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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the width of the first exhaust zone and the width of the second exhaust zone being different” of claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are objected to because:
Claim 1, line 4, “the direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 5, “the back” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 6, “insulation” should apparently be -insulating- (see previous line) and “portions” is grammatically incorrect and should apparently be -portion-.
Claim 2, line 3, “the two exhaust zones” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 2, “the width of the first exhaust zone” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, “the width of the second exhaust zone” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, “an arc extinguishing device” should be -the arc extinguishing device-.
Claim 6, line 6, “the exhaust air” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim 5, the phrase, “the width of the first exhaust zone and the width of the second exhaust zone being different” is unclear and leaves doubts as to what is being referred to, since it is not defined how much the two widths are different and also there is no indication of a difference in width in the drawings.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muders et al, DE 102009056190 [Muders] in view of Oishi, JPS 6210831.
Regarding claim 1, Muders discloses (figs. 1-3) an arc extinguishing device (100) for a circuit-breaker, comprising
an arc splitter stack (3), the arc splitter stack comprising a plurality of extinguishing splitter plates (4) stacked on top of each other and being kept apart from each other in the direction of stacking, wherein:
an insulating rear plate (5) is fixed at the back of the arc splitter stack (3), the insulation rear plate (5) being subdivided into a first and a second vertical portions, each vertical portion comprising respectively a first and a second exhaust zone, each exhaust zone comprising one or more vents (6’, 6) facing spaces between two adjacent extinguishing splitter plates (4).
Muders fails to disclose the first exhaust zone being located in an upper part of the first portion, the second exhaust zone being located in a lower part of the second portion.
Oishi discloses (figs.1-2) a first exhaust zone (labeled in fig.2, below) being located in an upper part of a first portion, a second exhaust zone (labeled in fig.2, below) being located in a lower part of a second portion.
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 arrangement of the exhaust zones of Muders, with the teaching of the arrangement of the exhaust zones of Oishi, thereby providing arc gases that do not interfere with each other and do not flow backwards, so that the arc can be discharged smoothly; therefore the time it takes for the arc to be divided by the grid plate is shorted, and the current limiting and cutting characteristics are improved.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Muders and Oishi further disclose the first and second exhaust zone (labeled in fig.2, above) being separated by a vertical partition wall (30) arranged to prevent exhaust air flow between the two exhaust zones (labeled in fig.2, above).
Regarding claim 3, Muders and Oishi further disclose where each vertical portion comprising respectively a first and a second insulation zone (labeled in fig.2, above):
the first insulation zone (labeled in fig.2, above) being located in a lower part of the first portion, below the first exhaust zone (labeled in fig.2, above),
the second insulation zone (labeled in fig.2, above) being located in an upper part of the second portion, above the second exhaust zone (labeled in fig.2, above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muders and Oishi and further in view of Hannequin, EP4064307.
Regarding claim 4, Muders and Oishi fail to explicitly disclose the insulating rear plate comprising one or more positioning ribs adapted to be inserted between two adjacent extinguishing splitter plates.
Hannequin discloses (figs.1-5) a switching device (2) having an insulating rear plate comprising one or more positioning ribs (34, 36) adapted to be inserted between two adjacent extinguishing splitter plates (14).
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 rear plate of Muders, with the teaching of the rear plate of Hannequin, thereby serving to slow down the flow and balancing the pressure of the cutting gases and therefore improving the operation of the cutting chamber and the switching device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objections, 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 6, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed miniature circuit breaker comprising an arc extinguishing device to extinguish an electric arc generated in an arc extinguishing chamber, the miniature circuit breaker being adapted to direct the exhaust air outgoing from the first exhaust zone to the arc extinguishing chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ferree, Meinders, Mortenson et al, Boehn and Wood are examples of arc extinguishing devices 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