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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14, 16-17,20, 24-25 and 27-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-14, 16, 18-19, 23 and 25-31 of copending Application No. 18/291321 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a vacuum interrupter for switching voltages, the vacuum interrupter comprising at least one envelope; at least one fixed contact; at least one movable contact; and control elements disposed on the vacuum interrupter; with the difference between the two sets of claims being only minor variations in recited scope that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of persons of ordinary skill are taken into full consideration.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 14, 16-17,20, 24-25 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No: 11456133. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a vacuum interrupter for switching voltages, the vacuum interrupter comprising at least one envelope; at least one fixed contact; at least one movable contact; and control elements disposed on the vacuum interrupter; with the difference between the two sets of claims being only minor variations in recited scope that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of persons of ordinary skill are taken into full consideration.
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.
Claims 14-18, 20-22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Benkert et al, WO 2020025407 (with reference to the text of US 20210327666 for an English Translation) [Benkert].
Regarding claim 14, Benkert discloses (figs.1-11) a vacuum interrupter (2) for switching voltages, the vacuum interrupter (2) comprising:
at least one envelope (3);
at least one fixed contact (10);
at least one movable contact (9); and
control elements (12, 18) disposed on the vacuum interrupter (2).
Regarding claim 15, Benkert further discloses where said control elements (12, 18) have at least one of different widths [see fig.3].
Regarding claim 16, Benkert further discloses where at least one of:
said control elements (12, 18) include at least one of at least one capacitor (12 or at least one resistor (18).
Regarding claim 17, Benkert further discloses where:
said at least one envelope (3) has at least one main screen (5) and at least two ceramic segments (4); and at least one of:
said at least one main screen (5) is disposed between said at least two ceramic segments (4).
Regarding claim 18, Benkert further discloses where at least one of:
said at least two ceramic segments (4) are divided into ceramic segment elements.
Regarding claim 20, Benkert further discloses where said control elements (12, 18) include at least two control elements disposed in a circle along a circumference of at least one vacuum interrupter (2).
Regarding claim 21, Benkert further discloses where said at least two ceramic segments (4) are divided into ceramic segment elements, and said control elements (12, 18) are disposed in a circle along a circumference of at least one of said ceramic segment elements (4).
Regarding claim 22, Benkert further discloses where:
said control elements (12, 18) are disposed in a circle along a circumference of at least one vacuum interrupter (2), and at least one of:
said control elements (12, 18) are each disposed on a different respective one of said ceramic segment elements (4).
Regarding claim 26, Benkert further discloses where the vacuum interrupter (2) is configured to switch voltages in a high-voltage range [para.0003].
Regarding claim 27, Benkert further discloses where the vacuum interrupter is configured to switch voltages in a range greater (380kV) than or equal to 52 kV [para.0002].
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Djogo, US 20200161065.
Regarding claim 31, Djogo discloses (figs.1A-1B and 2) a method for grading or controlling a voltage distribution among vacuum interrupters (102, 104), the method comprising using control elements (110) to grade or control the voltage [para.0013].
Regarding claim 32, Djogo further comprises: providing the control elements (110) as at least one of capacitors (110) disposed on the vacuum interrupters (102, 104); and at least one of:
placing the control elements (110) and the vacuum interrupters (102, 104) in a housing (112).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkert in view of Lee, US 2976382.
Regarding claim 19, Benkert fails to disclose which further comprises vapor screens dividing said at least two ceramic segments into said ceramic segment elements, said vapor screens protruding from an interior of the vacuum interrupter into an outside area of the vacuum interrupter.
Lee discloses (fig.1) a vacuum circuit interrupter (10) comprises vapor screens (73, 75, 77) dividing at least two ceramic segments into ceramic segment elements (16-21), said vapor screens (73, 75, 77) protruding from an interior (40) of the vacuum interrupter (10) into an outside area of the vacuum interrupter (10).
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 vacuum envelop of Benkert with the inclusion of the vapor screens of Lee, thereby providing protection to the ceramic insulator segments from metallic vapors produced during the contacts operation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkert in view of Renz, US 20030141282.
Regarding claim 23, Benkert further comprises:
a main screen (5) and vapor screens;
said control elements (12, 18) being:
at least one of electrically or spatially disposed between said at least one fixed contact (10) and said at least one movable contact (9).
Benkert fails to explicitly disclose vapor screens.
Renz discloses a vacuum switching tube comprising vapor screens (70-75).
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 vacuum envelop of Benkert with the inclusion of the vapor screens of Renz, design to be conical and overlapping one another in the axial direction of the tube, thereby providing protection to the ceramic insulator segments from metallic vapors produced during the contacts operation.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkert in view of Djogo, US 20200161065.
Regarding claim 28, Benkert fails to disclose an assembly, comprising:
at least two or more vacuum interrupters being electrically connected in series by at least one of:
said control elements being disposed on the at least two vacuum interrupters or said control elements of one of the vacuum interrupters being connected in series with said control elements of a further one of the vacuum interrupters or of all of the vacuum interrupters.
Djogo discloses (figs.1A-1B and 2) a high voltage switching device (100) comprising:
at least two or more vacuum interrupters (102, 104) being electrically connected in series by at least one of:
control elements (110) being disposed on the at least two vacuum interrupters (102, 104).
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 vacuum interrupter of Benkert with the teaching of the switching device of Djogo, thereby equalizing the voltage across the vacuum interrupters in a circuit may allow the circuit breaker to be used for high voltage applications because each interrupter unit will only have to handle an equal portions of the overall voltage.
Regarding claim 29, Djogo further discloses at least one of an insulator housing (112) in which the vacuum interrupters (102, 104) are disposed.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkert and Djogo and further in view of Uekama et al, JPS 59125039 [Uekama].
Regarding claim 30 , Benkert and Djogo fail to disclose, further comprises clean air filling said housing as an insulating gas.
Uekama discloses (figs.1-3) vacuum interrupters (1) comprises clean air filling a housing (10) as an insulating gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vacuum interrupter of Benkert with the teaching of the vacuum interrupters of Uekama, thereby providing insulation between electrically live parts and other adjacent components within the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benkert et al, Wang, Gentsch, Holaus et al, Kruesi et al, Martin, Heimbach et al and Yanabu et al are examples of vacuum interrupters for switching voltages, configured similar to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BOLTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Renee S Luebke can be reached at (571)-272-2009.
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.
/WILLIAM A BOLTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833