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 32-61 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(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 and 11/13/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third voltage sensor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 32-61 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims use “said” and “the” interchangeably. To provide better clarity, claims should use either “said” or “the” consistently throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 41 recites the limitation “said measurement impedance” in line 6 of the claim. This appears to mean “a measurement impedance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 45 recites the limitation “a fault condition” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if “a fault condition” refers to the first fault condition, the second fault condition, both the first and second fault condition, neither of the first or second fault condition, or any fault condition. For the purposes of examination, “a fault condition” will be interpreted as any fault condition. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 52 recites the limitations “the mechanical isolating contact unit being be switched” in line 11 of the claim and “a current flow” in line 16. This appears to mean “the mechanical isolating contact unit is switched” and “[[a]]the current flow”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 55 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 55 recites the limitation “a fault condition” in line 3 of the claim. This appears to mean “the first fault condition”. 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.
Claims 46-50, 54, and 56-59 are 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 46 recites the limitations “a second period of time”, “a third voltage threshold value”, and “a third fault condition”. There is no first period of time, first voltage threshold value, second voltage threshold value, first fault condition, or second fault condition claimed. It is unclear if two periods of time, three voltage threshold values, and three fault conditions are being claimed or if one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition. Claim 47 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 46.
Claim 48 recites the limitations “a fifth voltage threshold value” and “a fourth fault condition”. There is no first, second, third, or fourth voltage threshold value or first, second, or third fault condition claimed. It is unclear if five voltage threshold values and four fault conditions are being claimed or if one voltage threshold value and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one voltage threshold value and one fault condition.
Claim 49 recites the limitations “a third period of time”, “a sixth voltage threshold value”, and “a fifth fault condition”. There is no first or second period of time, first, second, third, fourth, or fifth voltage threshold value, or first, second, third, or fourth fault condition claimed. It is unclear if three periods of time, six voltage threshold values, and five fault conditions are being claimed or if one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition. Claim 50 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 49.
Claim 54 recites the limitations “a second voltage threshold value”, and “a second fault condition”. There is first voltage threshold value or first fault condition claimed. It is unclear if two voltage threshold values and two fault conditions are being claimed or if one voltage threshold value and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one voltage threshold value and one fault condition.
Claim 56 recites the limitations “a second period of time”, “a third voltage threshold value”, and “a third fault condition”. There is no first period of time, first voltage threshold value, second voltage threshold value, first fault condition, or second fault condition claimed. It is unclear if two periods of time, three voltage threshold values, and three fault conditions are being claimed or if one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition. Claim 57 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 56.
Claim 58 recites the limitations “a fifth voltage threshold value” and “a fourth fault condition”. There is no first, second, third, or fourth voltage threshold value or first, second, or third fault condition claimed. It is unclear if five voltage threshold values and four fault conditions are being claimed or if one voltage threshold value and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one voltage threshold value and one fault condition.
Claim 59 recites the limitations “a third period of time”, “a sixth voltage threshold value”, and “a fifth fault condition”. There is no first or second period of time, first, second, third, fourth, or fifth voltage threshold value, or first, second, third, or fourth fault condition claimed. It is unclear if three periods of time, six voltage threshold values, and five fault conditions are being claimed or if one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition are being claimed. For the purposes of examination, only specifically stated components will be included in the claims and the numbering of components will be ignored, i.e. the claim will be interpreted as having one period of time, one voltage threshold value, and one fault condition.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 32, 33, 37-40, 43-45, 48, 51-56, and 58-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. U.S. Patent Application 2021/0126447 (hereinafter “Miller”) and further in view of Koshin et al. International Patent Document WO 2009/084503 A1 (hereinafter “Koshin”).
Regarding claim 32, Miller teaches a circuit breaker device (refer to fig.1) for protecting an electrical low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]), comprising: a housing (refer to [0048])(refer also to figures 5-7) having at least one network-side connection (i.e. Line-IN 110)(figs.1 and 6) and one load-side connection (i.e. Line-OUT 112)(figs.1 and 7); an electronic interruption unit (i.e. FET power module 106)(fig.1) having semiconductor-based switching elements (implicit); a mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e. air-gap contact switches 114)(fig.1) connected in series with said electronic interruption unit (implicit)(refer to fig.1) and having contacts (inherent), wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is switched by opening said contacts in order to avoid a current flow or closing said contacts for the current flow in the low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]); said electronic interruption unit being switched, by means of said semiconductor-based switching elements, to a high-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements in order to avoid the current flow or a low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements for the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]); a current sensor (i.e. current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1) for determining a level of a current of the electrical low- voltage circuit (refer to [0040]); a controller (i.e. sense and drive circuit 104 and MCU 102)(fig.1) connected to said current sensor, said mechanical isolating contact unit and said electronic interruption unit (implicit)(refer to fig.1), wherein avoidance of the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit is initiated if current limit values and/or current-time limit values are exceeded (refer to [0042]); and wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that a level of voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined for one conductor (refer to current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1)(refer also to figures 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 14, 15, and 18); however, Miller does not teach wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is assigned to said load-side connection and said electronic interruption unit is assigned to said at least one network-side connection. However, Koshin teaches wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is assigned to said load-side connection (refer to mechanical contact 10 and load connecting terminal 2b)(fig.1) and said electronic interruption unit is assigned to said at least one network-side connection (refer to semiconductor switch 11 and source connecting terminal 2a)(fig.1). 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 circuit breaker device of Miller to swap the order of the mechanical isolating contact unit and the electronic interruption unit to provide the advantage of minimizing arcing across the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit.
Regarding claim 33, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein said electronic interruption unit has a network-side connecting point (implicit) and a load-side connecting point (implicit); and further comprising a first voltage sensor (refer to Miller current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1) connected to said controller which determines a level of a first voltage, as the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit, between said network-side connecting point and said load-side connecting point of said electronic interruption unit (refer to fig.8).
Regarding claim 37, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein said electronic interruption unit is one of a plurality of electronic interruption units (implicit)(refer to Miller power FETS 116)(fig.1); wherein the electrical low-voltage circuit is a three-phase AC circuit (refer to Miller [0042]); and further comprising further network-side (i.e. Miller Line-IN)(fig.1) and load-side phase conductor connections (i.e. Miller Line-OUT 112)(fig.1), between each of which one of said electronic interruption units and one of said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are provided (implicit)(refer to Miller fig.1).
Regarding claim 38, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 33, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit being opened, but not closed, by said controller (refer to Koshin claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 39, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit has a mechanical handle (HH) (i.e. Koshin operation handle 30)(fig.1)(refer also to Miller release button 122 and reset button 144)(fig.5) and being operated by means of said mechanical handle in order to switch to opening of said contacts or to closing of said contacts (refer to Koshin abstract).
Regarding claim 40, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 39, wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is configured such that it is possible to close said contacts by means of said mechanical handle only after an enable signal (refer to Miller [0046]).
Regarding claim 43, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that, when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are open and said electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller [0051])(refer also to Miller step 804)(fig.8), the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller step 806)(fig.8)(refer also to Miller [0051]), in that there is a first fault condition if a first voltage threshold value is undershot (refer to Miller steps 808 and 814)(refer also to Miller [0051]), with a result that said electronic interruption unit is prevented from coming to have the low impedance state and/or closing of said contacts is prevented (implicit)(refer to Miller [0051] and figure 8).
Regarding claim 44, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 43, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that, when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are open and said electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller step 902)(Fig.9A)(refer also to [0053]), said electronic interruption unit is switched to the low-impedance state for a first period of time (refer to Miller step 902)(Fig.9A)(refer also to [0053]) and the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 904, 906, and 908)(refer also to Miller [0053]), in that there is a second fault condition if a second voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller steps 910, 914, and 920)(figs.9A and 9B), with a result that said electronic interruption unit is prevented from further coming to have the low impedance state and/or closing of said contacts is prevented (refer to Miller steps 918 and 922)(fig.9B).
Regarding claim 45, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 44, wherein when there is a fault condition, closing of said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit is prevented (refer to Miller steps 918 and 922)(fig.9B).
Regarding claim 48, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that, when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and said electronic interruption unit has been switched to the low impedance state (refer to Miller [0065]), the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1802, 1804, and 1806)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]), in that, if a fifth voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller step 1808)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]), there is a fourth fault condition which initiates said electronic interruption unit coming to have the high impedance state and/or initiates opening of said contacts (refer to Miller step 1810)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]).
Regarding claim 51, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein said controller has a microcontroller (i.e. Miller MCU 102)(fig.1).
Regarding claim 52, Miller teaches a method for protecting an electrical low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]) with a circuit breaker device (refer to fig.1), the circuit breaker device having: a housing (refer to [0048])(refer also to figures 5-7) with at least one network-side connection (i.e. Line-IN 110)(figs.1 and 6) and one load-side connection (i.e. Line-OUT 112)(figs.1 and 7); an electronic interruption unit (i.e. FET power module 106)(fig.1) having semiconductor-based switching elements (implicit); a mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e. air-gap contact switches 114)(fig.1) connected in series with said electronic interruption unit (implicit)(refer to fig.1) and having contacts (inherent), wherein the mechanical isolating contact unit being be switched by opening the contacts in order to avoid a current flow or closing the contacts for the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]); the electronic interruption unit being switched, by means of said semiconductor-based switching elements, to a high-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements in order to avoid a current flow or a low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements for the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit (implicit)(refer to [0042]); the method comprising the steps of: determining a level of a current in the electrical low-voltage circuit (refer to current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1)(refer also to [0040]); initiating an avoidance of the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit if current limit values and/or current-time limit values are exceeded (refer to [0042]); and determining a level of voltage across the electronic interruption unit for one conductor (refer to current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1)(refer also to figures 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 14, 15, and 18); however, Miller does not teach wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is assigned to said load-side connection and said electronic interruption unit is assigned to said at least one network-side connection. However, Koshin teaches wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit is assigned to said load-side connection (refer to mechanical contact 10 and load connecting terminal 2b)(fig.1) and the electronic interruption unit is assigned to said at least one network-side connection (refer to semiconductor switch 11 and source connecting terminal 2a)(fig.1). 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 method of Miller to swap the order of the mechanical isolating contact unit and the electronic interruption unit to provide the advantage of minimizing arcing across the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit.
Regarding claim 53, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 52, which further comprises determining the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit (refer to Miller step 806)(fig.8)(refer also to Miller [0051]) if the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit are open and the electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller [0051])(refer also to Miller step 804)(fig.8), in that there is a first fault condition if a first voltage threshold value is undershot (refer to Miller steps 808 and 814)(refer also to Miller [0051]), with a result that said electronic interruption unit is prevented from coming to have the low impedance state and/or closing of said contacts is prevented (implicit)(refer to Miller [0051] and figure 8).
Regarding claim 54, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 52, wherein when the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit are open and the electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller step 902)(Fig.9A)(refer also to [0053]), the electronic interruption unit is switched to the low-impedance state for a first period of time (refer to Miller step 902)(Fig.9A)(refer also to [0053]) and the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 904, 906, and 908)(refer also to Miller [0053]), in that there is a second fault condition if a second voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller steps 910, 914, and 920)(figs.9A and 9B), with a result that the electronic interruption unit is prevented from further coming to have the low impedance state and/or closing of the contacts is prevented (refer to Miller steps 918 and 922)(fig.9B).
Regarding claim 55, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 53, which further comprises preventing the closing of the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit if there is a fault condition (implicit)(refer to Miller [0051] and figure 8).
Regarding claim 56, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 52, wherein when the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and the electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller [0056]), the electronic interruption unit is switched to the low-impedance state for a second period of time (refer to Miller [0056]) and the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1002 and 1004)(fig.10A)(refer also to Miller [0056]), in that, if a third voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller steps 1006 and 1010)(figs.10A and 10B)(refer also to Miller [0056]), there is a third fault condition (refer to Miller steps 1006 and 1010)(figs.10A and 10B)(refer also to Miller [0056])which prevents the electronic interruption unit from coming to have the low impedance state and/or initiates opening of the contacts (refer to Miller steps 1016 and 1020)(fig.10B)(refer also to Miller [0056]).
Regarding claim 58, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 52, wherein when the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and the electronic interruption unit has been switched to the low impedance state (refer to Miller [0065]), the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1802, 1804, and 1806)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]), in that, if a fifth voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller step 1808)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]), there is a fourth fault condition which initiates the electronic interruption unit coming to have the high impedance state and/or initiates opening of the contacts (refer to Miller step 1810)(fig.18)(refer also to Miller [0065]).
Regarding claim 59, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 52, wherein when the contacts of the mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and the electronic interruption unit has been switched to the low impedance state (refer to Miller [0061]), the electronic interruption unit is switched to the high-impedance state for a third period of time (refer to Miller step 1402)(fig.14)(refer also to Miller [0061]) and the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1404, 1406, and 1408)(fig.14)(refer also to Miller [0061]), in that, if a sixth voltage threshold value is undershot (refer to Miller step 1410)(fig.14)(refer to Miller step 1410)(fig.15)(refer also to Miller [0061] and [0062]), there is a fifth fault condition which initiates the electronic interruption unit coming to have the high impedance state and/or initiates opening of the contacts (refer to Miller step 1504)(fig.15).
Regarding claim 60, Miller and Koshin teach a non-transitory computer program product comprising computer executable instructions which, when executed by a microprocessor perform the method according to claim 52 (refer to Miller [0050])(refer also to the rejection of claim 52 above).
Regarding claim 61, Miller and Koshin teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer executable instruction which when executed on a microprocessor perform the method according to claim 52 (refer to Miller [0050])(refer also to the rejection of claim 52 above).
Claim(s) 34, 35, 46, 47, 49, 50, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Koshin as applied to claims 33 or 56 above, and further in view of Telefus et al. U.S. Patent Application 2020/0366079 (hereinafter “Telefus”).
Regarding claim 34, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 33, further comprising a second voltage sensor (i.e. Miller current and voltage sensors 154)(fig.1) connected to said controller (implicit) and determining a level of a second voltage (implicit); further comprising a third voltage sensor (i.e. Miller current and voltage sensors 156)(fig.1) connected to said controller (implicit) and determining a level of a third voltage (implicit); and wherein said circuit breaker device is configured such that the level of the first voltage is determined, as the level of the voltage across the electronic interruption unit, from a difference between the second and third voltages (refer to Miller step 806)(fig.8); however, Miller and Koshin do not teach wherein said at least one network-side connection has a network-side neutral conductor connection and a network-side phase conductor connection; the second voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said network-side phase conductor connection; the third voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said load-side connecting point of said electronic interruption unit. However, Telefus teaches wherein said at least one network-side connection has a network-side neutral conductor connection (i.e. line neutral 112 and earth ground 114)(fig.3B) and a network-side phase conductor connection (i.e. line hot 111)(fig.3B); the second voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said network-side phase conductor connection (refer to voltage sensor 206)(fig.3B); the third voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said load-side connecting point of said electronic interruption unit (refer to voltage sensor 208)(fig.3B). 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 circuit breaker device of Miller and Koshin to include the voltage measurements from the phase to the neutral conductors of Telefus to provide the advantage of improving the accuracy of the voltage detection.
Regarding claim 35, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 34, wherein said current sensor is disposed on a circuit side between said network-side phase conductor connection and said load-side phase conductor connection (refer to Miller current and voltage sensors 154)(fig.1) .
Regarding claim 46, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 34, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that, when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and said electronic interruption unit has been switched to the high impedance state (refer to Miller [0056]), said electronic interruption unit is switched to the low-impedance state for a second period of time (refer to Miller [0056]) and the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1002 and 1004)(fig.10A)(refer also to Miller [0056]), in that, if a third voltage threshold value is exceeded (refer to Miller steps 1006 and 1010)(figs.10A and 10B)(refer also to Miller [0056]), there is a third fault condition (refer to Miller steps 1006 and 1010)(figs.10A and 10B)(refer also to Miller [0056]) which prevents said electronic interruption unit from being switched to the low impedance state and/or initiates opening of said contacts (refer to Miller steps 1016 and 1020)(fig.10B)(refer also to Miller [0056]).
Regarding claim 47, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 46, wherein said electronic interruption unit is switched to the low-impedance state when an instantaneous value of a voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said network-side phase conductor connection undershoots a fourth voltage threshold value (refer to Telefus [0146]).
Regarding claim 49, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 34, wherein the circuit breaker device is configured such that, when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and said electronic interruption unit has been switched to the low impedance state (refer to Miller [0061]), said electronic interruption unit is switched to the high-impedance state for a third period of time (refer to Miller step 1402)(fig.14)(refer also to Miller [0061]) and the level of the voltage across said electronic interruption unit is determined (refer to Miller steps 1404, 1406, and 1408)(fig.14)(refer also to Miller [0061]), in that, if a sixth voltage threshold value is undershot (refer to Miller step 1410)(fig.14)(refer to Miller step 1410)(fig.15)(refer also to Miller [0061] and [0062]), there is a fifth fault condition which initiates said electronic interruption unit coming to have the high impedance state and/or initiates opening of said contacts (refer to Miller step 1504)(fig.15).
Regarding claim 50, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 49, wherein said electronic interruption unit is switched to the high-impedance state when an instantaneous value of the voltage between said network-side neutral conductor connection and said network-side phase conductor connection exceeds a seventh voltage threshold value (refer to Telefus [0146]).
Regarding claim 57, Miller and Koshin teach the method according to claim 56, however, they do not teach the method which further comprises switching the electronic interruption unit to the low-impedance state when an instantaneous value of a voltage between a network-side neutral conductor connection and a network-side phase conductor connection undershoots a fourth voltage threshold value. However, Telefus teaches the method which further comprises switching the electronic interruption unit to the low-impedance state when an instantaneous value of a voltage between a network-side neutral conductor connection and a network-side phase conductor connection undershoots a fourth voltage threshold value (refer to [0146]). 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 method of Miller and Koshin to include the instantaneous overvoltage detection of Telefus to provide the advantage of protecting the electronic interruption unit from damage due to overvoltage.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Koshin as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Niehoff et al. U.S. Patent Application 2022/0139644 (hereinafter “Niehoff”).
Regarding claim 36, Miller and Koshin teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 32, wherein said mechanical isolation contact unit has network-side connection points (implicit); however, they do not teach the circuit breaker device further comprising a measurement impedance connected between said network-side connection points of said mechanical isolating contact unit. However, Niehoff teaches the circuit breaker device further comprising a measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10)(fig.1) connected between said network-side connection points of said mechanical isolating contact unit (implicit). 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 circuit breaker device of Miller and Koshin to include the impedance of Niehoff to provide the advantage of draining any energy in the load to ground when the mechanical and/or electrical switches open.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Koshin, and Telefus as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Niehoff.
Regarding claim 41, Miller, Koshin, and Telefus teach the circuit breaker device according to claim 34, further comprising an energy supply (i.e. Miller AC/DC 126)(fig.1)(i.e. Koshin power source unit 9)(fig.1)(i.e. Telefus AC-to-DC converter 216)(fig.3B) connected to said network-side neutral conductor connection (implicit)(refer to Miller AC/DC 126)(Fig.1)(refer to Koshin power source unit 9)(fig.1)(refer to Telefus AC-to-DC converter 216)(fig.3B)and to said network-side phase conductor connection (implicit)(refer to Telefus AC-to-DC converter 216)(fig.3B); however, they do not teach the circuit breaker device further comprising a fuse and/or a switch in a link to said network-side neutral conductor connection; and wherein said measurement impedance is connected to said network-side neutral conductor connection via said fuse. However, Niehoff teaches further comprising a fuse and/or a switch (i.e. solid state switching device 9)(fig.1) in a link to said network-side neutral conductor connection (implicit); and wherein said measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10)(fig.1) is connected to said network-side neutral conductor connection via said fuse (implicit)(refer to fig.1). 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 circuit breaker device of Miller, Koshin, and Telefus to include the impedance of Niehoff to provide the advantage of draining any energy in the load to ground when the mechanical and/or electrical switches open.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 42 indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 42, especially wherein when said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit are closed and said electronic interruption unit has the low impedance state and: when the current that exceeds a first current value is determined, said electronic interruption unit comes to have the high impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact unit remains closed; when the current that exceeds a second current value is determined, said electronic interruption unit comes to have the high impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact unit is opened; and when the current that exceeds a third current value is determined, said electronic interruption unit comes to have the high impedance state and said mechanical isolating contact unit is opened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838