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 .
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 “plurality of fuses” of claims 2-5, 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 1 and 3-7 are objected to because:
Claim 1, line 13, “the opposite direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 15-16, “the direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 18, “the side” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 3, “the plurality of fuses” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3, line 4, “a plurality of fuses” should be -the plurality of fuses-.
Claim 4, line 3, “the plurality of fuses” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 2, “the order” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 1, “An electrical energy distribution system” should be – The electrical energy distribution system-.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, “a high-voltage direct current source” should be -the high-voltage direct current source-.
Claim 6, line 2, “a contactor” should be -the contactor-.
Claim 6, line 3, “a first electrical contact” should be -the first electrical contact-.
Claim 6, line 4, “a second electrical contact” should be -the second electrical contact-.
Claim 7, line 1, “An aircraft” should be -The aircraft”.
Claim 7, line 1, “an electrical energy distribution system” should be – the electrical energy distribution system-.
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 1-2 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 1, phrases, “so-called closed position” and “so-called open position” are unclear and leave doubts as to how a technical feature can be, “so-called closed position” or “so-called open position”.
Claims 2-5, phrase, “a plurality of fuses” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
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 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohl, EP 0410258.
Regarding claim 1, Pohl discloses (figs.1-2) a contactor (2) intended to be used in an electrical power distribution system within an aircraft (intended use) and including a first electrical contact (3), a second electrical contact (4), and a movable bridge (5) displaceable between a so-called closed position in which the movable bridge (5) is in contact with the first electrical contact (3) and the second electrical contact (4), and a so-called open position in which the movable bridge (5) is spaced apart from the first electrical contact (3) and from the second electrical contact (4), the movable bridge (5) having a first face intended to be in contact with the first electrical contact (3) and the second electrical contact (4) in the closed position, and a second face opposite the first face,
the contactor (2) further including:
- a lower arc guide comprising a first portion (6) connected to the first electrical contact (3), extending in the opposite direction to the second electrical contact (4) with respect to the first electrical contact (3), and a second portion (8) connected to the second electrical contact (4), extending in the direction opposite the first electrical contact (3) with respect to the second electrical contact (4),
- an upper arc guide located on the side of the second face of the movable bridge (5) and comprising a first portion (7) facing the first portion (6) of the lower arc guide, a second portion (9) facing the second portion (8) of the lower arc guide.
Pohl fails to disclose a fuse connecting the first portion and the second portion of the upper arc guide.
Darr discloses (figs.1-2) a switch disconnect device (102) comprising a fuse (106) connecting a first portion and a second portion of an upper arc guide (158, 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contactor of Pohl with the inclusion of the fuse of Darr, thereby ensuring that when electrical current through the fuse exceeds a predetermined limit, the fusible elements melt and opens one or more circuits through the fuse to prevent electrical component damage.
Regarding claim 3, Pohl and Darr further disclose where the upper arc guide (158, 160) comprises a fuse holder (154, 154) to receive said fuse (106) by connection.
Regarding claim 6, Pohl further discloses the electrical energy distribution system comprising the high- voltage direct current source, the contactor (2), having the first electrical contact (3) connected to the high-voltage direct current source and the second electrical contact (4) connected to a terminal (15) of the system for the connection of a load.
Regarding claim 7, Pohl further discloses the aircraft (intended use) comprising an electrical energy distribution system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pettersen et al, Mickler et al, Brakefield et al, Neyens et al, Gaudinat et al and Buettner et al are examples of high voltage switches including fuses configured similar to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BOLTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Renee S Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/WILLIAM A BOLTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights