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 06/26/2024 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maitra et al. U.S. Patent Application 2007/0121257 (hereinafter “Maitra”).
Regarding claim 1, Maitra teaches a current interruption system (refer to fig.1), comprising: an electromechanical switch (i.e. mechanical switch 12)(fig.1) coupling an electrical source (i.e. source in the figure below)(fig.1) and an electrical load (refer to “To Load” in the figure below)(fig.1) along an electrical line (i.e. line in the figure below)(fig.1) of a power delivery system (implicit)(refer also to [0003]); a controller (i.e. PWM 44)(fig.1)(refer also to [0043] and [0044]) configured to: receive an indication of an electrical characteristic along the electrical line (refer to [0067]); determine a fault condition based on the electrical characteristic (refer to [0061] and [0067]); and transmit instructions to interrupt a first current through the electromechanical switch according to a first mode (refer to [0061]-[0067]: “Operating Under Fault Limiting Conditions”) or second mode (refer to [0068]: “Operating under Fault Clearing Mode”) based on the electrical characteristic and the determination of the fault condition (refer to [0061]-[0068]); and a voltage source converter (VSC) (i.e. solid-state switch 14)(fig.1) configured to: receive the instructions from the controller (refer to [0061]-[0068]); interrupt the first current according to the first mode or the second mode (refer to [0061]-[0068]); and reduce a second current through the VSC to zero (refer to [0068])(refer also to snubber 24 which reduces the current to zero once IGBT 20 is turned off).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Maitra teaches the current interruption system of claim 1, wherein the fault condition comprises an overcurrent condition along the electrical line of the power delivery system (refer to [0028] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Maitra teaches the current interruption system of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises an intelligent electronic device (IED) (refer to [0044]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niehoff U.S. Patent Application 2016/0203932 (hereinafter “Niehoff”).
Regarding claim 4, Maitra teaches the current interruption system of claim 1; however, Maitra does not teach wherein the electrical characteristic comprises a sampled current value. However, Niehoff teaches wherein the electrical characteristic comprises a sampled current value (refer to [0058]). 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 Maitra to include sampling of Niehoff to provide the advantage of using a common method of obtaining circuit characteristics such as voltage and current.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Askan U.S. Patent Application 2021/0203149 (hereinafter “Askan”) and Jimenez U.S. Patent Application 2023/0344212 (hereinafter “Jimenez”).
Regarding claim 8, Maitra teaches the current interruption system of claim 1; however, Maitra does not teach wherein the VSC is electrically coupled to the electrical line of the power delivery system via a vacuum contactor. However, Askan teaches wherein the VSC (i.e. semiconductor circuit assembly 11)(fig.1) is electrically coupled to the electrical line of the power delivery system via a contactor (i.e. mechanical disconnector 9)(fig.1). 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 Maitra to include the contactor of Askan to provide the advantage of ensuring no current flows through the VSC (i.e. complete commutation of the current) after the tripping operation is completed. However, Maitra and Askan do not teach wherein the contactor is a vacuum contactor. However, Jimenez teaches wherein the contactor is a vacuum contactor (refer to [0026]). 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 Maitra and Askan to include the vacuum contactor of Jimenez to provide the advantage of using a contactor with low maintenance, a long service life, and a compact size.
Regarding 9, Maitra, Askan, and Jimenez teach the current interruption system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to send instructions to the vacuum contactor to close based on the determination of the fault condition (refer to Askan [0028] and [0038]).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitra and further in view of Askan.
Regarding claim 10, Maitra teaches a method, comprising: receiving instructions to interrupt a first current through an electromechanical switch along an electrical line of a power delivery system according to a first mode (refer to [0061]-[0067]) or a second mode (refer to [0068]); regulating, via the VSC, the first current through the electromechanical switch to zero according to the first mode or the second mode (refer to [0061]-[0068]); regulating, via one or more capacitors, a second current through the VSC to zero in response to the VSC being decoupled from the electrical line (refer to snubber 24 and capacitor 28)(fig.1)(refer also to [0068]); however, Maitra does not teach instructing a second switch to electrically couple a voltage source convertor (VSC) to the electrical line; and instructing the second switch to electrically decouple the VSC from the electrical line in response to the first current through electromechanical switch being regulated to zero. However, Askan teaches instructing a second switch (i.e. mechanical disconnector 9)(fig.1) to electrically couple a voltage source convertor (VSC) to the electrical line (refer to [0028] and [0038]); and instructing the second switch to electrically decouple the VSC from the electrical line in response to the first current through electromechanical switch being regulated to zero (refer to [0028] and [0038]). 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 method of Maitra to include the contactor of Askan to provide the advantage of ensuring no current flows through the VSC (i.e. complete commutation of the current) from the source after the tripping operation is completed.
Regarding claim 11, Maitra and Askan teach the method of claim 10, wherein the second current through the VSC being regulated to zero comprises the second current being dissipated by a capacitor electrically coupled to the VSC (refer to Maitra snubber 24 and capacitor 28)(refer also to [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Maitra and Askan teach the method of claim 10, wherein regulating the first current through the electromechanical switch to zero according to the first mode comprises decreasing the first current by increasing the second current (refer to Maitra [0061] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Maitra and Askan teach the method of claim 10, wherein regulating the first current through the electromechanical switch to zero according to the second mode comprises decreasing the first current by increasing the second current according to a pulse-width modulation (PWM) control scheme (refer to Maitra [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Maitra teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (implicit)(refer to [0044]) comprising computer-executable instructions (implicit)(refer to [0044]) that, when executed, are configured to cause data processing circuitry to perform operations comprising: receiving a signal indicative of one or more electrical characteristics of an electrical line of a power delivery system (refer to [0067])(refer also to the rejection of claim 1 above); determining a fault condition based on the one or more electrical characteristics (refer to [0061] and [0067]); transmitting first instructions or second instructions to a circuit breaker coupled to the electrical line of the power delivery system (refer to [0061]-[0068]) to cause the circuit breaker to: reduce a first current along the electrical line (refer to [0068]); and reduce a second current through the VSC to zero via one or more capacitors coupled to the VSC (refer to [0068])(refer also to snubber 24 and capacitor 28)(fig.1); however, Maitra does not teach the circuit breaker reducing the first current by coupling by coupling a voltage source converter (VSC) to the electrical line; and decouple the VSC from the electrical line in response to the first current being reduced to zero. However, Askan teaches the circuit breaker (i.e. mechanical disconnector 9)(fig.1) reducing the first current by coupling by coupling a voltage source converter (VSC) to the electrical line (refer to [0028] and [0038]); and decouple the VSC from the electrical line in response to the first current being reduced to zero (refer to [0028] and [0038]). 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 non-transistor computer readable medium of Maitra to include the circuit breaker of Askan to provide the advantage of ensuring current only flows through the VSC from the source during the tripping operation (i.e. complete commutation of the current).
Regarding claim 17, Maitra and Askan teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions of claim 16, wherein reducing the first current comprises redirecting the first current through the VSC (refer to Maitra [0061] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Maitra and Askan teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions of claim 16, wherein the first instructions cause the circuit breaker to reduce the first current along the electrical line according to a pulse-width modulation (PWM) scheme (refer to Maitra [0063]).
Regarding claim 19, Maitra and Askan teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions of claim 16, wherein the electrical line is configured to couple an electrical source (i.e. Maitra source in the figure above)(fig.1) to an electrical load (refer to Maitra “To Load” in the figure above)(fig.1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maitra and Askan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jimenez.
Regarding claim 20, Maitra and Askan teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions of claim 16, wherein coupling the VSC to the electrical line comprises closing a contactor (refer to Askan [0028] and [0038]), and wherein decoupling the VSC from the electrical line comprises opening the contactor (refer to Askan [0028] and [0038]); however, Maitra and Askan do not teach the contactor being a vacuum contactor. However, Jimenez teaches the contactor being a vacuum contactor (refer to [0058]). 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 non-transistor computer readable medium of Maitra and Askan to include the vacuum contactor of Jimenez to provide the advantage of using a contactor with low maintenance, a long service life, and a compact size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12, and 15 are 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 5 is 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 5, especially wherein the controller is configured to: transmit the instructions to interrupt the first current through the electromechanical switch according to the first mode in response to the sampled current value being below a threshold value; and transmit the instructions to interrupt the first current through the electromechanical switch according to the second mode in response to the sampled current value being above the threshold value. Claims 6 and 7 are 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 6, especially wherein the instructions to interrupt the first current through the electromechanical switch according to the first mode comprise a target rate-of-change of the first current through the electromechanical switch, wherein the target rate-of-change of the first current through the electromechanical switch is based on a target rate-of-change of the second current through the VSC. Claim 7 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on its dependency on claim 6. Claim 12 is 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 12, especially wherein the first mode is indicative of a fault current through the electromechanical switch being below a threshold and the second mode is indicative of the fault current through the electromechanical switch being above the threshold.
Claim 15 is 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 15, especially receiving one or more parameters of a pulse-width modulation (PWM) scheme from a controller, wherein the one or more parameters define a rate of change of the regulation of the first current.
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