, may be set, current output level of direct current electrical power signal is thereby limited to a predetermined maximum level, Column 5, Lines 44-54; as the total flux in the secondary core section is reduced to the point where this section is no longer in saturation, the output voltage will drop rapidly, beyond a critical output current level, therefore, further loading of the secondary circuit will increase the output current level only slightly while reducing the output voltage substantially, the ferroresonant transformer has an inherent current limiting capability, Column 4, Lines 30-48; the properties or characteristic of the secondary core section would inherently affect the maximum current).
Regarding Claim 2, Heisey discloses the at least one characteristic of the core is at least one core saturation characteristic (current level in secondary circuit, which is sufficient to prevent secondary core section from being held in saturation, may be set, current output level of direct current electrical power signal is thereby limited to a predetermined maximum level, Column 5, Lines 44-54; as the total flux in the secondary core section is reduced to the point where this section is no longer in saturation, the output voltage will drop rapidly, beyond a critical output current level, therefore, further loading of the secondary circuit will increase the output current level only slightly while reducing the output voltage substantially, the ferroresonant transformer has an inherent current limiting capability, Column 4, Lines 30-48; it is inherent that the saturation characteristic of the core would limit the current as is known in the properties of transformers). It is noted that Applicant has not provided any specific values or numbers related to the saturation characteristic of the core.
Regarding Claim 3, Heisey discloses the at least one core saturation characteristic of the core includes at least one dimension and at least one material of the core (current level in secondary circuit, which is sufficient to prevent secondary core section from being held in saturation, may be set, current output level of direct current electrical power signal is thereby limited to a predetermined maximum level, Column 5, Lines 44-54; as the total flux in the secondary core section is reduced to the point where this section is no longer in saturation, the output voltage will drop rapidly, beyond a critical output current level, therefore, further loading of the secondary circuit will increase the output current level only slightly while reducing the output voltage substantially, the ferroresonant transformer has an inherent current limiting capability, Column 4, Lines 30-48; it is inherent that the saturation characteristic of the core would be dependent on the dimension and material of the core as is known in the properties of transformers). It is noted that Applicant has not provided any specific dimension values or list of materials involved in the core.
Regarding Claim 8, Heisey discloses the current limiting device is a resistor-less current limit device (there are no resistors involved in the circuit, Fig 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) in view of Hiramatsu et al. (US 5,495,149 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Heisey discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Heisey also discloses the power supply being used to power electrical systems such as guidance, radio, radar, and similar systems that need to have careful power regulation (Column 1, Lines 11-21). Heisey fails to explicitly disclose the current limiting energy source is configured to provide energy to at least two peripheral devices having different power consumption requirements.
However, Hiramatsu, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing energy to two different devices with different power consumption requirements, teaches a power supply (Abstract) including an energy source (400, Fig 20) is configured to provide energy to at least two peripheral devices (FL1, FL2, and FL3, Fig 20) having different power consumption requirements (lamps of different consuming powers can be operated simultaneously with the above power supply simply by altering the turn ratios of the secondary windings 402 to 404, reactance of the current limiting elements 451 to 453, and capacitance of capacitors 421 to 423, either alone or in combination, Column 16, Lines 21-27) since it is known for these forms of energy sources to be capable of providing energy to devices with different power consumption requirements and to allow for simultaneous operation of different devices (Column 16, Lines 21-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit to have multiple loads of different consuming powers connected to secondary windings of different turn ratios, as taught by Hiramatsu, since it is known for these forms of energy sources to be capable of providing energy to devices with different power consumption requirements and to allow for simultaneous operation of different devices (Hiramatsu: Column 16, Lines 21-27). This is particularly important for electrical systems with multiple computing devices involved as taught by Heisey as these different computing devices have different functionalities and thus would require different power consumptions. It is noted that Applicant has not positively claimed the structures of the at least two peripheral devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) in view of Han et al. (English Machine Translation of CN 105740183 A provided by PE2E).
Regarding Claim 5, Heisey discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Heisey also discloses the power supply being used to power electrical systems such as guidance, radio, radar, and similar systems that need to have careful power regulation (Column 1, Lines 11-21). Heisey further discloses the current limiting energy source is configured to provide galvanic isolation and power (current level in secondary circuit, which is sufficient to prevent secondary core section from being held in saturation, may be set, current output level of direct current electrical power signal is thereby limited to a predetermined maximum level, Column 5, Lines 44-54; as the total flux in the secondary core section is reduced to the point where this section is no longer in saturation, the output voltage will drop rapidly, beyond a critical output current level, therefore, further loading of the secondary circuit will increase the output current level only slightly while reducing the output voltage substantially, the ferroresonant transformer has an inherent current limiting capability, Column 4, Lines 30-48; transformers inherently have galvanic isolation). Heisey fails to explicitly disclose the current limiting energy source is configured to provide galvanic isolation and power for a serial port for powering at least one serial port peripheral device.
However, Han, reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing a surge in current towards electrical systems, teaches a serial port communication circuit (Abstract) including the current limiting energy source is configured to provide power for a serial port for powering at least one serial port peripheral device (the serial port communication end of the first processor 1 and the second processor serial port communication end of 2 are respectively connected with a protective circuit for preventing inrush current is too large, damage level conversion module and two processors, improves the safety of the circuit, bottom paragraph, Page 4 and top paragraph, Page 5) since these are known connection ports utilized with current limiting circuits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit to have serial ports connected to peripheral devices, as taught by Han, since these are known connection ports utilized with current limiting circuits. Since the electrical system of Heisey is involved with various types of equipment such as guidance, radio, radar, and such, these kinds of systems would obviously be capable of utilizing serial ports as they are merely a way to connect different electrical computing systems. It is noted that Applicant has not positively claimed the structure of the serial port.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) in view of Pollmeier (US 4,328,538 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Heisey discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Heisey fails to disclose the transformer is a push-pull transformer.
However, Pollmeier, reasonably pertinent to the problem of overcurrent, teaches a circuit arrangement (Abstract) including the transformer is a push-pull transformer (the presence of 11 and 12 make 10 a push-pull transformer, Fig 1) since push-pull transformers are known to provide protection against an overcurrent (Column 1, Lines 14-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transformer to be a push-pull transformer, as taught by Pollmeier, since push-pull transformers are known to provide protection against an overcurrent (Pollmeier: Column 1, Lines 14-25). The addition of the transistors adds additional protection to the existing transformer to ensure the current is more readily controlled.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) in view of Hendrickson et al. (US 2005/0217275 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Heisey discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Heisey also discloses the power supply being used to power electrical systems such as guidance, radio, radar, and similar systems that need to have careful power regulation (Column 1, Lines 11-21). Heisey fails to disclose the current limiting device is configured to be part of a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) mask.
However, Hendrickson, reasonably pertinent to the problem of applying the circuit for safety reasons, teaches a breathing system (Abstract) including the current limiting device (voltage regulator, Fig 5; a regulator provided to prevent excessive current or voltage overload, paragraph 0030) is configured to be part of a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) mask (voltage regulator is part of a SCBA that includes a SCBA facepiece or mask, Fig 5; Fig 4 shows the SCBA including the generator system, paragraph 0016) to prevent excessive current or voltage overload which can cause damage to electrical units of the system (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the current limiting circuit to be applied in a system that involves a SCBA mask, as taught by Hendrickson, to prevent excessive current or voltage overload which can cause damage to electrical units of the system (Hendrickson: paragraph 0030). It is noted that Applicant has not positively claimed that the current limiting device is inside of the SCBA mask. Applicant has also not claimed further details of the structure of the SCBA mask. Currently, the claim would be interpreted as being part of a SCBA that happens to have a SCBA mask.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) in view of Williams (US 2019/0242928 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Heisey discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Heisey fails to disclose at least one safety circuit in electrical communication with the secondary winding, the at least one safety circuit including at least one Zener diode that is configured to shut to ground based at least in part on a voltage at the secondary winding.
However, Williams, reasonably pertinent to the problem of regulating voltage, teaches a circuit device (Abstract) including at least one safety circuit (10, Fig 3), the at least one safety circuit including at least one Zener diode (16, Fig 3) that is configured to shut to ground (16 is connected to ground 18, Fig 3) based at least in part on a voltage (The zener diode 16 is a particular type of diode, unlike a normal diode, which allows a current to flow not only from its anode to its cathode, but also in the reverse direction, when the so-called “Zener voltage” is reduced, the zener diode 16 has a highly doped p-n junction, the zener diode 16 is utilized to regulate voltage in circuit 10 to a maximum safe value as specified by an IS safety standard, paragraph 0035) since Zener diodes are known components used to regulate the voltage of a circuit and promote a safe voltage (paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a zener diode as part of a safety circuit on the secondary winding connected to ground, as taught by Williams, since Zener diodes are known components used to regulate the voltage of a circuit and promote a safe voltage (Williams: paragraph 0035). This addition would help further regulate the voltage going across from the secondary winding and promotes the safety of the circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 is directed to a mask configured for fluid communication with a fluid reservoir that comprises a fluid regulator, an energy source, and a current limiting device with details tied with a transformer. In other words, the claim requires the fluid regulator, the energy source, and the current limiting device to all be contained in a mask.
The prior art Hendrickson et al. (US 2005/0217275 A1) discusses a SCBA that has a voltage/current regulator inside of a generator that is attached to the SCBA. There is nothing in Hendrickson that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate the voltage/current regulator into the mask itself. Doing so would require drastic modifications to the layout and size of the voltage/current regulator. Additionally, Hendrickson is silent on the details involving the transformer. Heisey (US 4,130,790 A) discusses a current limiting device that utilizes a transformer. However, the device is within the context of aircraft electrical systems. The device itself would be bulky and there would be no motivation to reduce the size to fit into a mask alongside the fluid regulator and the energy source. Other prior art do not mention a voltage/current regulator in the mask itself or the voltage/current regulator is outside of the mask within a separate battery pack or blower housing. Prior art voltage/current regulators are mostly only found in PAPRs that utilize blowers and not compressed gas tanks like those found in SCBAs.
Claims 11-17 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependency on Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US 20070079701 A1 discusses a PAPR that has current limiting capabilities
US 20140082829 A1 discusses a power source supply circuit used with protective headgear that has current limiting components
US 20150211534 A1 discusses a blower filter system that has protective circuits that switch off the system when excess current is detected
US 20210033100 A1 discusses a PAPR that limits the current for safety purposes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785