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 1-13 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted on 11/18/2024 and 04/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balcom (US 4117345 A).
Regarding claim 1, Balcom teaches a marine protection circuit (abstract, marine ground isolator) comprising
a first terminal (e.g. one of ground leads 12 and 14, figs.1-3) connectable to a ground connection of a marine vessel (column 3 lines 52-55, to be connected in series in the connection between the ground conductor of a shore power system and the conductive portions of a vessel) or a waterborne object and
a second terminal (e.g. one of ground leads 12 and 14, figs.1-3) connectable to a ground connection of an on-shore power supply (column 3 lines 52-55, to be connected in series in the connection between the ground conductor of a shore power system and the conductive portions of a vessel),
wherein the marine protection circuit is configured to engage when a voltage across the first and the second terminals is above a selectively set threshold value (column 5 lines 58-68, whenever the voltage between leads 12 and 14 attempts to exceed the equivalent of 2.5 volts rms, … activates SCR firing circuit 52 … voltage exceeds that set in dc voltage monitor 36, eg 16 V),
wherein the marine protection circuit is configured to present low resistance between the first and the second terminals when engaged (column 5 lines 50-52, clamp the potential of lead 12 to substantially the potential of lead 14), and
wherein the marine protection circuit is configured to present high resistance between the first and the second terminals when unengaged (column 2 lines 27-30, A general object of the subject invention is to provide a new and improved marine ground isolator which provides galvanic protection).
Regarding claim 2, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the marine protection circuit is configured to present a short circuit between the first and the second terminals when engaged (column 5 lines 50-52, clamp the potential of lead 12 to substantially the potential of lead 14).
Regarding claim 3, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the marine protection circuit is configured to present an open circuit between the first and the second terminals when unengaged (column 6 lines 28-30, if the isolation between vessel and shore grounds has been removed by the activation of SCRs 30 or 32) (it is necessarily true that isolation or open circuit is present when SCRs are not activated).
Regarding claim 4, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 1, comprising a crowbar circuit connected between the first and the second terminals (column 5 lines 50-52, clamp the potential of lead 12 to substantially the potential of lead 14).
Regarding claim 5, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 4, wherein the crowbar circuit is an active crowbar circuit (column 5 lines 50-52, clamp the potential of lead 12 to substantially the potential of lead 14) (column 5 lines 59-60, whenever the voltage between leads 12 and 14 attempts to exceed).
Regarding claim 8, Balcom teaches an on-shore power supply (column 3 lines 61-62, a shore power source (not shown)) for providing power to a marine vessel (column 4 lines 2-4, a ground lead 22 from the shore power source and the ship's hull 26) or a waterborne object, the on-shore power supply comprising the marine protection circuit according to claim 1 (please see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Balcom teaches a marine vessel (column 4 lines 2-4, a ground lead 22 from the shore power source and the ship's hull 26) (also see fig.3) or waterborne object comprising the marine protection circuit according to claim 1 (please see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Balcom teaches a marine power connector (column 3 lines 60-62, across leads 16 and 18 from a shore power source) for a marine vessel (column 4 lines 2-4, a ground lead 22 from the shore power source and the ship's hull 26) (also see fig.3) or waterborne object, the marine power connector comprising the marine protection circuit according to claim 1 (please see rejection of claim 1 above), where the marine power connector is arranged to connect to an on-shore power supply (column 3 lines 60-62, across leads 16 and 18 from a shore power source).
Regarding claim 11, Balcom teaches the marine power connector according to claim 10, wherein the marine power connector is adapted to conduct one-phase power (column 3 lines 58-60, typical single phase installation of marine ground isolator 10 is illustrated in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Balcom teaches an on-shore power connector (column 3 lines 60-62, across leads 16 and 18 from a shore power source) for an on-shore power supply (column 3 lines 61-62, a shore power source (not shown)), the on-shore power connector comprising the marine protection circuit according to claim 1 (please see rejection of claim 1 above), where the on-shore power connector is arranged to connect to a marine vessel (column 4 lines 2-4, a ground lead 22 from the shore power source and the ship's hull 26) (also see fig.3) or a waterborne object.
Regarding claim 13, Balcom teaches the on-shore power connector according to claim 12, wherein the on-shore power connector is adapted to conduct one-phase power (column 3 lines 58-60, typical single phase installation of marine ground isolator 10 is illustrated in FIG. 3).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balcom (US 4117345 A).
Regarding claim 6, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the selectively set threshold value is larger than 20 Volt (column 4 line 48, 16 volts or greater).
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set threshold value larger than 20 Volt, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 threshold value to be larger than 20 Volt to provide the advantage of optimal design for the circuit design and components.
Regarding claim 7, Balcom teaches the marine protection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the selectively set threshold value is within 20 to 60 Volt (column 4 line 48, 16 volts or greater).
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set threshold value within 20 to 60 Volt, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 threshold value within 20 to 60 Volt to provide the advantage of optimal design for the circuit design and components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shaw (WO 2010100391 A1), Staerzl (US 5840164 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 11/25/2025