DETAILED ACTION Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract does not require a title and because the language (fig. 3) at the end needs to be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1- 32 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 claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a fast acting actuator device”, and the claim also recites “in particular circuit breaker device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In re claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “substantially slower”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 40 times slower” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In re claim 4, the claim language appears to be claiming a movement that includes times that are opposite from claim 3 limitations in an alternative manner that appears to be mutually exclusive with claim 3 limitations while depending on claim 3. The prior art device is capable of producing the third movement as claimed in claim 4, however, the claim is indefinite because it includes two mutually exclusive movements in one claim. Furthermore, the language “in particular” is indefinite because it is not clear how it limits the claim. In re claim s 6 , 14 , 17 , and 23 -2 5 the term “and/or” is vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 7 it is unclear what the language “ at least substantially laterally ” means. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim s 8 and 12 , the language “in particular” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 11, the language “and/or” makes the limitations of the claim indefinite. Also, there is a broad and a narrower angle range claimed thereby making the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 13, the term “swept over” is vague and indefinite because the examiner cannot determine what it means. The specification mentions this term but does not clarify what it means. The prior art teaches all of the structural elements of claim 13, however, the term “swept over” appears to be the focus of the claim as it appears to be directed to an important functionality, and thus the claim cannot be examined as is. For this reason, all of the claims dependent on claim 13, including claims 14-16 also cannot be examined. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 18, the term “section-wise” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 19, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation connected , and the claim also recites preferably formed integrally which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In re claim 28, the language “ at least partially integrally ” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. There are no method steps or any other structure claimed. In re claim 30, the language “preferably directly” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. In re claim 30, it appears that there are two alternative and mutually exclusive tension release steps in one claim. This is indefinite because it is not clear what specific method is being claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 , 19, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 5163175) . In re claim 1, Mori, in figures 1-18, discloses a fast-acting actuator device , in particular circuit-breaker device, having a mechanical tensioning element ( 16 ), having an armature element (1 4 ) which can be preloaded by the mechanical tensioning element and which, driven by tension release of the mechanical tensioning element, is movable from at least one first end position into at least one second end position ( as shown in figures 1-2 ), having a magnet unit ( 13 c ) which is configured to hold the armature element in the first end position by means of a magnetic field generated by the magnet unit, and having a resetting unit ( this includes elements 9 and 13b ) which is configured to move the armature element back at least from the second end position into the first end position by means of a motor-drivable resetting element ( 13b ) and, in the process, to preload the mechanical tensioning element ( inherent function of the shown structure ). In re claim 19, Mori discloses an actuating element ( 15 ), which is at least operatively connected to the armature element, and which is arranged on a side (left side in the figure) of the armature element opposite the mechanical tensioning element (tensioning element is not on the left side). In re claim 29, Mori discloses a fast acting actuating device (as shown in figure 1 and other figures). 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. Claim (s) 2 -3 and 5- 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 5163175) . In re claim 2, Mori discloses a first actuating movement generated by the tension release of the mechanical tensioning element, in which at least the armature element moves from the first end position to the second end position , but does not disclose specific stroke and timing ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen values for the stroke and timing within the claimed range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re claim 3, Mori discloses the claimed device except for the claimed movement times. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen a time for the claimed movements within the claimed range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, Mori clearly suggests that the opening movement is a high speed movement (see last 5 lines of column 7) as this is important to reduce arcing as is well known in the art. Thus , Mori does not explicitly disclose the claimed timings but teaches that it is important that the opening movement be a high speed movement. In re claim 5, Mori discloses that the magnet unit comprises an electromagnet ( 13c ) which, at least in the activated state, is configured to exert an attracting force effect on at least part of the armature element to fix the armature element in the first end position (inherent function of the shown structure ). In re claim 6, Mori discloses a housing unit ( 1, 6a, 6b) which encloses at least a large portion of the electromagnet and at least a large portion of the armature element and/or at least a large portion of the mechanical tensioning element. In re claim 7, Mori discloses that the electromagnet is arranged at least substantially laterally adjacent to the mechanical tensioning element with respect to an expansion direction of the mechanical tensioning element (as seen in figure 1) . In re claim 8, Mori discloses that the resetting unit, in particular the motor-drivable resetting element, has a driver element (this is the element of 13b to which the armature 14 is attached) that is supported so as to be movable, in particular relative to a housing unit of the actuator devic e , for contacting the armature element during an actuating movement by the resetting unit. Claim (s) 9-1 2 , 20-22 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 5163175) in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2007/0222543) . In re clam 9, Mori teaches the claimed device except for resetting element being a gearwheel. Schmidt however, in figures 1-7, teaches a similar device having a resetting element being a gearwheel (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 have adapted the device of Schmidt to move the armature of Mori in parallel with the existing actuation structure to provide redundancy and thus increased reliability. This also allows reduction in size of the magnet structure since reset actuation can be provided by mechanism of Schmidt. In re clam 10, Mori teaches the claimed device except for resetting element being a gearwheel. Schmidt however, in figures 1-7, teaches a similar device having the motor-drivable resetting element is formed as a gearwheel (21-27) and wherein the driver element ( 37 ) is arranged on a side face of the gearwheel and thus follows a movement of the gearwheel. 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 adapted the device of Schmidt to move the armature of Mori in parallel with the existing structure to provide redundancy and thus increased reliability. This also allows reduction in size of the magnet structure since reset actuation can be provided by mechanism of Schmidt. In re claim 11, Schmidt teaches that the gearwheel can be moved over the claimed angle ranges. In re clam 12, Mori teaches the claimed device except for resetting element being a gearwheel. Schmidt however, in figures 1-7, teaches a similar device having the motor-drivable resetting element is formed as a gearwheel (21-27) and wherein the driver element ( 37 ) is configured to release the armature element following an entrainment by a rotational movement of the gearwheel, in particular by a continuation of the rotational movement of the gearwheel (armature element 7 is released to move in figures 1 and 2 independently of the gearwheel) . 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 adapted the device of Schmidt to move the armature of Mori in parallel with the existing structure to provide redundancy and thus increased reliability. This also allows reduction in size of the magnet structure since reset actuation can be provided by mechanism of Schmidt. In re claim 20, Mori discloses the claimed device except for the electric motor. Schmidt however, in figures 1-7, teaches a similar device having an electric motor ( 13 ), which is configured to generate a drive force for moving a resetting element . 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 adapted the device of Schmidt including the motor, to move the armature of Mori in parallel with the existing structure to provide redundancy and thus increased reliability. This also allows reduction in size of the magnet structure since reset actuation can be provided by mechanism of Schmidt. In re claim 21, Schmidt teaches a worm gear ( 19 ), which is configured to transmit the drive force of the electric motor to the resetting element. In re claim 22, Schmidt teaches that the electric motor is configured to generate a reverse rotation (the motor is inherently capable of rotating in either direction) for a controlled transfer of the armature element from the first end position to the second end position, in particular guided by the driver element (the device is capable of moving the breaker from on to off position and from off to on position ; this capability is inherently present in the modified device ) . In re claims 30-32, the claimed method steps are necessitated by the apparatus discussed in the device claims above. Claim (s) 17 -18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 5163175) in view of Melter et al. (US 4378543) . In re claim s 17 -18 , Mori discloses the claimed device except for the guide element. Melter however, in figures 1-7, teaches a guide element (88) for receiving a mechanical tensioning element (90) that is a spiral spring. 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 used a guide element as taught by Melter in the armature of Mori, and have attached the tensioning element around the guide element to allow for more secure positioning of the tensioning element. With respect to the molding limitation, this limitation has not been given patentable weight because it is a product by process limitation. Claim (s) 23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 5163175) in view of Laval et al. (US 9085274). In re claim 23, Mori teaches the claimed device except for the sensor unit. Laval however, in figures 1-9, teaches a device having an armature ( 30) and a sensor unit (36-37) that detects the state of the armature. 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 used the sensor unit as taught by Laval in the device of Mori to detect armature position and allow for improved control. In re claim 25, Mori in view of Laval discloses that the sensor unit (36-37) is configured to monitor a movement at least of a portion of the resetting element for determining the reset time of the resetting unit ( the sensor unit of Laval is inherently capable of determining the reset time by detecting the movement ), the current position of the driver element and/or the travel path of the driver element. Laval does not explicitly discuss Hall sensors, but discloses that the sensors 36-37 are magnetic sensors (see top of column 5). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose Hall sensors to be magnetic sensors in the device of Mori/Laval since Hall sensors are well known in the art and commonly used in the industry . In re claim 26, Mori in view of Laval discloses that that wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect a transfer position of the resetting unit, in which the armature element is transferred to the magnet unit after a reset by the resetting unit (the sensor unit in Laval is disclosed to detect the movement of the armature) . In re claim 27, Mori in view of Laval discloses that the sensor unit is configured to detect an induction signal (movement of the armature inherently produces induction in the sensing unit) for identifying the transfer position. In re claim 28, Mori in view of Laval discloses that the magnet unit comprises an electromagnet (in Mori) which, at least in the activated state, is configured to exert an attracting force effect on at least part of the armature element to fix the armature element in the first end position and wherein the sensor unit is formed at least partially integrally with the electromagnet ( in Laval the sensor unit is partially integral with the stationary structure ), in which the induction signal is generated by an approach of the armature element to the electromagnet ( in the modified device) . Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 5163175) in view of Laval et al. (US 9085274) and Schmidt et al. (US 2007/0222543). In re claim 24, Mori/Laval discloses the sensor unit being able to detect motor current (this is inherent because movement of the armature requires motor current), but does not disclose the resetting unit being connected to the motor. Schmidt however teaches a device having a motor (13) that is used to reset a switching device (as shown in the figures). 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 adapted the device of Schmidt to move the armature of Mori/Laval in parallel with the existing structure to provide redundancy and thus increased reliability. This also allows reduction in size of the magnet structure since reset actuation can be provided by mechanism of Schmidt. The sensor unit taught by Laval is inherently capable of determining the position of the driving element and the resetting unit and thereby the switching time in the combined device. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3908 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10 AM - 6 PM PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723985 . 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. /Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837