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 filed May 7, 2024 are objected to because in fig. 1C “housing” should be corrected as --13-- (Specification paragraph 0039). In fig. 6A replace “680R” with –680-- (paragraph 0057).
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 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, 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin (US Pat. 10,354,783).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 12-13, Griffin teaches a surge protection device (SPD; see the Title and figs. 1-4) module, comprising:
a housing (epoxy housing 300; col. 4, lines 18-24);
a plurality of metal oxide varistor (MOVs 104-112 composed of zinc oxide or silicon carbide; see col. 3, lines 26-31) wafers, respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers having electrical characteristics that reduce an imbalance in current between the respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers in response to an overvoltage event (combination of the 5 MOVs dissipate an amount of energy equal to the sum of the rate dissipation of each MOV, that is, balancing the current flow among the MOVs; see col. 5, lines 6-42); and
one or more electrodes (see fig. 2), the plurality of MOV wafers and the one or more electrodes being alternately arranged in the housing.
Regarding claim 10, Griffin teaches the one of more electrodes including a tab portion (200-210; see fig. 2) that is configured to extend outside the housing (300) and further being configured to attach to a disconnect element via a conductive thermal adhesive material (spring 818 disconnects when solder melts, the spring is connected to an MOV; see col. 6, lines 7-22).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin teaches the one of more electrodes including a first tab portion connect to a first connection port; and a second one of the one or more electrodes includes a second tab portion configured to connect to a second connection port (tabs are connected to line signal, phase signal, or a neutral signal for the MOV device; see col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 6).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamensek et al. (US Pub. 2019/0080826.
Regarding claims 1-3, Kamensek teaches a surge protection device (SPD; see the Title and figs. 2-3) module, comprising:
a housing (epoxy housing 110; paragraph 0069);
a plurality of metal oxide varistor (MOVs 132 and 133 composed of zinc oxide or silicon carbide; paragraph 0078) wafers, respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers having electrical characteristics that reduce an imbalance in current between the respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers in response to an overvoltage event (having varistors 132, 133 of different thickness and/or having a different manufacturing process, the varistor 133 having a hole 139 all mount to different clamping voltage; see paragraphs 0085-0088 and 0099); and
one or more electrodes (132, 136 and 138; see fig. 2), the plurality of MOV wafers and the one or more electrodes being alternately arranged in the housing.
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 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Mosesian et al. (EP2811493).
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, Griffin teaches the claimed invention except for one of the MOVs being composed of a different material from another MOV, different grain size and different doping and different manufacturing.
Mosesian teaches a MOV circuit protection device having a plurality of MOVs (see fig. 12 and paragraph 0058), wherein one of the MOV (284) is composed of a material different form the other MOVs (262, 266 and 268). Mosesian teaches that the different MOV in the protection device changes the overall operating characteristics of the voltage sensitive device.
Mosesian further teaches that the volume, mass and dimensions of the materials forming the MOVs are modified to vary the operating condition of the circuit protection device (teaching different grain size and/or impurity for MOV 294, the MOV 294 further composed of conductive material, the conductive material may be formed as an outer portion 294b or as inner portion 296a; see paragraphs 0060-0062).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mosesian with Griffin, since changing the material of one MOV in the protection circuit as taught by Mosesian will allow for reducing the imbalance in current flow among the MOVs in Griffin’s circuit protection device.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 2018/0062374) in view of Griffin.
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches a surge protection device (SPD; see the abstract) assembly, comprising:
a base (board 15a for circuit connection; see fig. 1B); and
an SPD mounted on the base, the SPD comprising:
a housing (MOVs 35are coated with epoxy; see paragraph 0027);
a plurality of metal oxide varistor (MOV stack 35, depending on circuit protection rating; see paragraph 0025) wafers, and
one or more electrodes, the plurality of MOV wafers and the one or more electrodes being alternately arranged in the housing (each MOV includes plates 36c and 37b; see figs. 1A, 1B and paragraphs 0024-0025).
Yang teaches the claimed invention except for the respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers having electrical characteristics that reduce an imbalance in current between the respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers in response to an overvoltage event.
Griffin teaches a surge protection device (SPD; see the Title and figs. 1-4) module, comprising:
a plurality of metal oxide varistor (MOVs 104-112 composed of zinc oxide or silicon carbide; see col. 3, lines 26-31) wafers, respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers having electrical characteristics that reduce an imbalance in current between the respective ones of the plurality of MOV wafers in response to an overvoltage event (combination of the 5 MOVs dissipate an amount of energy equal to the sum of the rate dissipation of each MOV, that is, balancing the current flow among the MOVs; see col. 5, lines 6-42).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the Griffin with Yang, since MOV structure taught by Griffin will allows the circuit protection device of Yang to produce a balanced current flow among the MOVs for better circuit protection.
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches a disconnector element mounted (spring terminal 30) on the base (15) and configured to receive the overvoltage event;
wherein one of the one or more electrodes (36c; see fig. 1B) includes a tab portion (36a) that is configured to extend outside the housing and is further configured to attach to the disconnector element (30) via a conductive thermal adhesive material (solder; paragraphs 0025-0026); and
wherein the conductive thermal adhesive material is configured to soften in response
to heat applied thereto causing the tab portion to separate from the disconnector element (low temperature solder used for thermal disconnect 30d; see fig. 1A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Griffin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of de Palma et al. (US Pat. 7,483,252).
Regarding claim 16, Yang and Griffin teach the claimed invention except for an alert circuit mounted on the base and configured to generate an alert signal when the tab portion separates from the disconnector element.
de Palma teaches a circuit protection device with multiple MOVs, each MOV connected to an alert circuit (see fig. 7) for to visually indicate a disconnection (col. 9, lines 20-55).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of de Palma with Yang and Griffin, since the fault visual indicator taught by de Palma allows for quicker fault (disconnect) condition for each MOV for the protection device of Yang and Griffin.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Griffin in view of de Palma as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Scheele (US Pat. 5,914,664).
Regarding claim 17, Yang, Griffin and de Palma teach the claimed invention except for the alert circuit including an optical generator that is configured to generate an optical beam and an optical detection circuit that is configured to detect the optical beam; and
wherein the disconnector element includes a beam splitter tab that is configured to
block the optical beam from the optical detection circuit when the disconnector element is
attached to the tab portion.
Scheele teaches an optically sensing switching device (optical switch set 32; see at least figs. 5-7A and col. 4, line 39 to col. 5, line 35) wherein a beam splitter tab (optical shield 38) is moved to split (block) an optical beam (combination of an optical emitter 34 and a detector 36) to control or monitor a position of the tab (actuator bar 18).
Scheele further teaches a photoemitter (photoemitter 30; see fig. 7B) for providing a visual indication of the position of the tab.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Scheele with Yang, griffin and de Palma, since the optical switch and the photoemitter taught by Scheele may be used to monitor the position of the disconnector element for the protection device of Yang, Griffin and de Palma.
Regarding claim 19, Griffin teaches the one of more electrodes including a tab portion (200-210; see fig. 2) that is configured to extend outside the housing (300) and further being configured to attach to a disconnect element via a conductive thermal adhesive material (spring 818 disconnects when solder melts, the spring is connected to an MOV; see col. 6, lines 7-22).
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches the base being a printed circuit board (the MOVs 35 are connected to the lines 20 and 25; see figs. 1B and 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F.
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 571-272-2009.
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.
/KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833