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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, in line 1, recites “The portion of claim 1, where the interface panel”. For consistency, it should read: The portion of claim 1, wherein the interface panel.
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.
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.
Claims 14-17 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 14, in lines 1-2recites “wherein the portion a modular electrical component of the electrical panelboard”. This limitation is confusing because it lacks a verb or an active functional connector (e.g., “is”, “comprises”, “forms”, etc.). Because there is no verb, the structural relationship between “the portion” and “a modular electrical component” cannot be determined. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as: wherein the portion is a modular electrical component of the electrical panelboard.
Claims 15-17 are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt (US 20240222040 A1, and Mittelstadt hereinafter) in view of Mascarenhas et al. (US 20190140439 A1, and Mascarenhas hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Mittelstadt discloses a portion of an electrical panelboard, the portion comprising:
an arc fault circuit interruption (AFCI) protection system configured to detect arc fault events occurring in branch circuits and interrupt the flow of electricity in one or more of the branch circuits (fig. 11, set of circuit breakers 100 including protection capabilities: “Embodiments can provide a best in class advanced protection circuit breaker (e.g., having functions to protect against arc fault”, [0071]); and
an interface panel (figs. 2-3, including 113, 127, 129, and 131, corresponding to each of the set of breakers 100 shown in fig. 11) that enables a user to interact with an AFCI protection system (fig. 6, “As shown, the capacitive film 117 can have a user interface (UI) touch space 119 such that the user can interact with the variable image display 107”, [0047]).
Mittelstadt does not explicitly disclose interruption switching devices of the AFCI protection system are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard.
Mascarenhas discloses interruption switching devices of an AFCI protection system (66, fig. 10; “advanced circuit breaker 66, such as a GFCI, AFCI”, [0073]) are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard (“66 is electrically coupled to an electrical bus”, [0073]) and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard (fig. 7; “68 defines a first electrical path between the load lug of advanced circuit breaker 66 and an output lug 70”, [0075]; “output lug 70 (e.g., to couple output lug 70 to a current carrying line)”, [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mittelstadt to incorporate the teachings of Mascarenhas so that switching devices of the AFCI protection system are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard, in order to allow the circuit breaker to interrupt/allow electrical connection between the panelboard and branch circuits connected to it (standard practice in the art).
Regarding Claim 2, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, where the interface panel enables the user to control the AFCI protection system for the branch circuits (“for the user to interact with the display to get other information and/or to digitally change the state of the breaker to be open or closed)”, [0071] of Mittelstadt. See also rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, wherein the AFCI protection system is within an enclosure (fig. 15 of Mittelstadt, AF CT) and the interface panel is without the enclosure (fig. 15 of Mittelstadt, interface panel is a surface element).
Regarding Claim 7, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 3, wherein the interface panel is on a platform structure raised above the enclosure (133, fig. 1 of Mittelstadt).
Regarding Claim 8, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 3, wherein the interface panel is on a mesa structure that protrudes away from the enclosure (133, fig. 1 of Mittelstadt).
Regarding Claim 9, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 3, wherein the interface panel includes one or more user interactable elements facing away from the enclosure (115, fig. 1 of Mittelstadt in view of “if the test button is touched/pushed, the logic module can initiate self-test and present the results on the display”, [0059]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, wherein the interface panel includes at least one of: buttons interactable by the user; or switches interactable by the user (Mittelstadt: fig. 1 and “if the test button is touched/pushed, the logic module can initiate self-test and present the results on the display”, [0059]. See also rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, wherein the interface panel includes sets of interactable elements, and each set corresponds to a different branch circuit (Mittelstadt: figs. 1-2 and 11; each interface panel of the set of breakers 100 includes interactable elements (such as 105, 127, etc.) and each interface panel corresponds to a different branch circuit as shown in fig. 11. See also rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 11, wherein each set of interactable elements enables the user to control the AFCI protection system for the corresponding branch circuit. (fig. 11, “Embodiments can provide a best in class advanced protection circuit breaker (e.g., having functions to protect against arc fault, ground fault, thermal and magnetic issues) and … an innovative bistable display with two regions of touch function (one to initiate UL standards user test checks and two for the for the user to interact with the display to get other information and/or to digitally change the state of the breaker to be open or closed)”, [0071] of Mittelstadt. See also rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, wherein the interface panel includes:
a status indicator (107, fig. 2 of Mittelstadt) that visually indicates a status of one or more of the branch circuits (“variable image zone 107 configured to display trip information, status information, and/or label information”, [0045] of Mittelstadt);
a reset element (127, fig. 3 of Mittelstadt) configured to, responsive to activation by the user, reset a functionality of the AFCI protection system responsible for one or more of the branch circuits (“The mechanical handle 127 can be configured to mechanically open and close electrical contacts of the circuit breaker 100. In certain embodiments, the mechanical handle 127 further includes a trip position between the ON position and the OFF position (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 9A-9C)”); and
a test element (Mittelstadt, fig. 1: TEST button) configured to, responsive to activation by the user, test a functionality of the AFCI protection system responsible for one or more of the branch circuits ( “if the test button is touched/pushed, the logic module can initiate self-test and present the results on the display”, [0059] of Mittelstadt. See also rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 14 (as best understood), Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 1, wherein the portion a modular electrical component of the electrical panelboard (the portion of claim 1 is defined by breakers 100, fig. 11 of Mittelstadt, each instance of 100 is a modular electrical component).
Regarding Claim 18, Mittelstadt discloses a modular electrical component of an electrical panelboard, the modular electrical component comprising:
a receiving element (100, fig. 1) configured to slide into one of a plurality of receiving compartments of a spine (“a circuit breaker 100 can include a housing 101 configured to fit within a slot of a circuit panel (e.g., as shown in FIG. 11)”, [0045]);
an arc fault circuit interruption (AFCI) protection system at least partially housed in the receiving element (fig. 1, “Embodiments can provide a best in class advanced protection circuit breaker (e.g., having functions to protect against arc fault”, [0071]. See also fig. 15, AF CT), the AFCI protection system configured to detect arc fault events occurring in branch circuits and interrupt the flow of electricity in one or more of the branch circuits (fig. 11; implicitly disclosed by standard function of commercially available AFCI); and
an interface panel on an exterior of the receiving element (figs. 2-3, including 113, 127, 129, and 131, corresponding to each of the set of breakers 100 shown in fig. 11), the interface panel enabling a user to interact with an AFCI protection system at least partially housed in the receiving element (fig. 6, “As shown, the capacitive film 117 can have a user interface (UI) touch space 119 such that the user can interact with the variable image display 107”, [0047]; “Embodiments can include an advanced protection circuit breaker with multiple functions (e.g., arc fault”, [0062]).
Mittelstadt does not explicitly disclose the receiving element electrically couple to bus bars of the spine; wherein interruption switching devices of the AFCI protection system are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard.
Mascarenhas discloses a receiving element electrically couple to bus bars of the spine (“66 is electrically coupled to an electrical bus … in contrast to circuit breaker 50, advanced circuit breaker 66 additionally includes a neutral lead that is coupled to a neutral bus”, [0073])
wherein interruption switching devices of the AFCI protection system are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard (“advanced circuit breaker 66 is electrically coupled to an electrical bus”, [0073]) and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard (fig. 7; “68 defines a first electrical path between the load lug of advanced circuit breaker 66 and an output lug 70”, [0075]; “output lug 70 (e.g., to couple output lug 70 to a current carrying line)”, [0077])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mittelstadt to incorporate the teachings of Mascarenhas so that the receiving element electrically couple to bus bars of the spine; wherein interruption switching devices of the AFCI protection system are electrically coupled between (a) one or more bus bars of the electrical panelboard and (b) branch circuit terminals of the electrical panelboard, in order to allow the circuit breaker to interrupt/allow electrical connection between the panelboard and branch circuits connected to it (standard practice in the art).
Regarding Claim 19, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the modular electrical component of claim 18, wherein the interface panel includes:
a status indicator (107, fig. 2 of Mittelstadt) that visually indicates a status of one or more of the branch circuits (“variable image zone 107 configured to display trip information, status information, and/or label information”, [0045] of Mittelstadt);
a reset element (127, fig. 3 of Mittelstadt) configured to, responsive to activation by the user, reset a functionality of the AFCI protection system responsible for one or more of the branch circuits (“The mechanical handle 127 can be configured to mechanically open and close electrical contacts of the circuit breaker 100. In certain embodiments, the mechanical handle 127 further includes a trip position between the ON position and the OFF position (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 9A-9C)”); and
a test element (Mittelstadt, fig. 1: TEST button) configured to, responsive to activation by the user, test a functionality of the AFCI protection system responsible for one or more of the branch circuits (“if the test button is touched/pushed, the logic module can initiate self-test and present the results on the display”, [0059] of Mittelstadt. See also rejection of claim 18 above).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt in view of Mascarenhas, further in view of Nakano et al. (US 20120152705 A1, and Nakano hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose sections of the branch circuit terminals protrude out of the enclosure.
Nakano discloses sections of branch circuit terminals (20, fig. 2) protrude out of an enclosure (2, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mittelstadt and Mascarenhas to incorporate the teachings of Nakano so that sections of the branch circuit terminals protrude out of the enclosure, in order to provide the option of rear surface connection to branch circuits (“When the stud 20 is a type (rear surface connection type) in which it contacts the terminal from the rear surface (the attachment surface of the circuit breaker) of the circuit breaker, the stud 20 has a columnar shape and has an end surface 20a contacting the terminal 40”, [0004] of Nakano) .
Regarding Claim 5, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas/Nakano discloses the portion of claim 4, wherein the interface panel is between the protruding sections of the branch circuit terminals (Mittelstadt when modified would have the interface panel shown in fig. 1 located between the left and right protruding elements 20 shown in fig. 3 of Nakano).
Regarding Claim 6, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas/Nakano discloses the portion of claim 4, wherein the enclosure is configured to engage with overcurrent circuit breakers (110, fig. 1; “Embodiments can allow all the features to be offered while not using any more circuit spaces inside the electrical panel than traditional thermal magnetic circuit breakers that do not have advanced protection”, [0061] of Mittelstadt).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittelstadt in view of Mascarenhas, further in view of Kamor et al. (US 20170358416 A1, and Kamor hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 15, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the portion of claim 14, wherein the modular electrical component is configured to couple to a bus bar (see rejection of Claim 1 above, modification by Mascarenhas referring to electrical coupling to a bus bar), but does not explicitly disclose the modular electrical component is configured to slide into one of a plurality of receiving compartments of a spine of the electrical panelboard.
Kamor discloses a modular electrical component (6, fig. 4) is configured to slide into one of a plurality of receiving compartments of a spine of an electrical panelboard (fig. 3; “Each circuit breaker space may include an arcuate pad, the arcuate pad may be arranged and configured to slidably receive a corresponding arcuate rib located on a bottom surface of the circuit breaker”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mittelstadt and Mascarenhas to incorporate the teachings of Kamor so that the modular electrical component is configured to slide into one of a plurality of receiving compartments of a spine of the electrical panelboard, in order to facilitate aligning the circuit breaker in the receiving compartment during installation (“To further aid in aligning the circuit breaker 6 to the base pan 4 … the first and second arcuate ribs 68, 70 of the circuit breaker 6 may slide along the first and second arcuate support surfaces 72, 74 of the base pan 4”, [0097] of Kamor). This modification could be implemented by modifying the housing (102, fig. 1 of Mittelstadt) to incorporate the geometrical features of Kamor (figs. 4-8 of Kamor).
Regarding Claim 16, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas/Kamor discloses the portion of claim 15, wherein the modular electrical component includes a track indentation (32, fig. 3 of Kamor. See also rejection of claim 15 above) configured to receive a guiding structure of the spine (12, fig. 3 of Kamor. See rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding Claim 17, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas/Kamor discloses the portion of claim 16, wherein the track indentation is on an outer surface of the modular electrical component (fig. 4 of Kamor. See also, rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Mittelstadt/Mascarenhas discloses the modular electrical component of claim 18 but does not explicitly disclose the modular electrical component includes a track indentation configured to receive a guiding structure of the spine; and the track indentation is part of an outer surface of the modular electrical component.
Kamor discloses a modular electrical component (6, fig. 4) includes a track indentation (32, fig. 3) configured to receive a guiding structure of the spine (12, fig. 3); and the track indentation is part of an outer surface of the modular electrical component (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mittelstadt and Mascarenhas to incorporate the teachings of Kamor so that the modular electrical component includes a track indentation configured to receive a guiding structure of the spine; and the track indentation is part of an outer surface of the modular electrical component, in order to facilitate alignment and electrical connection between the modular electrical component and the electrical panel (“32 may extend between the bottom portion 34 of the first end 24 and the bottom surface 30 directly adjacent to the first end 24 so that a portion of one of the line phase electrical connections 12 of the base pan 4 can be received through the bottom surface and first end”, [0088] of Kamor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights