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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 17 are amended. Claim 24 is canceled. Claim 27 is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, 17-23, and 25-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer et al. European Patent Document EP 866535 A2 (hereinafter “Elischer”) and further in view of Hamer U.S. Patent Application 2007/0081281 (hereinafter “Hamer”).
Regarding claim 1, Elischer teaches a ground fault monitoring and detection system (i.e. residual current circuit breaker 20)(fig.2), comprising: a current interrupt switch (i.e. switching unit 15)(fig.2) configured to be connected to power supply lines (i.e. phase conductors L1-3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2); a first leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 21 and signal circuit 23)(fig.2) connected to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the first leakage sensor configured to detect a leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current through the power supply lines if the leakage current exceeds a first current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]), wherein the first leakage sensor is configured to cancel out the leakage current when the leakage current passes through an ungrounded conductor (i.e. phase conductors L1, L2, and L3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2) and a grounding conductor (i.e. protective conductor PE)(fig.2)(refer also to [0009] and Response to Arguments above); and a second leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 12 and signal circuit 13)(fig.2) connected to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the second leakage sensor configured to detect the leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current through the power supply lines if the leakage current exceeds a second current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]); wherein the second current threshold is greater than the first current threshold by a predefined amount (refer to [0016] and [0018]); however, Elischer does not teach wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps. However, Hamer teaches wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps (refer to [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer to include the threshold levels of Hamer to provide the advantage of sizing the system properly for the intended use to prevent damage to any connected equipment and prevent injury to people/animals in contact with the system/equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, wherein the first leakage sensor comprises a first ground fault interrupt device (GFID) (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 23)(fig.2) connected to a first current sensor (i.e. Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2), and the second leakage sensor comprises a second GFID (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 13)(fig.2) connected to a second current sensor (i.e. Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, wherein the ungrounded conductor is a first ungrounded conductor (implicit), the power supply lines including the first ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer phase conductors L1-3)(fig.2), a second ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer neutral conductor N)(fig.2), and the grounding conductor (i.e. Elischer protective conductor PE)(fig.2), and wherein the second leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]), while the first leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors and also the grounding conductor (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Elischer teaches a method of providing ground fault monitoring and detection (refer to residual current circuit breaker 20)(fig.2), the method comprising: providing a current interrupt switch (i.e. switching unit 15)(fig.2) configured to be connected to power supply lines (i.e. phase conductors L1-3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2); connecting a first leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 21 and signal circuit 23)(fig.2) to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the first leakage sensor configured to detect a leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines if the leakage current exceeds a first current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]), wherein the first leakage sensor is configured to cancel out the leakage current when the leakage current passes through an ungrounded conductor (i.e. phase conductors L1, L2, and L3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2) and a grounding conductor (i.e. protective conductor PE)(fig.2)(refer also to [0009] and Response to Arguments above); and connecting a second leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 11 and signal circuit 13)(fig.2) to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the second leakage sensor configured to detect the leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines if the leakage current exceeds a second current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]); wherein the second current threshold is greater than the first current threshold by a predefined amount (refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]); however, Elischer does not teach wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps. However, Hamer teaches wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps (refer to [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Elischer to include the threshold levels of Hamer to provide the advantage of sizing the system properly for the intended use to prevent damage to any connected equipment and prevent injury to people/animals in contact with the system/equipment.
Regarding claim 10, Elischer and Hamer teach the method of claim 9, wherein the first leakage sensor comprises a first ground fault interrupt device (GFID) (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 23)(fig.2) connected to a first current sensor (i.e. Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2), and the second leakage sensor comprises a second GFID (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 13)(fig.2) connected to a second current sensor (i.e. Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Elischer and Hamer teach the method of claim 9, wherein the power supply lines include a first ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer phase conductors L1-3)(fig.2), a second ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer neutral conductor N)(fig.2), and a grounding conductor (i.e. Elischer protective conductor PE)(fig.2), and wherein the second leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]), while the first leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors and also the grounding conductor (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]).
