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, especially, (figs.1 and 5-7) are objected to because the drawings are of poor line quality. Also, “four arc guides” should be positively shown within the drawings. 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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-9 are objected to because:
Claim 1, lines 13, “a closed state” should be –the closed state-.
Claim 1, lines 13-14, “an open state” should be -the open state-.
Claim 1, lines 17-18, “the corresponding fin block” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 25, “the corresponding fixed contacts” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 25-26, “the corresponding fin blocks” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 2, “the eight arc guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 5, “the other two” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, “the two distinct extinction zones” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4, “the pairs of arc guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4, “the arc guides” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 5, “the arc plate” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 5, “the grooves” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8, line 2, “the fin block” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8, line 3, “the receiving surfaces” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 2, “the fin block” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kralik, US 9991073.
Regarding claim 1, Kralik discloses (figs.1-11) a double-break contactor (1) comprising:
a movable bridge (10) being movable between a closed state and an open state, comprising a first movable contact (9.1) and a second movable contact (9.2), and,
a first fixed contact (7.1) facing the first movable contact (9.1) and a second fixed contact (7.2) facing the second movable contact (9.2),
wherein, in the closed state, the first and second movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) are in contact with the first and second fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) respectively and, in the open state, the first and second movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) are distant from the first and second fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) respectively,
two magnets (2.1, 2.2) configured to generate a magnetic field (23) having a constant direction so as to generate a magnetic force to move an arc (3.1, 3.2) appearing between the first and second fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2), and the first and second movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) of the movable bridge (10) switching from a closed state to an open state,
two fin blocks (5.1, 5.2) each having:
a first end and a second end,
fins (29, 30) between the first end and the second end of the corresponding fin block (5.1, 5.2),
a first and a second extinction zone (4.1, 4.2) each formed by the fins (29, 30),
four arc guides (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) running from the movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) of the bridge (10) to the two fin blocks (5.1, 5.2),
where fin notches forming a groove (31) of fin blocks (5.1, 5.2) among the fins (29, 30) of each of the two fin blocks (5.1, 5.2) face each corresponding arc guide (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2), and
where the contactor (1) further comprises four arc guides (11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2) each running from one of the corresponding fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) to one of the corresponding fin blocks (5.1, 5.2) respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Kralik further discloses where the eight arc guides (11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) are independent of one another, four arc guides (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) are branches extending from the movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) towards the fin blocks (5.1, 5.2) and four arc guides (11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2) are branches extending from the fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) towards the fin blocks (5.1, 5.2).
Regarding claim 3, Kralik further discloses a first and a second fixed contact support electrically insulated from each other respectively supporting the first and second fixed contact (7.1, 7.2) and two of the four arc guides (11.1, 12.1) running from the fixed contacts (7.1) belong to the first fixed contact support each extending from the first fixed contact (7.1) towards the fin blocks (5.1), and the other two of the four arc guides (11.2, 12.2) running from the fixed contacts (7.2) belong to the second fixed contact support each extending from the second fixed contact (7.2) towards the fin blocks (5.2).
Regarding claim 4, Kralik further discloses where the four arc guides (11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2) running from the fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) are surfaces of the first and second fixed contact supports running from the fixed contacts (7.1, 7.2) to the fin blocks (5.1, 5.2).
Regarding claim 5, Kralik further discloses where one pair of arc guides (13.1, 13.2) of the four arc guides (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) running from the movable contacts (9.1, 9.2), is a plate comprising a first (13) and a second (14) arc guide bonded to a base , the first (13) and second arc guides (14) each extending in a direction between the first and second movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) respectively of the bridge (10) towards the corresponding fin block (5.1, 5.2) [see fig.6].
Regarding claim 6, Kralik further discloses where the fins (29, 30) of each fin block (5.1, 5.2) each comprise two portions of the two distinct extinction zones (4.1, 4.2) of the corresponding fin block (5.1, 5.2), each of the two portions comprising the groove (31) [col.11, lines 25-37] and in that for each of the pairs of arc guides (11, 12), the arc guides (11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2) extend from the base of the arc guide plate towards the grooves (31) of the fins (29, 30) of the fin blocks (5.1, 5.2).
Regarding claim 7, Kralik further discloses where the four arc guides (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) extending from the movable contacts (9.1, 9.2) are connected into an assembly, the assembly is a plate comprising four arc guides (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) bonded to a base, each arc guide (13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2) extends from the movable contacts (9.1, 9.3) towards the fin blocks (5.1, 5.2).
Regarding claim 9, Kralik further discloses where each arc guide (11, 12) is fixed to the first end of the fin block(5.1, 5.2) [see fig.6].
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kralik in view of Gryetko, US 4011425.
Regarding claim 8, Kralik further discloses where the fins (29, 30) of the fin block (5.1, 5.2) each comprise a receiving surface, but fails to disclose wherein some of the receiving surfaces are offset towards the fixed contact with respect to the other receiving surfaces aligned in a same plane.
Gryetko discloses (figs.1-5) an arc chute (12) where arc plates (13) having some of receiving surfaces offset towards a fixed contact (16) with respect to other receiving surfaces aligned in a same plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fin block of Kralik with the teaching of the arc chute of Gryetko, where the arc assumes a serpentine shape as it expands into the spaces between each adjacent pair of plates; the plates are so positioned that the spaces therebetween are continuously increasing. The arc extends into these spaces until a plate separation is reached at which the arc strength becomes sufficient to maintain the plasma and the arc breaks and is extinguished.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strand et al, Domejean et al, Baujan et al, Engewald, Theisen et al, Schmitz et al and Kralik ‘520 are further examples of switching devices configured similar to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BOLTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Renee S 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.
/WILLIAM A BOLTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833