DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 and 10/10/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Korean Patent Document KR 100906966 B1 (hereinafter “Lee”), and further in view of Davison U.S. Patent No. 7,859,802 (hereinafter “Davison”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a power distribution system (refer to fig.3) comprising: a power inlet (i.e. R and H)(fig.3); two or more power outputs (i.e. branch circuit 13)(fig.3) each having a respective residual current device (RCD)(i.e. circuit breaker 11)(fig.3); and an earth leakage current (ELC) monitoring system (i.e. leakage current analyzer 15)(fig.3) configured to provide a respective measure of ELC for each of the power outputs (refer to [47]: “As shown in FIG. 3, the present invention includes an earth leakage circuit breaker 11 connected to the power line 10 to detect a leakage current, and operated by a detection value of the image current transformer 12. The branch circuit 13 for branching the above-described power line 10 to supply power to each load, and the above-mentioned circuit breaker 11, the image current transformer 12, and the branch circuit 13 are fixed to an inner plate and casing. In a known distribution panel composed of a case 14, a voltage unit 20 for detecting a voltage from the above-described power line 10 to generate a synchronization signal and a control power supply, and the image current transformer 12 and the voltage unit ( A resistive leakage current calculating unit 30 connected to an output of the circuit 20 and calculating a resistive leakage current from the synthesized leakage current detected from the image current transformer 12 according to the synchronization signal of the voltage unit 20, and the above-described leakage circuit breaker ( 11) is then connected to the power line 10 in the load direction to reduce the power disconnection of the power line 10 The ground fault interruption signal generator 40 for outputting a short circuit signal, and the outputs of the image current transformer 12, the resistive leakage current calculator 30, and the ground fault interruption signal generator 40. The leakage current analyzer 15 including the microprocessor unit 50 that stores, calculates, and displays the leakage current for each component according to the output of the generator 40 may include the power line 10 and the image current transformer in the case 14 described above. It is connected to (12) and it is a distribution panel that can detect, analyze and confirm the leakage current in the case of earth leakage.”); wherein each power output comprises a respective ELC sensor (i.e. image current detector 12)(fig.2 and 3) independent of the respective RCD (implicit); and the power distribution system comprises a memory (i.e. memory 52)(fig.2) configured to store a respective trip point for each respective RCD (refer to [37]: “The microprocessor unit 50 includes a microprocessor 51 that receives and processes the outputs of the image current transformer 12, the resistive leakage current calculator 30, and the ground fault interruption signal generator 40, and the microprocessor A memory 52 for storing a set value or an input leakage current value in the input / output of the processor 51, a display unit 53 for displaying the leakage current value, and a stored value stored in the leakage current value display command or the memory 52 In order to input a command such as a value delete command or the like, the switching unit 54 may be configured by connecting a switch or an input device such as a touch input, where the display unit 53 is a FND indicating a leakage current value and a leakage shown. In addition to LEDs that indicate whether the current value is a composite leakage current or a resistive leakage current, the LCD can be used to distinguish between the composite leakage current and the resistive leakage current.”); however Lee does not teach each power output having a respective user-actuatable shut-off and the respective trip point being a respective measured trip point. However, Davison teaches each power output having a respective user-actuatable shut-off (i.e. breaker handle 120)(fig.1) and the respective trip point being a respective measured trip point (refer to col. 6 lines 11-18 and col. 12 lines 28-37). 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 system of Lee to include the shut-off and measured trip point of Davison to provide the advantage of incorporating a common feature in a breaker to allow manual control of the breaker and calibrating the trip point to accommodate various factors thereby making the trip point more accurate and the breaker more reliable.
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 wherein each respective RCD comprises the respective user-actuatable shut-off (refer to Davison figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1, wherein each respective ELC sensor is a respective current transformer (i.e. Lee image current detector 12)(fig.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 wherein the ELC monitoring system comprises a display configured to display the respective measure of ELC for each of the power outputs (refer to Lee [37], [39]: “The present invention having such leakage current detection, storage and display functions is characterized by the constant current leakage current (Ig) value, the resistance leakage current (Igr) value and the capacitive capacity by the image current transformer 12 and the resistive leakage current calculation unit 30. The leakage current (Igc) value can be detected and calculated, and, of course, when the ground fault interrupter 11 is operated to cause a ground fault, the ground fault breaker 11 detects whether the ground fault breaker is detected by the ground fault interrupter signal generator 40. The leakage current value at the moment of interruption (disruption) can be stored and displayed to determine whether the cause of the electric leakage interruption is due to an increase in the resistive leakage current (Igr) due to a short circuit or simply by a capacitive leakage current (Igc). It becomes possible.” and [40]: “For example, if the leakage current (Ig) value at the moment of the earth leakage breaker is smaller than the rated non-operating current of the earth leakage breaker 11 as the cause of the earth leakage breaker 11 breaking, the earth leakage breaker 11 itself may be abnormal or malfunction. When the combined leakage current (Ig) at the moment of the earth leakage breaker is larger than the rated non-operating current of the earth leakage breaker 11”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 wherein the ELC monitoring system comprises a display configured to display a respective measure of ELC, relative to the respective measured trip point, for each of the power outputs (refer to Lee [37], [39] and [40]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 wherein the ELC monitoring system comprises a respective at least one adjustable alarm threshold for each of the power outputs (refer to Lee [37], [39] and [40]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 wherein the ELC monitoring system is configured to provide a respective ELC waveform characterization for each of the power outputs (refer to Lee [37], [39] and [40]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Davison as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan et al. U.S. Patent Application 2018/0241192 (hereinafter “Morgan”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however, they do not teach wherein each respective RCD is a respective residual current breaker with overcurrent (RCBO). However, Morgan teaches wherein each respective RCD is a respective residual current breaker with overcurrent (RCBO) (refer to [0008]). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the RCBO of Morgan to provide the advantage of providing further protection within a single device.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Davison as applied to claims 1 or 5 above, and further in view of Callahan U.S. Patent Application 2015/0315786 (hereinafter “Callahan”).
Regarding clam 7, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 5; however they do not teach the power distribution system comprising a transportable unit, the transportable unit comprising the power inlet, the power outputs and the display. However, Callahan teaches the power distribution system comprising a transportable unit (i.e. enclosure 10)(fig.2A), the transportable unit comprising the power inlet (refer to power inlet connector 11)(figs. 2B and 2D), the power outputs (refer to power output/feedthru 19)(figs. 2B and 2C) and the display (refer to display 16)(fig.2B). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the transportable unit of Callahan to provide the advantage of allowing for shipping and storage of the system for use in a portable lighting system (refer to Callahan abstract and [0122]).
Regarding clam 8, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however they do not teach the power distribution system comprising a transportable unit, wherein the transportable unit comprises the power inlet and the power outputs. However, Callahan teaches the power distribution system comprising a transportable unit (i.e. enclosure 10)(fig.2A), wherein the transportable unit comprises the power inlet (refer to power inlet connector 11)(figs. 2B and 2D) and the power outputs (refer to power output/feedthru 19)(figs. 2B and 2C). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the transportable unit of Callahan to provide the advantage of allowing for shipping and storage of the system for use in a portable lighting system (refer to Callahan abstract and [0122]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however they do not teach the power distribution system comprising a dimming mechanism configured to dim at least one of the power outputs. However, Callahan teaches the power distribution system comprising a dimming mechanism configured to dim at least one of the power outputs (refer to [0133], [0154] and [0155]). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the dimming mechanism of Callahan to provide the advantage of expanding the range of devices that the system can power (refer to Callahan [0133])
Regarding claim 17, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1 comprising a data inlet (i.e. data inlet connector 12)(figs. 2B and 2D) configured to receive electronic control signals from outside the power distribution system (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 system of Lee and Davison to include the data inlet to provide the advantage of allowing the systems to be chained together to simplify wiring (refer to Callahan [0224]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee, Davison, and Callahan teach the power distribution system of claim 17 comprising a data outlet (i.e. Callahan data output connector 20)(figs.2B and 2C) configured to be coupled to the data inlet of a second power distribution system (refer to Callahan [0224]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however they do not teach wherein the two or more power outputs comprise a multiple of three of the power outputs. However, Callahan teaches wherein the two or more power outputs comprise a multiple of three of the power outputs (refer to [0157]-[0159]). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the power outputs of Callahan to provide the advantage of balancing the single phase outputs to each phase of the three-phase input.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Davison as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizaki et al. U.S. Patent Application 2005/0225909 (hereinafter “Yoshizaki”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however they do not teach the power distribution system comprising a datalogging system coupled to the ELC monitoring system for each of the power outputs and configured to log the respective measure of ELC for the respective power output. However, Yoshizaki teaches the power distribution system comprising a datalogging system (refer to Host system 14)(fig.1)(refer also to [0031], [0037], and [0052]) coupled to the ELC monitoring system (refer to communication I/F part)(fig.1) for each of the power outputs (implicit) and configured to log the respective measure of ELC for the respective power output (refer to [0031], [0037], and [0052]). 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 system of Lee and Davison to include the datalogging of Yoshizaki to provide the advantage of allowing for a single system to supervise a large number of distribution systems to centralizing the monitoring of the equipment.
Regarding claim 12, Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki teach the power distribution system of claim 11 wherein: each RCD is configured to trip when a current rises above a preset trip point (refer to Yoshizaki [0121])(refer also to Lee [39]); and the datalogging system is configured to log the respective measure of ELC associated with an RCD tripping (refer to Yoshizaki [0121])(refer also to Lee [39]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki teach the power distribution system of claim 12 wherein the datalogging system is configured to log conventional current associated with tripping (refer to Yoshizaki [0121])(refer also to Lee [39]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kinney et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,311,392 (hereinafter “Kinney”).
Regarding claim 13, Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki teach the power distribution system of claim 12; however they do not teach wherein the datalogging system is configured to log root-mean-square (RMS) ELC associated with the RCD tripping. However, Kinney teaches wherein the datalogging system is configured to log root-mean-square (RMS) ELC associated with the RCD tripping (refer to col. 8 line 63 to col. 9 line 6). 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 system of Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki to include the RMS values of Kinney to provide the advantage of using a common type of value for fault calculations.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Domitrovich et al. U.S. Patent Application 2007/0297113 (hereinafter “Domitrovich”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki teach the power distribution system of claim 12; however, they do not teach wherein the datalogging system is configured to log peak ELC associated with the RCD tripping. However, Domitrovich teaches wherein the datalogging system is configured to log peak ELC associated with the RCD tripping (refer to [0035] and [0049]). 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 system of Lee, Davison, and Yoshizaki to include the peak values of Domitrovich to provide the advantage of using a common type of value for fault calculations
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Davison as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kellett et al. U.S. Patent Application 2015/0372535 (hereinafter “Kellett”).
Regarding claim 19, Lee and Davison teach the power distribution system of claim 1; however they do not teach wherein the power inlet is a 3-phase power inlet and each of the power outputs is a single-phase power output. However, Kellett teaches wherein the power inlet is a 3-phase power inlet and each of the power outputs is a single-phase power output (refer to [0079]). 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 system of Lee and Davison to use common input and output phases for sources and loads.
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