Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,507

CIRCUIT BREAKER DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
YESHAW, ESAYAS G
Art Unit
2849
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
563 granted / 648 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 648 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The office action is in response to application filed on 11-10-25. Claims 18-36 are pending in the application and have been examined. 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 . 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 18-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126447 Miller (“Miller”) in view of US 2022/0139644 to Niehoff (“Niehoff”). Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses a circuit breaker device (fig. 1) for protecting an electric low-voltage circuit ([0042]), the circuit breaker device comprising: a housing ([0048] and figs. 5-7) having grid-side connections (i.e. Line-IN 110)(figs.1 and 6) and at least 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 (106), said electronic interruption unit (106) being associated with said grid-side connections; a mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e. air-gap contact switches 114)(fig.1) having contacts, said mechanical isolating contact unit having a series connection (fig.1) to said electronic interruption unit, and said mechanical isolating contact unit being associated with said at least one load-side connection (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 PET power module 106 are ON); said mechanical isolating contact unit configured to be switched by opening said contacts to prevent a current flow or by closing said contacts to allow a current flow in the low-voltage circuit ([0042]); said electronic interruption unit configured to be switched by said semiconductor-based switching elements into a high-resistance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements to prevent a current flow or into a low resistance state of said semiconductor-based switching elements to allow a current flow in the low-voltage circuit ([0042]); a current sensor unit (current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) and (fig.1)) for determining a current level in the low-voltage circuit ([0040]); a control unit (i.e. sense and drive circuit 104 and MCU 102)(fig.1) connected to said current sensor unit, to said mechanical isolating contact unit and to said electronic interruption unit (fig.1), for initiating prevention of a current flow in the low-voltage circuit upon exceeding at least one of current limits ([0042]) or current-time limits; and provided between conductors of the low-voltage circuit for causing a measurement current to flow (current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) and (fig.1)) through said electronic interruption unit, via said grid-side connections, upon said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit being open and said electronic interruption unit being switched to low-resistance (refer to current and voltage sensors 154 and 156)(fig.1)(refer also to figures 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 14, 15, and 18). But, Miller does not disclose a measurement impedance However, Niehoff disclose a measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10) and (fig.1), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by adding resistor measurement as part of its configuration as taught by Niehoff, in order to control the circuit breaker, provide safety, for example during maintenance and fault condition. Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claim above. But, Miller does not disclose said measurement impedance, However, Niehoff disclose said measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10) and (fig.1), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by adding resistor measurement as part of its configuration as taught by Niehoff, in order to control the circuit breaker, provide safety, for example during maintenance and fault condition. Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses to a conductor at said grid side connections (current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) and (fig.1) and (refer also to figures 8, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 14, 15, and 18)). But, Miller does not discloses said measurement impedance has another end connected, However, Niehoff disclose said measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10) and (fig.1) has another end connected, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by adding resistor measurement as part of its configuration as taught by Niehoff, in order to control the circuit breaker, provide safety, for example during maintenance and fault condition. Regarding claim 21, Miller discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above. But, Miller does not discloses said measurement impedance is at least one of an electrical resistor (10) or a capacitor. However, Niehoff said measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10) and (fig.1) is at least one of an electrical resistor (10) or a capacitor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by adding resistor measurement as part of its configuration as taught by Niehoff, in order to control the circuit breaker, provide safety, for example during maintenance and fault condition. Regarding claim 22, Miller discloses all the claim limitation as set forth in the rejection of claims above. But, Miller does not discloses said measurement impedance is a series circuit of an electrical resistor and capacitor. However, Niehoff disclose said measurement impedance (i.e. resistor 10) and (fig.1) is a series circuit of an electrical resistor and capacitor (i.e. resistor 10 and capacitor 5) and (fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller by adding resistor measurement as part of its configuration as taught by Niehoff, in order to control the circuit breaker, provide safety, for example during maintenance and fault condition. Regarding claim 23, Miller discloses the claimed invention except for “said measurement impedance has a high resistance or impedance value between 100k ohm and 1M ohm”. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would recognize that the particular high resistance or impedance used would depend on the desired resistance or impedance of the particular system/components used. Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 24, Miller disclose the claimed invention except for “said measurement impedance has a high resistance or impedance value greater than 100k ohm”. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would recognize that the particular high resistance or impedance used would depend on the desired resistance or impedance of the particular system/components used. Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 25, Miller discloses disclose the claimed invention except for “said measurement impedance has a high resistance or impedance value greater than 1M ohm”. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would recognize that the particular high resistance or impedance used would depend on the desired resistance or impedance of the particular system/components used. Since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 26, Miller discloses said electronic interruption unit is switched to a low-resistance state for a first period of time ((step 902) and (Fig.9A), (refer also to [0053])), causing a measurement current to flow (current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) and (fig.1)) through said measurement impedance with said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit open and said electronic interruption unit switched to a high-resistance state, for a functional test (SSCB 100 may detect or determine by performing one of the self-diagnostic or self-maintenance tests or measurements described above that: a short circuit inside the SSCB 100 or an overcurrent in the SSCB's l00's load circuit [0075]) of the circuit breaker device or of said electronic interruption unit. Regarding claim 27, Miller discloses a voltage level across said electronic interruption unit can be determined for a conductor ((refer to Miller steps 904, 906, and 908) (refer also to Miller [0053])). Regarding claim 28, Miller discloses the voltage level across said electronic interruption unit, specified by said measurement impedance, is determined with said electronic interruption unit switched to a high-resistance state (implicit) (refer to [0042]); and with said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit open; and upon undershooting a first voltage threshold value, a first fault condition ((refer to Miller steps 808 and 814)(refer also to Miller [0051])) is present preventing at least one of a low-resistance state ((step 902) and (Fig.9A), (refer also to [0053])) of said electronic interruption unit or a closure of said contacts. Regarding claim 29, Miller discloses the voltage level across said electronic interruption unit is determined upon said electronic interruption unit being switched to the low-resistance state for a first time period; and a second fault condition (steps 910, 914, and 920) and (figs.9A and 9B)) being is upon exceeding a second voltage threshold value (steps 910, 914, and 920) and (figs.9A and 9B)), preventing at least one of further switching of said electronic interruption unit to the low-resistance state or closure of said contacts. Regarding claim 30, Miller discloses in an event of a fault condition ([0051] and figure 8), closing of said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit is prevented and no enable signal ([0046]) is output to said mechanical isolating contact unit. Regarding claim 31, Miller discloses said electronic interruption unit has a grid-side connection point (Line-IN) and a load-side connection point (Line-OUT), and a first voltage sensor unit (154) is connected to said control unit for determining a first voltage level (refer to Miller current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) (fig.1) between said grid-side connection point and said load-side connection point. Regarding claim 32, Miller discloses said grid-side connections include a grid-side neutral conductor terminal and a grid-side phase conductor terminal; a second voltage sensor unit (current and voltage sensors 154 and 156) (fig.1)) is connected to said control unit for determining a second voltage level between said grid-side neutral conductor terminal and said grid-side phase conductor terminal; a third voltage sensor unit (sense and drive circuit 104) is connected to said control unit for determining a third voltage level between said grid-side neutral conductor terminal and said load side connection point of said electronic interruption unit; and a first voltage level between said grid-side connection point and said load side connection point of said electronic interruption unit is determined by a difference between the second and third voltages. Regarding claim 33, Miller discloses said grid-side connections include a grid-side phase conductor terminal (three phases are measured at both the Line-IN), said at least one load-side connection includes a load-side phase conductor terminal (three phases are measured at both the Line-OUT), and said current sensor unit is provided on a circuit side (fig. 1) between said grid-side phase conductor terminal and said load-side phase conductor terminal. Regarding claim 34, Miller discloses comprises a mechanical handle (i.e. air-gap contact switches 114) (fig.1) associated with said mechanical isolating contact unit, closing of said contacts by said mechanical handle only being possible after an enable or enable signal (refer to Miller [0046]). Regarding claim 36, Miller discloses said control unit has a microcontroller (i.e. Miller MCU 102) (fig.1). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 35 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 35 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 35, especially upon said contacts of said mechanical isolating contact unit being closed and said electronic interruption unit having a low resistance: said electronic interruption unit becomes high resistance and said mechanical isolating contact unit remains closed, for a determined current exceeding a first current value or the first current value being exceeded for a first time limit, said electronic interruption unit becomes high resistance and said mechanical isolating contact unit is opened, for a determined current exceeding a second current value or for a second time limit; and said electronic interruption unit becomes high resistance and said mechanical isolating contact unit is opened, for a determined current exceeding a third current value. Response to argument Applicant’s argument filed on 11-10-25 with respect to claims 18-36 has been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESAYAS G YESHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1959. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 9AM-7PM. 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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 5712703684. 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. /ESAYAS G YESHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /Menatoallah Youssef/ SPE, Art Unit 2849
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603457
PLUG-IN CONTACT DEVICE FOR PREVENTING AN ARC WHEN SEPARATING A DIRECT CURRENT CONNECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603565
Integrated Multi-Port Generator-Rectifier Device and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587109
POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING A RECONFIGURABLE ACTIVE FRONT END CONVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562322
CIRCUIT BREAKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552543
EMERGENCY ENERGY RESERVE SOLUTION FOR BATTERY ELECTRIFIED AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 648 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month