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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
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 following details must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The elastic support structure (200) arranged within the arc fault rated cabinet.
Distinction between power and data signal connections (ie by use of solid and dashed lines).
The power input/source (“common power source” claim 25) including how/where power flows from 160, a, b, c, the cabinet 120 and the elastic support structure (200) located within the cabinet including.
A plurality of electrical devices fed from a single source.
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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation(s):
Arc quenching device = relays 140, FIG1 and spec. @ [0016];
Elastic support structure = 200, FIG2.
Arc signaling interface = 150, FIG1.
have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim(s) limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim(s) have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Arc quenching device = relays 140, FIG1 and spec. @ [0016];
Elastic support structure = 200, FIG2.
Arc signaling interface = 150, FIG1.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 20, 21, and 26 is/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.
Regarding Claim 20
It is unclear what structure is intended to be added by the claim limitation of “wherein the elastic beams each comprise a specific elasticity, wherein the specific elasticity is defined by a length and a cross section of the elastic beams.” The claim attempts to define a “specific elasticity” however instead of clearly stating what said specific elasticity defines said “specific elasticity” as an undefined dependance on the “cross section of the elastic beam” wherein the corss section of the elastic beam is not given. Furthermore it is noted that the elasticity of a beam is defined by many more factors than the length and cross section of the beam, such as material and temperature. It is also further noted the claim attempts to define the intrinsic property of a beam and elasticity that naturally occurs rather than a claim limitation germane to patentability.
Regarding Claim 21
It is unclear what physical limitations are intended to be added by the claimed “configuration” because no physical limitations to perform the configuration are given.
Regarding Claim 26
The claim as a whole is inappropriately narrative and attempts to define the apparatus claim by how the apparatus operates, rather than in terms of identifiable structure. Because no structure is provided in the claim to perform the claimed operation, it is unclear what structure is intended to be added. It is suggested the claim be written to include the intended structure and/or assign the operation to an appropriate controller and what said controller controls to perform the operation.
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 20, 21, 26 it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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(s) 16-19, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens “SIQUENCH – Arc quenching device for medium-voltage switchgear” and Nartowski et al. “The mechanical effects of short-circuit currents in open air substations”.
Siemens teaches:
16. An electric device comprising:
an arc quenching device (Arc flash relay, last Figure on Page 4 “Illustration of the system integration in an exemplary arc protection application”),
an arc fault rated cabinet rated to resist an electric arc or short circuit (see cabinet on Figure of Page 5 and Page 4, Figure 4: “arc classified switchgear”),
and a support structure configured to absorb energy in an arc fault event or a short circuit event (See busbar of busbar compartment, last Figure on Page 4).
Siemens fails to explicitly teach wherein said elastic support structure (busbar) is configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or a short circuit event.
Nartowski teaches designing elastic support structure (ie busbars) configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or a short circuit event (see Pages 31-32, Sections 3.5 Parametric Studies; Page 29, Table 3.2; and Page 83 “Response of Busbars on Elastic Supports Subjected to a Suddenly Applied Force” .
It would have been obvious to provide a busbar configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or short circuit event as taught by Nartowski with the motivation of providing a durable and safe system. Furthermore applicable design standards (ie IEC 60865-1) demand that the component supports are designed to withstand electrodynamic and magnetic forces during short circuits and arc fault events including “elasticity of the supports” in its equations (see IEC 60865-1).
17. The electric device of claim 16, wherein the elastic support structure is configured to absorb the energy of electrodynamic forces by elastic deformation (as taught by the combination of Siemens and Nartowski above).
18. The electric device of claim 16, wherein the elastic support structure comprises elastic beams arranged in the arc fault rated cabinet, wherein the elastic beams are configured to elastically deform when absorbing the energy (as taught by the combination of Siemens and Nartowski above).
19. The electric device of claim 16, wherein the elastic support structure comprises supporting elements (switching device compartment) including fixed mechanical elements (circuit breakers) arranged in the arc fault rated cabinet, and wherein the elastic beams are securely connected (ie securely electrically connected to form a complete and operative circuit) at ends of the fixed mechanical elements (read on by said circuit breakers denoted as “X” in said switching device compartment secured to said bus at said bus compartment).
Siemens teaches:
25. An electric system comprising:
a common power source (input transformer, see FIG at Page 4);
an arc quenching device (Arc flash relay, last Figure on Page 4 “Illustration of the system integration in an exemplary arc protection application”),
an arc fault rated cabinet rated to resist an electric arc or short circuit (see cabinet on Figure of Page 5 and Page 4, Figure 4: “arc classified switchgear”),
and a support structure configured to absorb energy in an arc fault event or a short circuit event (See busbar of busbar compartment, last Figure on Page 4).
Siemens fails to explicitly teach wherein said elastic support structure (busbar) is configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or a short circuit event.
Nartowski teaches designing elastic support structure (ie busbars) configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or a short circuit event (see Pages 31-32, Sections 3.5 Parametric Studies; Page 29, Table 3.2; and Page 83 “Response of Busbars on Elastic Supports Subjected to a Suddenly Applied Force” .
It would have been obvious to provide a busbar configured to absorb energy based on electrodynamic forces in an arc fault event or short circuit event as taught by Nartowski with the motivation of providing a durable and safe system. Furthermore applicable design standards (ie IEC 60865-1) demand that the component supports are designed to withstand electrodynamic and magnetic forces during short circuits and arc fault events including “elasticity of the supports” in its equations (see IEC 60865-1).
Siemens fails to teach a plurality of electric device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate a plurality of the electric devices as taught by Siemens, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378. The motivation would have been to provide desirable greater capacity for more loads.
Siemens further teaches:
27. The electric system of claim 25, further comprising: a circuit breaker (see input circuit breaker at common input transformer, Page 4) configured to disconnect the common power source from the plurality of electric devices, wherein the circuit breaker is activated by the arc quenching device in response to an arc fault signal.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siemens “SIQUENCH – Arc quenching device for medium-voltage switchgear” and Nartowski et al. “The mechanical effects of short-circuit currents in open air substations” and Kato et al. US 2010/0103622.
Siemens teaches a busbar however fails to teach the material of said busbar including:
22. The electric device of claim 18, wherein the elastic beams comprise steel.
Kato teaches wherein the busbars are made from metal such as copper or stainless steel (see [0138]). It would have been obvious to use steel as the metal of choice for the busbar of Siemens as taught by Kato with the motivation o affordability, mechanical strength, corrosion resistance, and suitability in high temperature or chemically aggressive environments.
Siemens further teaches:
24. The electric device of claim 16, wherein the arc quenching device comprises switching units (circuit breakers “X”, see FIG of Page 4) coupled via bus bars (see busbar compartment) to ground cables (cables at cable compartment, noting that “ground cables” as claimed is not the same as “grounded cables” or “cables that are grounded” and instead “ground” as presented is nominal and said cables in the cable compartment could be used for grounding, ie removed from the system and reused/repurposed for grounding), and wherein, in the arc fault event or short circuit event, the bus bars carry alternating currents that cause the electrodynamic forces (natural state of the system as that is what a fault would do).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836