Regarding claim 26, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, wherein the second leakage sensor is configured to not cancel out the leakage current when the leakage current passes through an ungrounded conductor and a grounding conductor (refer to Elischer [0012], [0013], and [0018]).
Regarding claim 27, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, wherein the second current threshold is greater than or equal to 15 milliamps and less than or equal to 20 milliamps (refer to Hamer [0030]).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 12, 14, 17-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer and Hamer as applied to claims 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. U.S. Patent Application 2014/0211345 (hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 4, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, wherein the current interrupt switch is a load side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to Elischer device 1 and switching unit 15)(fig.2), wherein the load side current interrupt switch is configured to interrupt current flow based on the leakage current exceeding the first current threshold (refer to Elischer [0018]); however, Elischer and Hamer do not teach the system further comprising a line side current interrupt switch configured to be connected to the power supply lines. However, Thompson teaches the system further comprising a line side current interrupt switch (i.e. overload circuit breaking function 6”)(fig.3) configured to be connected to the power supply lines (implicit)(Refer to phases 12A-C)(fig.3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer to include the line side current interrupt switch of Thompson to provide the advantage of providing further protection function for the system, thereby better protecting a device and/or operator.
Regarding claim 6, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the system of claim 4, further comprising a local disconnect handle mechanically coupled to the line side current interrupt switch (refer to Thompson handle 66)(fig.4A)(Thompson handle 642)(fig.12)(refer to Thompson fig.20)(refer to Thompson [0008]), the local disconnect handle configured to be operated by a user to manually interrupt current flow through the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to Thompson [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Elischer and Hamer teach the method of claim 9, wherein the current interrupt switch is a load side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to Elischer device 1 and switching unit 15)(fig.2); however, they do not teach the method further comprising connecting a line side current interrupt switch to the power supply lines. However, Thompson teaches the method further comprising connecting a line side current interrupt switch (i.e. overload circuit breaking function 6”)(fig.3) to the power supply lines (implicit)(Refer to phases 12A-C)(fig.3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Elischer and Hamer to include the line side current interrupt switch of Thompson to provide the advantage of providing further protection function for the system, thereby better protecting a device and/or operator.
Regarding claim 14, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the method of claim 12, further comprising a mechanically coupling a local disconnect handle to the line side current interrupt switch (refer to Thompson handle 66)(fig.4A)(Thompson handle 642)(fig.12)(refer to Thompson fig.20)(refer to Thompson [0008]), the local disconnect handle configured to be operated by a user to manually interrupt current flow through the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to Thompson [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Elischer teaches a system (refer to fig.2), the system comprising: a source (implicit)(refer to PE, N, and L1-3 at the top of the figure)(fig.2); power supply lines (i.e. phase conductors L1-3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2) connected to the source (implicit); a load (i.e. device 1)(fig.2) connected to the power supply lines (implicit); a current interrupt switch (i.e. switching unit 15)(fig.2) connected to the power supply lines (implicit) between the source and the load (implicit); a first leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 21 and signal circuit 23)(fig.2) connected to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the first leakage sensor configured to detect a leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current to the load if the leakage current exceeds a first current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) wherein the first leakage sensor is configured to cancel out the leakage current when the leakage current passes through an ungrounded conductor (i.e. phase conductors L1, L2, and L3 and neutral conductor N)(fig.2) and a grounding conductor (i.e. protective conductor PE)(fig.2)(refer also to [0009] and Response to Arguments above); and a second leakage sensor (i.e. summation current transformer 12 and signal circuit 13)(fig.2) connected to the current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to common triggering mechanism 24)(fig.2), the second leakage sensor configured to detect the leakage current in the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]) and to control the current interrupt switch to interrupt current to the load if the leakage current exceeds a second current threshold (implicit)(refer to fig.2 and [0016] and [0018]); wherein the second current threshold is greater than the let-go current by a predefined amount (refer to [0016] and [0018]); however, Elischer does not teach wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps; and wherein the system is a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, the source is an electrical panel, and the load is HVAC equipment. However, Hamer teaches wherein the first current threshold is greater than or equal to 4 milliamps and less than or equal to 6 milliamps (refer to [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer to include the threshold levels of Hamer to provide the advantage of sizing the system properly for the intended use to prevent damage to any connected equipment and prevent injury to people/animals in contact with the system/equipment. However, Elischer and Hamer do not teach wherein the system is a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, the source is an electrical panel, and the load is HVAC equipment. However, Thompson teaches wherein the system is a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (refer to claim 27), the source is an electrical panel (refer to [0129] and [0160]), and the load is HVAC equipment (refer to claim 27). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer and Hamer to include the HVAC system of Thompson to provide the advantage of protecting expensive equipment from damage as well as protecting a person from a common piece of equipment which can easily be contacted.
Regarding claim 18, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 17, wherein the first leakage sensor comprises a first ground fault interrupt device (GFID) (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 23)(fig.2) connected to a first current sensor (i.e. s Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2), and the second leakage sensor comprises a second GFID (i.e. Elischer signal circuit 13)(fig.2) connected to a second current sensor (i.e. Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2).
Regarding claim 19, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 17, wherein the power supply lines include a first ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer phase conductors L1-3)(fig.2), a second ungrounded conductor (i.e. Elischer neutral conductor N)(fig.2), and a grounding conductor (i.e. Elischer protective conductor PE)(fig.2), and wherein the second leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 11)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]), while the first leakage sensor is configured to detect the leakage current via the first and second ungrounded conductors and also the grounding conductor (implicit)(refer to Elischer summation current transformer 21)(fig.2)(refer also to Elischer [0015]).
Regarding claim 20, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 17, wherein the current interrupt switch is a load side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to Elischer device 1 and switching unit 15)(fig.2); however, Elischer does not teach the HVAC system further comprising a line side current interrupt switch configured to be connected to the power supply lines between the electrical panel and the HVAC equipment. However, Thompson teaches the HVAC system further comprising a line side current interrupt switch (i.e. overload circuit breaking function 6”)(fig.3) configured to be connected to the power supply lines between the electrical panel and the HVAC equipment (implicit)(Refer to phases 12A-C)(fig.3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer and Hamer to include the line side current interrupt switch of Thompson to provide the advantage of providing further protection function for the system, thereby better protecting a device and/or operator.
Regarding claim 22, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 20, further comprising a local disconnect handle mechanically coupled to the line side current interrupt switch (refer to handle 66)(fig.4A)(handle 642)(fig.12)(refer to fig.20)(refer to [0008]), the local disconnect handle configured to be operated by a user to manually interrupt current flow through the power supply lines (implicit)(refer to [0008]).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 13, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson as applied to claims 4, 12, and 20 above, and further in view of Michalko et al. U.S. Patent Application 2006/0087782 (hereinafter “Michalko”).
Regarding claim 5, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the system of claim 4; however, they do not teach the system further comprising a supervisory controller connected to the line side current interrupt switch and coupled to the first and second leakage sensors, the supervisory controller configured to: control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event; and perform diagnostics on the leakage current detected by the first and second leakage sensors and provide status and diagnostic information to a user. However, Michalko teaches the system further comprising a supervisory controller (i.e. control system 3000)(fig.7B) connected to the line side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to main contact 2100)(fig.7B)(control system is connected to the main breaker 2100 which is analogous to the line side current interrupt switch 6” of Thompson) and coupled to the first and second leakage sensors (refer to step S504)(Fig.10)(refer also to [0049]), the supervisory controller configured to control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event (refer to figure 10); and perform diagnostics on the leakage current detected by the first and second leakage sensors (refer to [0043]) and provide status and diagnostic information to a user (refer to [0049] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson to include the supervisory controller of Michalko to provide the advantage of ensuring disconnection of the source from the load in the case of a failure of the protection module, thereby better protecting the equipment from damage and an operator from injury.
Regarding claim 13, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the system of claim 12; however, they do not teach the method further comprising connecting a supervisory controller to the line side current interrupt switch, the supervisory controller configured to control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event; and coupling the supervisory controller to the first and second leakage sensors, the supervisory controller configured to perform diagnostics on the leakage current detected by the first and second leakage sensors and provide status and diagnostic information to a user. However, Michalko teaches the method further comprising connecting a supervisory controller (i.e. control system 3000)(fig.7B) to the line side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to main contact 2100)(fig.7B)(control system is connected to the main breaker 2100 which is analogous to the line side current interrupt switch 6” of Thompson), the supervisory controller configured to control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow through the power supply lines upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event (refer to figure 10); and coupling the supervisory controller to the first and second leakage sensors (refer to step S504)(Fig.10)(refer also to [0049]), the supervisory controller configured to perform diagnostics on the leakage current detected by the first and second leakage sensors (refer to [0043]) and provide status and diagnostic information to a user (refer to [0049] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson to include the supervisory controller of Michalko to provide the advantage of ensuring disconnection of the source from the load in the case of a failure of the protection module, thereby better protecting the equipment from damage and an operator from injury.
Regarding claim 21, Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 20; however, they do not teach the HVAC system further comprising a supervisory controller connected to the line side current interrupt switch, the supervisory controller configured to control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow to the HVAC equipment upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event. However, Michalko teaches the HVAC system further comprising a supervisory controller (i.e. control system 3000)(fig.7B) connected to the line side current interrupt switch (implicit)(refer to main contact 2100)(fig.7B)(control system is connected to the main breaker 2100 which is analogous to the line side current interrupt switch 6” of Thompson), the supervisory controller configured to control the line side current interrupt switch to interrupt current flow to the HVAC equipment upon occurrence of a predefined current interrupt event (refer to figure 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson to include the supervisory controller of Michalko to provide the advantage of ensuring disconnection of the source from the load in the case of a failure of the protection module, thereby better protecting the equipment from damage and an operator from injury.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer and Hamer as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Simmons U.S. Patent No. 5,932,939 (hereinafter “Simmons”).
Regarding claim 7, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a housing (implicit)(refer to Elischer fig.2) configured to enclose the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors (implicit)(refer to Elischer fig.2); however, they do not teach the housing providing weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors. However, Simmons teaches the housing providing weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors (refer to col. 3 lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer and Hamer to include the housing of Simmons to provide the advantage of using an appropriate housing for the environmental conditions the system will be subjected to in order to prevent damage to the system.
Regarding claim 15, Elischer and Hamer teach the method of claim 1, further comprising enclosing the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors in a housing (implicit)(refer to Elischer fig.2); however, they do not teach the housing configured to provide weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors. However, Simmons teaches the housing configured to provide weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors (refer to col. 3 lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Elischer and Hamer to include the housing of Simmons to provide the advantage of using an appropriate housing for the environmental conditions the system will be subjected to in order to prevent damage to the system.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Simmons.
Regarding claim 23, Elischer, Hamer and Thompson teach the HVAC system of claim 17, further comprising a housing (implicit)(refer to Elischer fig.2) configured to enclose the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors (implicit)(refer to Elischer fig.2); however, they do not teach the housing providing weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors. However, Simmons teaches the housing providing weather protection for the current interrupt switch and the first and second leakage sensors (refer to col. 3 lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HVAC system of Elischer, Hamer, and Thompson to include the housing of Simmons to provide the advantage of using an appropriate housing for the environmental conditions the system will be subjected to in order to prevent damage to the system.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elischer and Hamer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. U.S. Patent Application 2008/0024945 (hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claim 25, Elischer and Hamer teach the system of claim 1; however, they do not teach wherein the current interrupt switch is configured to open automatically when power is removed from the system. However, Gao teaches wherein the current interrupt switch is configured to open automatically when power is removed from the system (refer to [0045]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Elischer and Hamer to include the automatic opening when power is removed to provide the advantage of providing fail-safe operation of the interrupt switch to prevent injury to an operator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boteler U.S. Patent No. 5,793,587 (abstract and figures 1 and 2).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights