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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 4, 2026 has been entered. Claim 15 has been amended to address a typographical issue. The amendment to the Specification has overcome the objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 4, 2025. Claims 15-31 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 15 and 31 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combined teachings of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0066013 A1) and Telefus et al (US 2020/0365346 A1).
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.
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.
Claims 15-21, 24-25, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0066013 A1 (hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of US 2020/0365346 A1 (hereinafter “Telefus”).
Regarding claim 15, Kumar discloses a circuit breaker for protecting an electrical low- voltage circuit (solid-state circuit breaker 100), the circuit breaker comprising:
an electronic interruption unit (field-effect transistor power module 106);
a mechanical break contact unit (air gap disconnect unit 108) connected in series with said electronic interruption unit (see paragraph 0034), said mechanical break contact unit (108) having contacts (air gap contact switches 114) and a handle (RESET button 144) for opening at least one of said contacts for avoiding a current flow or closing said at least one contact for allowing the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit (see paragraph 0037);
a controller (microcontroller unit 102 and sense and drive circuit 104) connected to said mechanical break contact unit (108) and said electronic interruption unit (106);
the circuit breaker (100) is configured such that interruption of the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit is initiated by said mechanical break contact unit (108) and/or said electronic interruption unit (106) when current or current/time limit values are exceeded (see paragraph 0034).
Kumar does not explicitly disclose that the circuit breaker is configured such that said at
least one contact of said mechanical break contact unit can only be closed by said handle if an approval signal for closing said at least one contact is present. However, Kumar does disclose that the circuit breaker is configured such that the contacts of the mechanical break contact unit cannot be closed if the controller has determined that one of the principal components of the circuit breaker has failed or is likely failing (see paragraph 0038). Thus Kumar discloses a signal that prevents the contacts of the mechanical break contact unit from being closed (i.e. activating lockout mechanism 160), but does not disclose a signal allowing the contacts of the mechanical break contact unit to be closed. The act (or lack thereof) of not engaging the lockout mechanism cannot be considered a signal on its own because a failure to engage the lockout mechanism could be due the controller malfunctioning.
Telefus discloses a circuit breaker having mechanical break contact unit (air-gap electromagnetic switch 302) connected in series with an electronic interruption unit (solid-state bidirectional switch 304; see paragraph 0088), and a controller (processor 220) connected to the mechanical break contact unit and the electronic interruption unit (see Fig. 3A). Telefus teaches that the controller may be configured to output a “CPU_OK” signal as an indication that the controller is operating normally (see paragraph 0101).
Kumar and Telefus are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify controller disclosed in Kumar such that it outputs some sort of signal indicating its operational status. A “CPU_OK” signal combined with the controller’s decision to not engage the lockout mechanism can reasonably be considered an approval signal. One would be motivated to make this modification to in order to ensure that the controller is operating correctly (see Telefus, paragraph 0101).
Regarding claim 16, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, further comprising:
a load-side terminal (Kumar: Line-OUT terminals 112) connected to said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108); and
a grid-side terminal (Kumar: Line-IN terminals 110) connected to said electronic interrupt unit (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “[T]he FET power module 106 and air gap disconnect unit 108 are connected in series, between the Line-IN terminals and Line-OUT terminals 110 and 112.”).
Regarding claim 17, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15
as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) is configured such that said at least one contact (Kumar: 114) can be opened by said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104; from paragraph 0034: “[T]he MCU 102 generates a solenoid trigger signal, which the air gap disconnect unit 108 responds to, to 'disengage,' open the air gap contact switches 114.”), but not closed (Kumar: from paragraph 0037: “As the holster 136 is forced up, it also pushes against and lifts a RESET button 144 to expose lockout-tagout (LOTO) hole 146, through which a service or maintenance (service/maintenance) worker can insert a padlock or other locking device to complete LOTO safety procedure. Note that RESET button 144 will pop up to reveal LOTO hole 146 whether the air gap disconnect unit 108 is triggered to disengage automatically (by the MCU 102 actuating the solenoid 118) or manually (by a person pressing RELEASE button 122). Completing the LOTO safety procedure ensures that the service/maintenance worker or other person will not inadvertently or accidentally reengage the air gap disconnect unit 108.”).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) is configured such that position information about a closed or open state of said at least one contact is available (Kumar: from paragraph 0045: “If V(Line-OUT) does go low, the MCU 102 is able to conclude that the air gap disconnect unit 108 has failed [to] close[] and that one more of the Line-IN current/voltage sensors 154 has/have likely failed The MCU 102 may also report the failure or likely failure to a remote computer, via the comm/control bus 124, and/or direct the SSCB's 100's display to display the failure information on its electronic display 113.”).
Regarding claim 19, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, further comprising a current sensor (Kumar: current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) for determining a level of a current of the electrical low-voltage circuit (Kumar: from paragraph 0042: “[C]urrent and voltage sensors 154 and 156 [are] used to sense the line currents and voltages at the inputs and outputs of the FET power module 106.”) and being connected to said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104).
Regarding claim 20, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein the approval signal is output to enable the closing of said at least one contact (Kumar: 114), by means of said handle (Kumar: 144), by said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104; the approval signal output is when the plunger of the secondary solenoid is not preventing RESET button 144 from being pressed and when the controller is indicating “CPU_OK”).
Regarding claim 21, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein said at least one contact (Kumar: 114) is opened by said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104) if a fault state is determined by said controller (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “[U]pon the SSCB 100 detecting a short circuit or overload of unacceptably long duration, the sense and drive circuit 104 switches the power FETs 116 OFF to prevent any further current from flowing to the load. Meanwhile, or shortly after the power FETs 116 are switched OFF, the MCU 102 generates a solenoid trigger signal, which the air gap disconnect unit 108 responds to, to 'disengage,' open the air gap contact switches 114 and galvanically isolate the load.”).
Regarding claim 24, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein said electronic interruption unit (Kumar: 106) has semiconductor-based switching elements (Kumar: power FETs 116) and is switched into a high-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements (Kumar: 116) for avoiding the current flow (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “[U]pon the SSCB 100 detecting a short circuit or overload of unacceptably long duration, the sense and drive circuit 104 switches the power FETs 116 OFF to prevent any further current from flowing to the load.”) or a low-impedance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements (Kumar: 116) for the current flow in the electrical low-voltage circuit (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “During normal operating conditions, the three air-gap contact switches 114 in the air gap disconnect unit 108 are closed and the three power FETs 116 in the FET power module 106 are ON. This allows line currents entering the Line-IN terminals 110 from a power source (e.g., alternating currents (AC) distributed to the SSCB 100 Line-IN terminals 110 from within a distribution panel) to flow to a load.”).
Regarding claim 25, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein:
said electronic interruption unit is one of a plurality of electronic interruption units (Kumar: each of the three power FETs 116 could be considered a separate electronic interruption unit);
the electrical low-voltage circuit is a three-phase AC circuit (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “Note that the exemplary embodiment of the SSCB 100 depicted in FIG. 1 and in other drawings in this disclosure is a three- phase device.”); and
the circuit breaker (Kumar: 100) has further terminals (Kumar: 110 and 112), between said further terminals (Kumar: 110 and 112) a series connection of a further contact (Kumar: there are three air gap contact switches shown in Fig. 1) of said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) and one of said electronic interrupt units (Kumar: 116) is connected in each case (Kumar: see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15
as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104) has a microcontroller (Kumar: 102 is a microcontroller).
Regarding claim 28, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 18
as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 18, wherein the position information is detected by said controller (Kumar: from paragraph 0045: “If V(Line-OUT) does go low, the MCU 102 is able to conclude that the air gap disconnect unit 108 has failed [to] close[] and that one more of the Line-IN current/voltage sensors 154 has/have likely failed.”).
Regarding claim 29, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15
as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 15, wherein the approval signal is output to enable the closing of said at least one contact (Kumar: 114), by means of said handle (Kumar: 144), by said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104; the approval signal output is when the plunger of the secondary solenoid is not preventing RESET button 144 from being pressed; see paragraph 0038), if said controller (Kumar: 102 and 104) is in an active state and has determined a functionality of the circuit breaker (Kumar: 100) by checking at least one unit of the circuit breaker (Kumar: from paragraph 0038: “After the MCU 102 has determined that one of the SSCB's 100's principal components or critical functions has failed or is likely failing and the MCU 102 has triggered the primary solenoid 118 to disengage the air gap disconnect unit 108 (for example, after performing one of the various self-diagnostic, self-maintenance, and self-protection methods described herein), it triggers the secondary solenoid.”) (MCU 102 is constantly active and monitoring functionality of the circuit breaker, and it enables contacts 114 to close as long as no fault is detected).
Regarding claim 31, Kumar discloses a mechanical break contact unit (108) for a circuit breaker (100), said mechanical break contact unit comprising:
a handle (144); and
at least one contact (114) being closed by said handle (144).
Kumar does not explicitly disclose that the at least one contact can only be closed if an
approval signal is present. However, Kumar does disclose that its contacts cannot be closed if the controller has determined that one of the principal components of the circuit breaker has failed or is likely failing (see paragraph 0038). Thus Kumar discloses a signal that prevents the contacts from being closed (i.e. activating lockout mechanism 160), but does not disclose a signal allowing the contacts to be closed. The act (or lack thereof) of not engaging the lockout mechanism cannot be considered a signal on its own because a failure to engage the lockout mechanism could be due the controller malfunctioning.
Telefus discloses a circuit breaker having mechanical break contact unit (302) connected in series with an electronic interruption unit (304; see paragraph 0088), and a controller (220) connected to the mechanical break contact unit and the electronic interruption unit (see Fig. 3A). Telefus teaches that the controller may be configured to output a “CPU_OK” signal as an indication that the controller is operating normally (see paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify controller disclosed in Kumar such that it outputs some sort of signal indicating its operational status. A “CPU_OK” signal combined with the controller’s decision to not engage the lockout mechanism can reasonably be considered an approval signal. One would be motivated to make this modification to in order to ensure that the controller is operating correctly (see Telefus, paragraph 0101).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Telefus as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2009/0189719 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 22, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus lacks a specific teaching of an actuator which prevents closing of said at least one contact by said handle in a de-energized state and is energized if the approval signal is applied, so said at least one contact is closeable by said handle. Kumar does teach an actuator (lockout mechanism 160) that prevents the closing of the contacts (114) by the handle (144), however it appears to do so when in an energized state (see paragraph 0038). When the approval signal is applied, it is de-energized to allow the contacts (114) to close.
Yang teaches a circuit breaker comprising an actuator (relay 124) that, when the actuator
(124) is in a de-energized state, prevents contacts (main contacts 108 and 110) from closing in response to moving a handle (handle 102; from paragraph 0030: “The moving arm stop 116 is designed to 'always block' the moving arm 106 unless secondary contacts 126 trigger an actuator or release which moves the blocking area of stop 116 out of the way.”). When an approval signal is applied, the actuator (124) is energized so that the contacts (108 and 110) are closeable by the handle (102; from paragraph 0035: “[I]f the electronic components 130 pass the self-test, the self-test electronics enable a current to flow through the relay 124 to generate a magnetic force. The moving arm stop 116 is attracted by the magnetic force and moves down in the direction of arrow "A" to release the latch 117 of the moving arm 106. The operation spring 112 is then released and deflects to close the main contacts 108 and 110.”).
Yang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure the lockout mechanism of Kumar in view of Telefus to prevent the closing of the contacts when in a de-energized state and allow the contacts to close when in an energized state. Doing so would have been obvious to try since there are only two ways to actuate an actuator mechanism: energizing a previously de-energized actuator mechanism, or de-energizing a previously energized actuator mechanism.
Regarding claim 23, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus lacks a specific teaching that if the approval signal is missing, said handle moves, but said at least one contact cannot be closed. Instead, if the approval signal is missing (when the plunger of the secondary solenoid is engaged with RESET button 144), RESET button 144 cannot be pressed.
Yang teaches a mechanical break contact unit for a circuit breaker (mechanism for a circuit breaker 100) having contacts (108 and 110) and a handle (102) for opening and closing the contacts (108 and 110). The circuit breaker is configured such that the contacts (108 and 110) of the mechanical break contact unit (100) can only be closed by the handle (102) if an approval signal for closing the contacts is present (from the Abstract: “A stop mechanism configured to maintain separation between the main contacts to enable testing using the secondary contacts to power a test circuit such that if a test passes, the stop mechanism is released to permit resetting of the main contacts.”) and if the approval signal is missing, the handle (102) moves, but the contacts (108 and 110) cannot be closed (from paragraph 0036: “If the electronic components 130 fail the self-test, the device does nothing. The user can then release the handle, and the handle automatically moves back to the off position using the operation spring 112. The operation spring 112 maintains the moving arm 106 such that the contacts 108 and 110 remain separated as depicted in Fig. 1.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the teachings of Kumar by utilizing a handle and contact locking mechanism like that of Yang so that the handle is able to move even when the approval signal is missing and the contacts are not capable of closing. Doing so would prevent a user from being able to force the contacts closed by wrestling with the handle.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Telefus as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2022/0337046 A1 (hereinafter “Erven”).
Regarding claim 26, Kumar in view of Telefus teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus further teaches that if said contacts (Kumar: 114) of said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) are closed and said electronic interruption unit (Kumar: 106) is in a low-impedance state (Kumar: normal operating conditions described in paragraph 0034), and: if a current is determined, which exceeds a second current value (Kumar: the minimum current value to trigger a short circuit or overload), said electronic interruption unit (Kumar: 106) assumes a high-impedance state and said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) is opened (Kumar: from paragraph 0034: “[U]pon the SSCB 100 detecting a short circuit or overload of unacceptably long duration, the sense and drive circuit 104 switches the power FETs 116 OFF to prevent any further current from flowing to the load. Meanwhile, or shortly after the power FETs 116 are switched OFF, the MCU 102 generates a solenoid trigger signal, which the air gap disconnect unit 108 responds to, to 'disengage,' open the air gap contact switches 114 and galvanically isolate the load.”); and if a current is determined, which exceeds a third current value (any current value greater than the minimum current value to trigger a short circuit or overload), said electronic interruption unit (Kumar: 106) assumes the high-impedance state and said mechanical break contact unit (Kumar: 108) is opened (Kumar: see paragraph 0034).
Kumar in view of Telefus lacks a specific teaching that if a current is determined, which exceeds a first current value, said electronic interruption unit assumes a high-impedance state and said mechanical break contact unit stays closed.
Erven teaches a circuit breaker (circuit breaker device SG) with a mechanical break contact unit (isolating contact system KS) connected in series with an electronic interruption unit (semiconductor switch HL; from the Abstract: “A circuit breaker device may include a series connection of a semiconductor switch and an isolating contact system.”), wherein when contacts of the mechanical break contact unit (KS) are closed and the electronic interruption unit (HL) is in a low-impedance state (from paragraph 0092: “[I]n a switch-on process, which can be initiated via the operating unit or by way of a signal via the communication interface COM, COM1, COM2, first the isolating contact system KS is closed and then the semiconductor switch HL becomes low-impedance.”), and: if a current is determined, which exceeds a first current value, the electronic interruption unit assumes a high-impedance state and the mechanical break contact unit stays closed (from paragraph 0092: “In the case of a current, determined by way of the current sensor SEN, that exceeds a first current threshold value for a first time period, according to the first switch-off process, the semiconductor switch HL becomes high-impedance and the isolating contact system KS remains closed.”); if a current is determined, which exceeds a second current value, the electronic interruption unit assumes the high-impedance state and the mechanical break contact unit is opened (from paragraph 0092: “In the case of a current that exceeds a second current threshold value (which is higher than the first current threshold value) for a second time period (which is equal to or greater than the first time period), for a second switch-off process, the semiconductor switch (HL) becomes high-impedance and then the isolating contact system (KS) is opened.”); and if a current is determined, which exceeds a third current value, the electronic interruption unit assumes the high-impedance state and the mechanical break contact unit is opened (from paragraph 0092: “In the case of a determined current that exceeds a third current threshold value (higher than the second current threshold value), according to the second switch-off process, the semiconductor switch (HL) becomes high-impedance and then the isolating contact system (KS) is opened.”).
Erven is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to configure Kumar so that its electronic interruption unit assumes a high-impedance state and its mechanical break contact unit stays closed when a current is determined that is less than a second current value but greater than a first current value. Doing so would be beneficial because the mechanical break contact unit would not need to be reset when the breaker experiences small overcurrents slightly above the measurement current (see Erven paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 30, Kumar in view of Telefus and Erven teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 as stated above. Kumar in view of Telefus and Erven further teaches the circuit breaker according to claim 26, wherein: the first current value is exceeded for a first time limit (from Erven paragraph 0092: “In the case of a current, determined by way of the current sensor SEN, that exceeds a first current threshold value for a first time period, according to the first switch-off process, the semiconductor switch HL becomes high-impedance and the isolating contact system KS remains closed.”); and the second current value is exceeded for a second time limit (from Erven paragraph 0092: “In the case of a current (determined by way of the current sensor SEN) that exceeds a second current threshold value (which is higher than the first current threshold value) for a second time period (which is equal to or greater than the first time period), for a second switch-off process, the semiconductor switch (HL) becomes high-impedance and then the isolating contact system (KS) is opened.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights