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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the barrier element comprises a hole extending through the barrier element as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 1-2, 5, 7 and 9 are objected to because:
Claims 1-2, 5, 7 and 9, phrase, “and/or” leads to an extremely large number of possible combinations, rendering scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 1, phrase, “the barrier element comprises a hole extending through the barrier element” is unclear as a barrier prevents movement and thus cannot at the same time possesses a hold which permits move.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3, “preferably” , “more preferred” and “most preferred” renders the claim indefinite, leaving the scope of the claim unascertainable.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerner et al, DE 19519721 [Gerner] in view of Talpo, US 4628164.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Gerner discloses (figs.1-3) a metal enclosed circuit breaker comprising
a first arcing contact (4) and a second arcing contact (2), whereby the first arcing contact (4) and/or the second arcing contact (2) is axially movable along a switching axis, thereby forming, during a breaking operation, an arc between the first arcing contact (4) and the second arcing contact (2) in an arcing volume, and
an exhaust tube (6) arranged in axial extension to the first arcing contact (4) along the switching axis, whereby
the exhaust tube (6) comprises a closed rear end opposite to the first arcing contact (4), said closed rear end is connectable to a rod (7) for actuating the first arcing contact (4).
Gerner fails to explicitly disclose that the exhaust tube comprises a barrier element arranged within the exhaust tube defining a dead exhaust tube volume between the barrier element and the rear end , and the barrier element comprises a hole extending through the barrier element.
Talpo discloses (figs.1-4) an electrical circuit breaker (labeled in fig.1, below) comprising an exhaust tube (8) comprises a barrier element (9) arranged within the exhaust tube (8) defining a dead exhaust tube volume (labeled in fig.1, below) between the barrier element (9) and a rear end (labeled in fig.1, below), and the barrier element (9) comprises a hole (labeled in fig.1, below) extending through the barrier element (9).
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 arcing contact of Gerner with the teaching of the arcing contacts of Talpo, thereby providing an arc contact system that allows turbulence and discharge zones to be introduced of the gases produced by the arc, thus facilitating the circuit breaking, with a simple, sturdy and reliable structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gerner and Talpo further disclose whereby the hole (labeled in fig.1, above) extends axially along the switching axis, the hole (labeled in fig.1, above) is provided as a bore.
Regarding claim 4, Gerner and Talpo fail to disclose whereby the barrier element is spot-welded with the exhaust tube.
Talpo, however discloses the barrier element (9) screwed onto the exhaust tube (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the barrier element to the exhaust tube using a screwing method rather than spot-welding. It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Gerner and Talpo further disclose whereby the rear end (Talpo; labeled in fig.1, above) is closed gas-tight and/or pressure-tight.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Gerner (figs.1-3) would necessarily perform a method for ventilating an exhaust tube (6) of a metal enclosed circuit breaker comprising a first arcing contact (4) and a second arcing contact (2), whereby the first arcing contact (4) and/or the second arcing contact (2) is axially movable along a switching axis, thereby forming, during a breaking operation, an arc between the first arcing contact (4) and the second arcing contact (2) in an arcing volume (6), whereby
the exhaust tube (6) is arranged in extension to the first arcing contact (4) along the switching axis,
the exhaust tube (6) comprises a closed rear end opposite to the first arcing contact (4), said closed rear end is connectable to a rod (7) for actuating the first arcing contact (4).
Gerner fails to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the exhaust tube comprises a barrier element arranged within the exhaust tube defining a dead exhaust tube volume between the barrier element and the rear end, and comprising the step of:
ventilating the dead exhaust tube volume through a hole extending through the barrier element.
Talpo (figs.1-4) ) would necessarily perform a method of an electrical circuit breaker (labeled in fig.1, below) an exhaust tube (8) comprises a barrier element (9) arranged within the exhaust tube (8) defining a dead exhaust tube volume (labeled in fig.1, above) between the barrier element (9) and a rear end (labeled in fig.1, above), and comprising the step of ventilating the dead exhaust tube volume labeled in fig.1, above) through a hole (labeled in fig.1, above) extending through the barrier element (9).
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 arcing contact of Gerner with the teaching of the arcing contacts of Talpo, thereby providing an arc contact system that allows turbulence and discharge zones to be introduced of the gases produced by the arc, thus facilitating the circuit breaking, with a simple, sturdy and reliable structure.
Regarding claim 8, Gerner and Talpo would further disclose whereby the ventilating comprises evacuating the exhaust tube (Talpo, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Gerner and Talpo further disclose whereby the hole (labeled in fig.1, above) extends axially along the switching axis, the hole (labeled in fig.1, above) is provided as a bore.
Regarding claim 11, Gerner and Talpo fail to disclose the method, comprising step of spot-welding the barrier element with the exhaust tube.
Talpo, however discloses the barrier element (9) screwed onto the exhaust tube (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the barrier element to the exhaust tube using a screwing method rather than spot-welding. It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 12, Gerner and Talpo further disclose the method comprising the step of:
gas-tight and/or pressure-tight closing the rear end (Talpo; labeled in fig.1, above).
Regarding claim 13, Gerner further discloses the method, whereby the metal enclosed circuit breaker comprises a first nominal contact (1) circumferentially surrounding the first arcing contact (4) and a second nominal contact (3) circumferentially surrounding the second arcing contact (2), whereby the first nominal contact (1) defines a heating volume connected to the arcing volume for housing an insulating fluid for quenching the arc.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerner and Talpo and further in view of Saxl et al, US 7595461 [saxl].
Regarding claim 10, Gerner and Talpo fail to disclose whereby the barrier element is provided as cone.
Saxl (fig.1) would necessarily perform a method whereby a barrier element (1) is provided as cone.
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 barrier element of Talpo with the barrier element of Saxl thereby providing an incline shape barrier, thus overcoming fit problems related to the erosion of the arcing contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but
would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objections, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed, metal enclosed circuit breaker, whereby the hole comprises a diameter of 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 mm.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed method, whereby the barrier element is provided as a cone having a conicity defined by an angle α ranging between 20° and 90° with respect to the switching axis.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed method, whereby the barrier element is provided as a cone having a conicity defined by an angle α ranging between 35° and 90° with respect to the switching axis.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed method, whereby the barrier element is provided as a cone having a conicity defined by an angle α ranging between 45° and 90° with respect to the switching axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Galletti et al, Cernat et al, Jimbo et al, Pisu et al, Florez et al and Drews et al are examples of circuit breaker 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