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 1-17 have been cancelled. Claims 18-36 are pending in the current application.
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.
Claims 18-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Specifically, Claim 18, the 9th and the 2nd to the last lines, is rejected since the term “if” is indefinite. See also, Claim 20, Claim 25, Claim 29, Claim 31, and Claims 33 and 34.
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 18-22, 28, 29, 31, and 34-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Telefus et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/365346 A1, hereinafter “Telefus”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 18, Telefus discloses a circuit breaker device for protecting an electrical low-voltage circuit (Abstract), the circuit breaker device comprising: a housing having network-side and load-side connections for conductors of the electrical low-voltage circuit (111, 112, 121, 122; FIG. 6A), a voltage sensor (206) for ascertaining a level of a voltage of the electrical low-voltage circuit (FIG. 3A), a current sensor (204) for ascertaining a level of a current of the electrical low-voltage circuit (FIG. 3A), a mechanical isolating contact (302) able to be operated using a mechanical handle (307) and having contacts (FIG. 3A), with a result that opening of said contacts prevent a current flow or closing of said contacts for the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit is able to be switched (inherently disclosed FIG. 3A), an electronic interruption unit (304) connected in series with said mechanical isolating contact (302) on a circuit side and having semiconductor-based switching elements, as a result of said semiconductor-based switching elements, said electronic interruption unit (304) has a high-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements to prevent the current flow and a low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements for the current flow in the electric low-voltage circuit, a controller (220) connected to said voltage sensor (206), to said current sensor (204), to said mechanical isolating contact (302) and to said electronic interruption unit (304), wherein if [when] the current and/or current-time limit values is/are exceeded a process for preventing the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit is initiated (¶ [0091]), and the circuit breaker device is configured such that a user of the circuit breaker device operates said mechanical handle (307) in order to close said contacts (¶¶ [0085]-[0086]), wherein said electronic interruption unit (304) is in the high-impedance state (¶ [0092]), in that, after said contacts have been closed, said electronic interruption unit (304) goes to the low-impedance state only if [when] a checking function (¶¶ [0101], [0184]-[0185]), allows the low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements (when the signal CPU_OK indicates that there is no internal fault; even though this must absolutely be the case in order to permit the earlier closure of the contacts; ¶ [0101]).
Regarding Claim 19, Telefus discloses a display (LED 2834; FIG. 28C) for displaying information and is connected to said controller (220), wherein said display displays a state of said semiconductor-based switching elements of said electronic interruption unit (304) and/or a position of said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact (302; FIGS. 28A, 28B).
Regarding Claim 20, Telefus discloses that the checking function contains a self-test of a functionality of the circuit breaker device (after an internal fault: see paragraph 101), during which at least one component of a unit of the circuit breaker device is checked (control unit 220), and if [when] the at least one component of the unit is functional, the low-impedance state is allowed (when the signal CPU_OK indicates that there is no internal fault).
Regarding Claim 21, Telefus discloses that in an absence of the functionality, said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact (302) are opened (¶ [0101]).
Regarding Claim 22, Telefus discloses that the functionality of said electronic interruption unit (304) is checked in order to determine whether said semiconductor-based switching elements are functional (¶ [0095]).
Regarding Claim 28, Telefus discloses that the circuit breaker device is configured such that said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact (302) can be opened, but not closed, by said controller (¶ [0085]).
Regarding Claim 29, Telefus discloses a differential current sensor (2460) for ascertaining differential currents in the electrical low-voltage circuit (¶¶ [0293], [0315], [0341]; FIG. 24).
Regarding Claim 31, Telefus discloses the checking function contains a self-test of a functionality of the circuit breaker device (¶ [0101]), during which a plurality of components (contacts) of a plurality of units (control unit 220), of the circuit breaker device are checked, and if [when] at least one component of the plurality of components, of the plurality of units, is functional, the low-impedance state is allowed (when the signal CPU_OK indicates that there is no internal fault).
Claim 34 includes language similar to that of Claim 18 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Regarding Claim 35, Telefus discloses a non-transitory computer program (software) comprising computer executable instructions for carrying out the method according to Claim 34 (¶ [0075]).
Regarding Claim 36, Telefus discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (software) having computer executable instructions for performing the method according to Claim 34 (¶ [0075]).
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefus.
Telefus discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed ascertaining. However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such ascertaining for device protection. 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).
Claims 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefus in view of Erven et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0337046 A1, hereinafter “Erven”).
Telefus discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed cases. However, Erven discloses that in a case of a connected said mechanical isolating contact and said electronic interruption unit has the low-impedance state, and in a case of an ascertained current exceeding a first current threshold value (for a first period of time), said electronic interruption unit goes to the high-impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact remains closed (¶ [0029]), in a case of the ascertained current exceeding a second current threshold value (for a first period of time), said electronic interruption unit goes to the high-impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact is opened (¶ [0030]), and in a case of the ascertained current exceeding a third current threshold value (for a first period of time), said electronic interruption unit goes to the high-impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact is opened (¶ [0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Erven with those of Telefus such that, in the case of a high impedance, switching power is greatly minimized, which makes it possible to construct the isolating contact system in a simpler manner.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telefus in view of Gerhard et al. (German Pat. No. DE 102018209114 B3, hereinafter “Gerhard”).
Telefus discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed position information. However, Gerhard discloses that the circuit breaker device is configured such that position information relating to said contacts is ascertained (by measuring a voltage of contact NC), and is transmitted to said controller (U; contact NC can be considered as a position sensor, FIG. 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gerhard with those of Telefus to provide remote monitoring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Telefus (U.S. Pat. No. 11,581,725 B2) discloses a power interrupter device including a solid-state bidirectional switch and control circuitry but does not disclose the claimed handle and checking function.
Claims 24-26, and 33, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as discussed above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, either alone or in combination, a circuit breaker device for protecting an electrical low-voltage circuit, the device configured such that a user of the device operates a mechanical handle in order to close contacts, wherein an electronic interruption unit is in an high-impedance state, in that, after said contacts have been closed, said electronic interruption unit goes to a low-impedance state only [when] a checking function allows the low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements, wherein the checking function carries out a check of at least one of the claimed parameters, as recited in Claim 24. Telefus discloses testing after an electronic interruption unit is closed. The technical effect of this difference is that, for example, a circuit breaker device at a grid with a deviating normative voltage (operating voltage) or at a load with incorrect parameters is not switched on. See, e.g., ¶ [0029] of the Specification as published.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833