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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 5/1/2024 and 12/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Bonavides and David were both disclosed in the IDS’s.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonavides (U.S 2014/0111025 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Bonavides disclose a switch assembly for use in a power tool (Fig,7-9), the switch assembly comprising: a load circuit (Fig.7, #B1 in conjunction with #B2) including a movable contact (Fig.7, #B1) through which an electrical current flows to operate the power tool (paragraph [0026-0027)]; a biasing element (Fig.7, #705) configured to bias the movable contact toward an open position in the load circuit (Fig.7, #705 is configured to bias #b1 to an open position, see figure 9); and a fuse element (Fig.7. #720) which, in an intact state, is configured to maintain the movable contact in a closed position in the load circuit against a bias of the biasing element (Fig.7, when #720 is in the intact state, B1 is closed), and which, in a broken state, is configured to permit the movable contact to move to the open position under the bias of the biasing element (Fig.9 and paragraph [0037]).
In regards to Claim 2, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 1, further comprising a fuse circuit in which the fuse element is electrically wired, wherein the fuse element is proximate the movable contact in the load circuit (Fig.7, #720 is connected to #725 and #730 creating a fuse circuit which is proximate to #B1).
In regards to Claim 3, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 2, wherein the fuse element is configured as an electrical wire having a gauge value less than or equal to 30 (Fig.7, #720 is a thin nickel chrome wire having a gauge equal to 30 or less, see paragraph [0029]).
In regards to Claim 4, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 3, wherein the fuse element is configured to break in response to an electrical current being passed through the fuse circuit (Fig.9 and paragraph [0038], which discloses power being applied to #720 to cause it to fail).
In regards to Claim 7, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 1, wherein the movable contact includes a first end (Fig.7, #B1 has a first end) with a first load terminal (Fig.7, #710) and a second end (Fig.7 #B1 has a second end, opposite the first end) with a second load terminal (Fig.7, #715), and wherein when the movable contact is in the closed position in the load circuit (Fig.7, closed position), the first load terminal and the second load terminal are in line with a load circuit wire (Fig.7), and when the movable contact is in the open position, at least one of the first load terminal and the second load terminal is not in line with the load circuit wire (Fig.9, when #720 breaks, contact between terminal #B1 and #B2 are separated).
In regards to Claim 8, Bonavides disclose a switch assembly for use in a power tool, the switch assembly comprising (Fig.7-23): a load circuit (Fig.7, #B1 to B2) including a movable contact (Fig.7, #B1) through which an electrical current flows to operate the power tool (#2315); and a fuse element (Fig.7, #720) which, in an intact state, maintains the movable contact in a closed position in the load circuit (Fig.7), and which, in a broken state, permits the movable contact to move to an open position (Fig.9, #720 is broken which causes #B1 to disconnect from #B2).
In regards to Claim 9, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 8, wherein the fuse element is an electrical wire which (Fig.7 and #720 is a nickel chrome wire, see paragraph [0029]), in the intact state, preserves tension in the fuse element (Fig.7), and which, in the broken state, releases tension in the fuse element (Fig.9).
In regards to Claim 13, Bonavides disclose the switch assembly of claim 8, wherein the movable contact includes a first end with a first load terminal (Fig.7, #B1 has a first end with a first load terminal #710) and a second end with a second load terminal (Fig.7, #B1 has a second end opposite to the first end connected with #B2 as the second load terminal), and wherein when the movable contact is in the closed position in the load circuit, the first load terminal and the second load terminal are in line with a load circuit wire (Fig.7, #B1 is in the closed position and paragraph [0027]), and when the movable contact is in the open position, at least one of the first load terminal and the second load terminal is not in line with the load circuit wire (Fig.9, #B1 is opened and the first and second load terminals are not in line with the circuit wire).
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by David (GB 2 185 162 A).
In regards to Claim 1, David disclose a switch assembly for use in a power tool (Fig.1, #10), the switch assembly comprising: a load circuit (Fig.1 and 2, #28a in conjunction with #28b) including a movable contact (Fig.2, #52) through which an electrical current flows to operate the power tool (Column 2, lines 59-70)]; a biasing element (Fig.2, #44) configured to bias the movable contact toward an open position in the load circuit (Fig.2, #744 is configured to bias #52 to an open position, see figure 5); and a fuse element (Fig.2, #37) which, in an intact state, is configured to maintain the movable contact in a closed position in the load circuit against a bias of the biasing element (Fig.2, when #37 is in the intact state, #52 is closed), and which, in a broken state, is configured to permit the movable contact to move to the open position under the bias of the biasing element (Fig.5, #37 is in the broken state, #52 disconnects to the open position).
In regards to Claim 5, David disclose the switch assembly of claim 1, further comprising a separator (Fig.2, #61) positioned between the fuse element (Fig.2, #61 is between #37 and #52), when in the intact state (Fig.2), and the movable contact to maintain the movable contact in the closed position (Fig.2, #52 is in the closed position).
In regards to Claim 6, David disclose the switch assembly of claim 5, wherein the separator is made from an electrically insulating material (Fig.2, #61 which is an insulated body, see column 2, lines 78-79, which discloses “an insulated body 61”).
In regards to Claim 8, David disclose a switch assembly for use in a power tool (Fig.1, #10), the switch assembly comprising: a load circuit (Fig.1 and 2, #28a to #28b is consider the load circuit) including a movable contact (Fig.2, #52) through which an electrical current flows to operate the power tool (Fig.2); and a fuse element (Fig.1-2, #37) which, in an intact state, maintains the movable contact in a closed position in the load circuit (Fig.2), and which, in a broken state, permits the movable contact to move to an open position (Fig.5, #37 in the broken state, causes #52 to slide away to an open state).
In regards to Claim 16, David disclose a power tool comprising: an electronic control unit (Fig.1 and 7, #12 in conjunction with #37) configured to control operation of the power tool (See Column 2, lines 39-59); and a switch assembly (Fig.1, #30) including a load circuit (Fig.1, #28a in conjunction with #28b) including a movable contact (Fig.2, #52) through which an electrical current flows to operate the power tool (Fig.1 and 2); and a fuse element (Fig.2, #37) which, in an intact state, maintains the movable contact in a closed position in the load circuit (Fig.2, in the closed state), and which, in a broken state, permits the movable contact to move to an open position (Fig.5, open state), wherein when the electronic control unit detects a fault with the power tool, the fuse element is configured to break in response to an electrical current being passed through the fuse element (See column 3, lines 39-59, which discloses when #12 in conjunction with #37 detects a fault, current is passed through #37 to break causing an open circuit).
In regards to Claim 17, David disclose the power tool of claim 16, further comprising: a biasing element (Fig.2, #44) configured to bias the movable contact toward the open position in the load circuit (Fig.2 &5), and a fuse circuit in which the fuse element is electrically wired, wherein the fuse element is proximate the movable contact in the load circuit (Fig.1 and 7), wherein the fuse element, in the intact state (Fig.2, #37), is configured to maintain the movable contact in the closed position in the load circuit against a bias of the biasing element (Fig.2, #52 is in the closed position between #28a to #28b), and wherein the fuse element, in the broken state (Fig.5), is configured to permit the movable contact to move to the open position in response to a bias of the biasing element (Fig.1-5 and abstract).
In regards to Claim 18, David disclose the power tool of claim 17, further comprising a separator (Fig.2, #61) positioned between the fuse element (Fig.2, #61 is between #37 and #52), when in the intact state (Fig.2), and the movable contact to maintain the movable contact in the closed position (Fig.2, #52 is in the closed position).
In regards to Claim 19, David disclose the power tool of claim 16, further comprising a fuse circuit in which the fuse element is electrically wired, wherein the fuse element is in contact with the movable contact in the load circuit to maintain the movable contact in the closed position (Abstract, Fig.1, 2, and 7).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (GB 2 185 162 A) in view of Yoneda (U.S 2025/0182989 A1).
In regards to Claim 20, David disclose the power tool of claim 19.
David fails to disclose: Further comprising a logic circuit electrically wired to the fuse circuit, wherein the logic circuit includes a circuit board and a logic movable contact, wherein an electrical current does not pass through the fuse circuit when the logic movable contact is in an open position, wherein an electrical current is passed through the fuse circuit when the logic movable contact is in a closed position, and wherein the fuse element is configured to break in response to the electrical current being passed through the fuse circuit, releasing tension in the fuse element and permitting the movable contact to move to the open position.
However, Yoneda discloses: Further comprising a logic circuit (Fig.3, #103) electrically wired to the fuse circuit (Fig.3, #100), wherein the logic circuit includes a circuit board (Fig.3, #103 is a current detection circuit mounted on a board) and a logic movable contact (Fig.3, #102), wherein an electrical current does not pass through the fuse circuit when the logic movable contact is in an open position (Fig.3 when #102 is open, no current passes through fuse circuit), wherein an electrical current is passed through the fuse circuit when the logic movable contact is in a closed position (Fig.4 and “In the protection circuit 100, the current detection circuit 103 supplies a cutoff signal to the switch 102 when the current detection circuit 103 detects an abnormality caused by damage to a device equipped with a main power supply, such as an electric vehicle (EV) accident. , the switch 102 is turned on to supply a fusing current from the auxiliary power supply 101 to the first fuse element section 2. Here, the blowing current is a current of sufficient magnitude to blow the first fuse element 7”), and wherein the fuse element is configured to break in response to the electrical current being passed through the fuse circuit, releasing tension in the fuse element and permitting the movable contact to move to the open position (Fig.4, when #102 is closed current passed through #1a causing the circuit to open, as such the office notes that with the combination of David in view of Yoneda, the load circuit connected to a fuse circuit electrically connected to a switch for over current protection (as taught by David) would be modified to include a logic circuit having a logically movable contact (as taught by Yoneda) to detect for any abnormalities within the load circuit to prevent damage to said circuit and/or user).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the load circuit connected to a fuse circuit electrically connected to a switch for over current protection (as taught by David) to replace the switch with a logic circuit having a logically movable contact (as taught by Yoneda) to detect for any abnormalities within the load circuit to prevent damage to said circuit and/or user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to Claim 10, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the fuse element is in contact with the movable contact in the load circuit to maintain the movable contact in the closed position”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
Dependent claims 11-12 are allowably by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
In regards to Claim 14, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “a second end opposite the first end, and wherein when the movable contact is in the closed position in the load circuit, the second end is in contact with the fuse element”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
Dependent claim 15 is allowably by virtue of its dependency from claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubo (U.S 2008/0151005 A1) – Discloses a logic circuit which controls a fuse element from being intact to broken when an abnormality is detected within the circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights