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 Objections
Claims 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “PCB” should be spelled out initially.
In claim 11, “the interlock latch” lacks antecedent basis. It appear claim 11 should depend on claim 10 instead of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mittelstadt (US 10,283,299).
Regarding claim 1, Mittelstadt discloses a mechanical interlock comprising: an enclosure; a connector (120) at least partially received within the enclosure for selectively receiving a plug; a load switch (134) positioned within the enclosure, the load switch arranged and configured to selectively supply power to the connector; a handle assembly (110) operatively associated with the enclosure, the handle assembly being selectively movable between an ON position and an OFF position to selectively energize and deenergize the load switch; a shaft (132) for rotationally coupling the handle assembly to the load switch; a magnet (112); and; a sensor (140) arranged and configured to detect a magnetic field of the magnet; wherein the detection of the magnetic field is indicative of whether the handle assembly is in the ON position or the OFF position.
Regarding claim 2, Mittelstadt discloses the sensor being a hall effect sensor (claim 5).
Regarding claim 3, Mittelstadt discloses a processor (150) programmed to: detect an output of the sensor; based on the output of the sensor, determine the position of the handle assembly; determine an electrical state of the load switch; compare the position of the handle assembly with the electrical state of the load switch; and provide a fault indication based upon the comparison (intended use).
Regarding claim 5, Mittelstadt discloses at least one of the magnet or the sensor operatively coupled with the handle assembly so that, in use, movement of the handle assembly moves the at least one of the magnet or the sensor relative to the other one of the magnet or the sensor (Figs. 3A-5A).
Regarding claim 19, Mittelstadt discloses a mechanical interlock comprising: an enclosure (102); a connector (120) at least partially received within the enclosure for selectively receiving a plug; a load switch (134) positioned within the enclosure, the load switch arranged and configured to selectively supply power to the connector; a handle assembly (110) operatively associated with the enclosure, the handle assembly being selectively movable between an ON position and an OFF position to selectively energize and deenergize the load switch; a shaft (132) for rotationally coupling the handle assembly to the load switch; a magnet (112); and a sensor (140) arranged and configured to detect a magnetic field of the magnet; wherein: movement of the handle assembly between the ON and OFF positions causes the sensor to selectively detect the magnetic field; when the handle assembly is in the OFF position, the sensor detects the magnetic field to provide an indication that the handle assembly is in the OFF position; and when the handle assembly is in the ON position, the sensor does not detect the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 20, Mittelstadt discloses a processor (150) programmed to: detect an output of the sensor; based on the output of the sensor, determine the position of the handle assembly; determine an electrical state of the load switch; compare the position of the handle assembly with the electrical state of the load switch; and provide a fault indication based upon the comparison (intended use).
Regarding claim 21, Mittelstadt discloses the sensor being a hall effect sensor (claim 5).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt in view of Abel et al. (US 5,479,532).
Regarding claim 4, Abel teaches a battery supply backup power (1513) to the processor (1514 in case of mains power loss (intended use). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a backup battery, as taught by Able, in order to ensure continuous operation of the processor.
Claims 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt in view of Shendge et al. (US 9,472,908).
Regarding claim 6, Shendge teaches the use of a slider plate (110) and a latch spring (90), the slider plate movable from a first position to a second position via rotation of the handle assembly from the OFF position to the ON position, wherein, when the slider plate is in the second position, the latch spring engages the plug inserted into the connector so that removal of the plug is prevented (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a slider plate and latch spring, as taught by Shendge, in order to provide an efficient latching and safety system.
Regarding claim 7, please note that the combination of Mittelstadt in view of Shendge results on the at least one of the magnet or the sensor coupled to the slider plate (by way of the handle) so that, in use, movement of the slider plate between the first and second positions causes the magnet to be detected or not detected by the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Mittelstadt discloses the sensor located on a PCB board (not labeled, see Figs. 1 and 2) coupled to an inside surface of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Mittelstadt in view of Shendge discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the position of the magnet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to position the magnet, such that: when the handle assembly is in the OFF position and the slider plate is in the first position, the magnet is positioned within a range distance of the sensor so that the magnet is detected by the sensor, the detection providing a signal that the handle assembly is in the OFF position; and when the handle position in the ON position and the slider plate in the second position, the magnet is not detected by the sensor so that the signal is not provided, the lack of detection indicating that the handle assembly is in the ON position, in order to provide the desired operation indication, and since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Mittelstadt discloses a processor (150) arranged and configured to: receive the signal from the sensor; receive a second signal corresponding to an electrical state of the load switch; compare a position of the handle assembly relative to the electrical state of the load switch; and provide a fault indication based upon the comparison (intended use).
Regarding claim 11, Shendge teaches the interlock latch including a first end (132) and a second end, the first end being arranged and configured to contact the plug upon insertion of the plug into the connector so that the interlock latch is moved from the first position to the second position via insertion of the plug into the connector.
Regarding claim 12, Mittelstadt in view of Shendge discloses the shaft including a handle portion operatively coupled to the handle assembly and a switch portion operatively coupled to the load switch, the handle portion being operatively coupled to the switch portion (Mittelstadt), the second end of the interlock latch being selectively coupled to the handle portion so that, when the interlock latch is in the first position, the second end of the interlock latch engages the handle portion so that rotation of the handle portion and the handle assembly is prevented, and, when the interlock latch is in the second position, the second end of the interlock latch is decoupled from the handle portion so that rotation of the handle portion and the handle assembly is permitted (Shendge).
Regarding claim 13, Shendge discloses a mechanical interlock comprising: an enclosure (12); a connector (30) at least partially received within the enclosure for selectively receiving a plug; a load switch (17) positioned within the enclosure, the load switch arranged and configured to selectively supply power to the connector; a handle assembly (20) operatively associated with the enclosure, the handle assembly being selectively movable between an ON position and an OFF position to selectively energize and deenergize the load switch; a shaft (top of 20 in Fig. 3) for rotationally coupling the handle assembly to the load switch; an interlock latch (118, 110, 120) arranged and configured to be operatively associated with the connector and the handle assembly, the interlock latch movable between a first position and a second position, wherein, when in the first position, the interlock latch prevents rotation of the handle assembly, and when in the second position, the interlock latch enables rotation of the handle assembly so that the handle assembly can be moved from the OFF position to the ON position.
Mittelstadt teaches the use of a magnet (112); and a sensor (140) arranged and configured to detect a magnetic field of the magnet; wherein the detection of the magnetic field is indicative of whether the handle assembly is in the ON position or the OFF position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a magnet and sensor arrangement, as taught by Mittelstadt, in order to provide indication of the switch status.
Regarding claim 14, Mittelstadt teaches the sensor being a hall effect sensor (claim 5).
Regarding claim 15, Mittelstadt in view of Shendge discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the position of the magnet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to position the magnet, such that when the handle assembly is in the OFF position, the magnetic field is detected by the sensor to provide an indication that the handle assembly is in the OFF position, and when the handle assembly is in the ON position, the magnetic field is not detected by the sensor, in order to provide the desired operation indication, and since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Mittelstadt teaches a processor (150) programmed to: detect an output of the sensor; based on the output of the sensor, determine the position of the handle assembly; determine an electrical state of the load switch; compare the position of the handle assembly with the electrical state of the load switch; and provide a fault indication based upon the comparison (intended use).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt and Shendge, and further in view of Abel et al. (US 5,479,532).
Regarding claim 4, Abel teaches a battery supply backup power (1513) to the processor (1514 in case of mains power loss (intended use). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a backup battery, as taught by Able, in order to ensure continuous operation of the processor.
Regarding claim 18, Mittelstadt discloses that movement of the handle assembly between the ON and OFF positions causes at least one of the magnet or the sensor to move relative to the other one of the magnet or the sensor to selectively detect the magnetic field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 Luebke can be reached at (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights