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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In addition, the abstract should be in paragraph form, summarizing the disclosure, not a copy of a (cancelled) claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16, 19-21 and 24-28 are objected to because:
Claims 16-25, lines 1, “A disconnector” should be -The disconnector-.
Claim 15, line 1, “GIS” should be defined or expanded.
Claim 15, line 5, “the fixed arcing contacts” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15, line 7, “the outlet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 16, line 2, “the internal diameter” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19, lines 2-3, phrase, “its internal surface” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 19, line 3, “the both ends” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20, line 3, “the opposite direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21, line 2, “the circuit breaker” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24, line 2, “the shape” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 25, line 3, “the movement” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 25, line 3, “the action” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 26, line 3, “a disconnector” should be -the disconnector-.
Claim 27, line 1, “A GIS” should be -The GIS-.
Claim 28, line 1, “a disconnector” should be -the disconnector-.
Claim 28, line 1, “A GIS” should be -The GIS-.
Claim 28, line 2, “the movable main contact” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 28, line 3, “the fixed main contact” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 28, line 3, “the main contacts” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 28, line 4, “the fixed arcing contacts” should be – the fixed arcing contact-.
Claim 28, line 7, “them” ” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 28, line 7, phrase, “the arcing contacts” is unclear as to which arcing contacts are being referred to, examples, movable or fixed.
Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 112 (f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “means for pressing” (in claims 15 and 25) has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “pressing” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claims; or
(2) present a sufficient showing to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 and 27 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.
Claim 23 “a front end of the fixed arcing contact having a stair step shape” is improperly dependent on claim 22, should probably depends on claim 15.
Claim 27, line 4, “for example” renders the claim indefinite, leaving the scope of the claim unascertainable.
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.
Claims 15, 17, 22, 24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al, US 10256058 [Fujioka] in view of Nakada et al, US 9117608 [Nakada].
Regarding claim 15, Fujioka discloses (figs. 15-21) a disconnector (31) for a GIS, comprising:
a pair of permanent contacts (32, 38), one fixed (38) and the other one movable (32) along an axis (50), called the axis of the disconnector (31);
a pair of arcing contacts (32a-32b; 39), one fixed (39) and the other one movable (32a-32b);
an insulating part (34) located inside the fixed arcing contacts (39) and means (5) for pressing the insulating part (34) against a front surface (32a) of the movable arcing contact (32).
Fujioka fails to disclose an insulating ring located at the outlet of the fixed arcing contact.
Nakada discloses (figs. 14-21) a disconnector where an insulating ring (3) is located at an outlet of a fixed arcing contact (11).
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 disconnector of Fujioka with the inclusion of the insulating ring taught by Nakada, thereby providing an arc extinguishing material that generates an arc extinguishing gas that rapidly cools the arc and accordingly, the arc is interrupted.
Regarding claim 17, Fujioka and Nakada fail to disclose the insulating ring having an internal restriction.
JPS5524718 discloses an insulating ring (11) having an internal restriction (front portion of chamber 16).
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 disconnector of Fujioka with the inclusion of the insulating ring taught by JPS5524718, thereby providing an enclosed chamber, preventing scattering of the arc out of the chamber, thus ensuring rapid extinguishing of the arc when generated.
Regarding claim 22, Fujioka and Nakada further discloses a front end (opening portion) of the fixed arcing contact (11) having a concave portion.
Regarding claim 24, Fujioka further discloses at least part of the insulating part (34) located inside the fixed arcing contact (39) having the shape of a cylinder.
Regarding claim 26, Fujioka and Nakada further discloses a metal tank filled with a gas.
Regarding claim 27, Fujioka and Nakada further disclose the gas comprising (Nakada) SF6 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18-21, 25 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objection and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed disconnector comprising the insulating ring having an internal diameter equal to or smaller than, an internal diameter of the fixed arcing contact.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed disconnector comprising, the insulating ring having a V-shaped section in a plane containing the axis.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed disconnector wherein, the insulating part located inside the fixed arcing contact comprising a stopping member cooperating with a stopping member of the fixed arcing contact to block the movement of the insulating part under the action of the means for pressing the insulating part against a front surface of the movable arcing contact.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed method for opening a disconnector of a GIS, separating the pair of arcing contacts from each other, thereby triggering an arc between them, in a volume limited by the arcing contacts and by both the insulating part and the insulating ring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McLaughlin et al, Kubota et al, Kieffel et al, Mariyama et al, Granhaug et al, Nakauchi et al and Saxl et al are examples of disconnectors 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