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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/27/2024 with respect to the amendments of claims 1, 9, and 12 of have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rolf Dethlefsen (USPN 3585449).
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.
2. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenegro et al (USPN 2010/0296215) in view of Rolf Dethlefsen (USPN 3585449).
Regarding claim 1, Montenegro discloses a method (see figures 3-4) for maintaining electrical stability of a power system (a power system shown in 1) in response to a fault, the method comprising:
detecting the fault (step 404, see par. 0028);
opening a switch (such as a vacuum interrupter 1302, figure 13, to clear the fault (step 408);
performing a first pulse test with a triggered voltage integral to the switch (a vacuum interrupter 1302) ( figure 13) (such as a test pulse with a triggered voltage generated by a current pulse generator 1304, shown in figure 13, and performed by the controller in step 410) for a predetermined duration of time (e.g. about 0.5 second, see par. 0034) to determine if the fault is still present (see 0033) (the testing closer 1300, which is same as a testing closer 130 in figure 1, is integrated as a whole, see par. 0078);
preventing a reclosing operation by the switch (1302) from occurring if the first pulse test indicates that the fault is still present (step 426, par. 0033); and
allowing the reclosing operation (418) by the switch (1302) to occur if the first pulse test indicates that the fault is no longer present (e.g. see par. 0019, 0032).
Montenegro does not explicitly disclose the trigger voltage gap integral to the switch as claimed.
However, using a triggered voltage gap to provide a test pulse is known in the art.
Rolf Dethlefsen discloses a circuit interrupter comprises a test circuit (24, 22) configured to generate a test pulse (a test pulse applied to a trigger electrode 22c) with a triggered voltage gap (a vacuum gap circuit 22) integral to a switch (a circuit interrupter (16).
It 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 to have modified a triggered voltage of Montenegro to incorporate a triggered voltage gap as disclosed by Rolf Dethlefsen in order to provide fast dielectric recovery time so that preventing an arc voltage re-strike after a zero crossing.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 14, 17, Montenegro discloses wherein the predetermined duration of time is less than or equal 0.5 cycles (such as haft cycle pulses 208, 504, see figures 3, 5, par. 0031).
Regarding claims 4, 15, Montenegro discloses further comprising performing subsequent pulse tests (see step 414) if the first pulse test is inclusive about the persistence of the fault (see par. 0033), wherein preventing a reclosing
operation from occurring includes preventing the reclosing operation from occurring if any of the pulse tests indicates that the fault is still present (see par. 0033) and allowing the reclosing operation to occur includes allowing the reclosing operation (418) to occur if any of the pulse tests indicates that the fault is no longer present (e.g. see par. 0032).
Regarding claims 6, 11, Montenegro discloses wherein the first pulse test is performed at a predetermined point-on-wave time (such as 208, 210).
Regarding claims 7, 20, Montenegro discloses wherein the power system is a high-voltage transmission power system (see par. 0021, see figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Montenegro discloses a method (see a method shown in figure 4) for maintaining electrical stability of a power system (a power system shown in 1) in response to a fault, the method comprising:
detecting the fault (step 404, see par. 0028);
opening a switch (such as a vacuum interrupter 1302, figure 13, to clear the fault (step 408);
performing a first pulse test for a predetermined duration of time (e.g. about 0.5 second, see par. 0034) to determine if the fault is still present (see 0033) using a triggered voltage circuit (a current pulse generator 1304 shown in figure 13) integral to the switch (a vacuum interrupter 1302) to determine if the fault is still present (see 0033) (the testing closer 1300, which is same as a testing closer 130 in figure 1, is integrated as a whole, see par. 0078);
performing subsequent pulse tests by the integral triggered voltage circuit (1304) for the predetermined duration of time if the first pulse test is inclusive about the persistence of the fault (see par. 0024, also see figures 2-3);
preventing a reclosing operation by the switch (1302) from occurring if the first pulse test indicates that the fault is still present (step 426, par. 0033); and
allowing the reclosing operation (418) by the switch (1302) to occur if the first pulse test indicates that the fault is no longer present (e.g. see par. 0019, 0032).
Montenegro does not explicitly disclose the trigger voltage gap integral to the switch as claimed.
However, using a triggered voltage gap to provide a test pulse is known in the art.
Rolf Dethlefsen discloses a circuit interrupter comprises a test circuit (24, 22) configured to generate a test pulse (a test pulse applied to a trigger electrode 22c) with a triggered voltage gap (a vacuum gap circuit 22) integral to a switch (a circuit interrupter (16).
It 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 to have modified a triggered voltage of Montenegro to incorporate a triggered voltage gap as disclosed by Rolf Dethlefsen in order to provide fast dielectric recovery time so that preventing an arc voltage re-strike after a zero crossing.
Regarding claims 12, 18, Montenegro discloses a system (10, see figures 1-2) for maintaining electrical stability of a power network in response to a fault, the system comprising:
Sensors (a fault sensor of the circuit tester 130, see par. 0019) coupled to the power network (a network in figure 1) and to a controller (a controller of the circuit tester 130, see par. 0020) couple to the sensors, the sensors and controller operable to detect the fault (see par. 0019);
an actuator (814) (an actuation mechanism of the circuit tester 130 shown in figure 8, see par. 0066) coupled to a switch (12), the actuator being operable in the presence of a fault to open the switch to clear the fault (see par. 0070);
a first triggered voltage circuit (a first triggered voltage circuit 1304 of a circuit tester 1300 which is equivalent to a testing circuit 130 in figure 1) integral to the switch (the vacuum interrupter 1302) coupled to the power network, the first triggered voltage circuit (1304) being operable to perform a pulse test of the power network for a predetermined duration of time (about 0.5 second) to determine if the fault is still present (such as see figure 3, steps 410, 416 par. 0034);
the actuator (814) being configured to prevent a reclosing of the switch (the vacuum interrupter 1302, see figures 8, and 13) where the first pulse test indicates that the fault is still present (see par. 0033, 0078); and
the actuator being further configured to provide the reclosing operation of the switch (1302) where the first pulse test indicates that the fault is not present (see par. 0078), and
wherein the first pulse test is performed at a predetermined point-on-wave time (such as 208, 210).
Montenegro does not explicitly disclose the trigger voltage gap as claimed.
However, using a triggered voltage gap to provide a test pulse is known in the art.
Rolf Dethlefsen discloses a circuit interrupter comprises a test circuit (24, 22) configured to generate a test pulse (a test pulse applied to a trigger electrode 22c) with a triggered voltage gap (a vacuum gap circuit 22) integral to a switch (a circuit interrupter (16).
It 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 to have modified a triggered voltage circuit of Montenegro to incorporate a triggered voltage gap as disclosed by Rolf Dethlefsen in order to provide fast dielectric recovery time so that preventing an arc voltage re-strike after a zero crossing.
Conclusion
3. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights