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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 8/9/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by US 2020/0365338 to Rushabh et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rushabh and US 2008/0074215 to Zhou et al..
The objection to claim 7 and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7-10, 12-18 and 20 are maintained for the reasons discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, “wherein the controller compares the collected data and stored data to determine if the collected date is within designated safety ranges should be “wherein the controller compares the collected data and stored data to determine if the collected data is within designated safety ranges”.
In the last line of claim 7, “date” should be “data”.
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 7-10, 12-18 and 20 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.
In claim 7, the meaning of the language “wherein the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly if the collected date in to within the designated safety ranges” is unclear. As best understood by the examiner in light of the specification, the intended meaning of this language appears to be “wherein the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly if the collected data is not within the designated safety ranges”. This interpretation is applied for purposes of the present examination. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 7.
In claim 12, “the contactor” lacks antecedent basis, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In claim 13, the meaning of the language “transmitting real time collected data back from sensors located internal to a housing of a contactor assembly internal controller located internal to the housing of the contactor assembly” is unclear. As best understood by the examiner in light of the specification, the intended meaning of this language appears to be “transmitting real time collected data back from sensors located internal to a housing of a contactor assembly to an internal controller located internal to the housing of the contactor assembly”. This interpretation is applied for purposes of the present examination. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence from claim 13.
In claim 14, “the communication bus” lacks antecedent basis, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365338 to Rushabh et al. (Rushabh) in view of US 2008/0074215 to Zhou et al. (Zhou).
Regarding claim 1, Rushabh discloses a contactor assembly for use in an electrical system, the contactor assembly comprising:
a housing (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86, contactor housing 20 of contactor 12 such as shown in Figs. 1-3);
a controller positioned in the housing (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86, controller 91 of control system 90 shown in Fig. 5; also see paragraph 69, the control system 90 may be located within the housing 20 of the contactor 12);
at least one sensor positioned in the housing and provided in electrical communication with the controller, the at least one sensor collects data in real time from inside the housing
wherein the collected data is sent to the controller in real time and analyzed to determine if the operation of the contactor assembly is within designated safety ranges (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see paragraph 70 in particular, one of the functions of the controller 91 is to monitor the condition of the contactor 12; in particular, the controller 91 is configured to use the information about the position of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70, as provided by the signal processor 85, to determine whether the operation of the contactor 12 is healthy, whether there is a fault, and whether a fault is developing; also see paragraph 72, the controller 91 is able to detect deterioration in the operation of the contactor by determining the time taken for the contactor to move from the contacts open position to the contacts close position after an energising signal is provided to the electromagnetic coil 56; for instance, the controller 91 may be able to detect whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range; the determination as to whether the time falls within or without the range provides an indication as to whether the contactor 12 is developing a fault and thus may fail at a time in the future; also see paragraphs 74-76 and 84).
Rushabh specifically contemplates that the disclosed arrangements may be used to augment other types of safety interlocks, such as interlocks based on coil current differential (Rushabh, e.g., paragraphs 99, 101). Rushabh explicitly states in paragraph 101 that “contact over-travel, armature pull-in time, and coil current differential are discussed as useful for estimating future faults or remaining useful life, etc.” and that “it should be recognized that no single one of these parameters individually is necessary to predict wellness, that all are inter-compatible in determining wellness, and that other components, parameters, predictors, and indicators not explicitly mentioned herein may also be used in conjunction with the present invention”. Accordingly, although the particular embodiments of Rushabh relied upon above do not explicitly disclose the at least one sensor consisting essentially of at least one sensor which monitors load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing, Rushabh at the very least suggests augmenting such embodiments with a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Zhou (which is in fact cited by Rushabh in paragraph 10) discloses at least one sensor positioned in a housing of a contactor assembly and provided in electrical communication with a controller, the at least one sensor collecting data in real time from inside the housing, and the at least one sensor consisting essentially of at least one sensor which monitors load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing (Zhou, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 36, current sensor or shunt 68 is included in series with coil 56 and a voltage sensing device or circuit 66 is included in parallel with coil 56; a wire 72 is attached at one end of shunt 68 so that the voltage drop thereacross (as a measure of current flow) can be ascertained; also see paragraph 51, coil current differential may be used as an indicator for carrier jam or contact weld; also see paragraph 47, indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; also see, e.g., paragraph 11; also see claims 1 and 9-11).
It 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 to modify Rushabh such that the at least one sensor consists essentially of at least one sensor which monitors load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing. In this way, in the manner suggested by Rushabh and disclosed by Zhou, Rushabh’s functionality may be augmented using a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Regarding claim 2, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the controller is a microcontroller (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry).
Regarding claim 3, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the controller includes a memory (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry; it is implicit in the case of a microcontroller that controller 91 includes a memory storing programmed instructions).
Regarding claim 4, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein a communications bus extends from the controller to outside of the housing of the contactor assembly (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 68, controller 91 is configured to provide reporting signals on a reporting line output 97; this allows for reporting of the status of the contactor 12 over an industrial communication network; the reporting line output 97 may for instance be part of an Ethernet, Profibus or Modbus link).
Regarding claim 6, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the contactor has fixed contacts and a movable electrical contact bridge (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see Fig. 3 in particular, fixed contacts including stationary contacts 46 and movable electrical contact bridge including a pair of moveable contacts 48 mounted to a moveable contact carrier 50).
Regarding claim 7, Rushabh discloses a power switch electrical control system comprising:
a controller positioned inside a housing of a contactor assembly (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86, controller 91 of control system 90 shown in Fig. 5; also see paragraph 69, the control system 90 may be located within the housing 20 of the contactor 12);
one or more sensors positioned inside the housing of the contactor assembly, the one or more sensors provided in electrical communication with the controller
wherein the one or more sensors collect data in real time from inside the housing of the contactor assembly and transmit the collected data to the controller (see Rushabh as applied above, e.g., paragraph 66, controller 91 is configured to receive the sensor position output signals of the signal processor 85; in this way, the controller 91 is provided with information about the location of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70; moreover, the controller 91 receives the location information in real-time);
wherein the controller compares the collected data and stored data to determine if the collected date [see claim objection above, interpreted as “data”] is within designated safety ranges (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see paragraph 70 in particular, one of the functions of the controller 91 is to monitor the condition of the contactor 12; in particular, the controller 91 is configured to use the information about the position of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70, as provided by the signal processor 85, to determine whether the operation of the contactor 12 is healthy, whether there is a fault, and whether a fault is developing; also see paragraph 72, the controller 91 is able to detect deterioration in the operation of the contactor by determining the time taken for the contactor to move from the contacts open position to the contacts close position after an energising signal is provided to the electromagnetic coil 56; for instance, the controller 91 may be able to detect whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range; the determination as to whether the time falls within or without the range provides an indication as to whether the contactor 12 is developing a fault and thus may fail at a time in the future; also see paragraphs 74-76 and 84; the examiner notes that Rushabh’s determination of whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range implicitly entails a comparison of the collected data with stored data performed by the controller 91);
wherein the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly if the collected date in to within the designated safety ranges (see claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, this language is interpreted as “wherein the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly if the collected data is not within the designated safety ranges”; Rushabh, e.g., paragraph 81, the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles).
Rushabh specifically contemplates that the disclosed arrangements may be used to augment other types of safety interlocks, such as interlocks based on coil current differential (Rushabh, e.g., paragraphs 99, 101). Rushabh explicitly states in paragraph 101 that “contact over-travel, armature pull-in time, and coil current differential are discussed as useful for estimating future faults or remaining useful life, etc.” and that “it should be recognized that no single one of these parameters individually is necessary to predict wellness, that all are inter-compatible in determining wellness, and that other components, parameters, predictors, and indicators not explicitly mentioned herein may also be used in conjunction with the present invention”. Accordingly, although the particular embodiments of Rushabh relied upon above do not explicitly disclose the one or more sensors consisting essentially of one or more sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing, Rushabh at the very least suggests augmenting such embodiments with a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Zhou (which is in fact cited by Rushabh in paragraph 10) discloses one or more sensors positioned inside the housing of the contactor assembly, with the one or more sensors being provided in electrical communication with the controller, and with the one or more sensors consisting essentially of one or more sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing (Zhou, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 36, current sensor or shunt 68 is included in series with coil 56 and a voltage sensing device or circuit 66 is included in parallel with coil 56; a wire 72 is attached at one end of shunt 68 so that the voltage drop thereacross (as a measure of current flow) can be ascertained; also see paragraph 51, coil current differential may be used as an indicator for carrier jam or contact weld; also see paragraph 47, when a measured coil current differential does not fall within the coil current differential threshold, it is likely that a fault such as contact weld or carrier jam has already occurred; indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; also see paragraphs 51-52; also see claims 1 and 9-11).
It 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 to modify Rushabh such that the one or more sensors consist essentially of one or more sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing. In this way, in the manner suggested by Rushabh and disclosed by Zhou, Rushabh’s functionality may be augmented using a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Regarding claim 8, Rushabh in view of Zou discloses wherein the controller is a microcontroller (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry).
Regarding claim 9, Rushabh in view of Zou discloses wherein the controller includes a memory (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry; it is implicit in the case of a microcontroller that controller 91 includes a memory storing programmed instructions).
Regarding claim 10, Rushabh in view of Zou discloses wherein a communications bus extends from the controller to outside of the housing of the contactor assembly (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 68, controller 91 is configured to provide reporting signals on a reporting line output 97; this allows for reporting of the status of the contactor 12 over an industrial communication network; the reporting line output 97 may for instance be part of an Ethernet, Profibus or Modbus link).
Regarding claim 12, Rushabh discloses wherein the contactor has fixed contacts and a movable electrical contact bridge (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see Fig. 3 in particular, fixed contacts including stationary contacts 46 and movable electrical contact bridge including a pair of moveable contacts 48 mounted to a moveable contact carrier 50).
Regarding claim 13, Rushabh discloses a method of monitoring the operation of an electrical control system of a contactor assembly, the method including:
transmitting real time collected data back from sensors located internal to a housing of a contactor assembly internal controller located internal to the housing of the contactor assemblyto an internal controller located internal to the housing of the power switch”’ Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86, sensor 70, e.g., a Hall effect sensor shown in Figs. 3-4; note in Fig. 3 that sensor 70 is contained withing housing 20 of the contactor 12; also see paragraph 54, sensor 70 is of a type such that signals provided at output terminal(s) thereof are processable to derive an instantaneous location of the sensor 70 relative to the magnet 69, and thus derive an instantaneous location of the contact carrier 50 relative to the stationary contacts 46 and the housing 20; also see paragraph 63, DSP 77 is configured to process the input signals, which are derived from the sensor 70, and to provide an output indicative of the contact carrier 50 relative to the stationary contacts 46; also see paragraph 66, controller 91 is configured to receive the sensor position output signals of the signal processor 85; in this way, the controller 91 is provided with information about the location of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70; moreover, the controller 91 receives the location information in real-time);
comparing, in real time, the collected data to data stored in the internal controller to determine if the collected data is within the designated safety ranges (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see paragraph 70 in particular, one of the functions of the controller 91 is to monitor the condition of the contactor 12; in particular, the controller 91 is configured to use the information about the position of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70, as provided by the signal processor 85, to determine whether the operation of the contactor 12 is healthy, whether there is a fault, and whether a fault is developing; also see paragraph 72, the controller 91 is able to detect deterioration in the operation of the contactor by determining the time taken for the contactor to move from the contacts open position to the contacts close position after an energising signal is provided to the electromagnetic coil 56; for instance, the controller 91 may be able to detect whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range; the determination as to whether the time falls within or without the range provides an indication as to whether the contactor 12 is developing a fault and thus may fail at a time in the future; also see paragraphs 74-76 and 84; the examiner notes that Rushabh’s determination of whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range implicitly entails a comparison of the collected data with stored data performed by the controller 91);
wherein if the collected data is outside of the designated safety ranges, the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly (Rushabh, e.g., paragraph 81, the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles);
wherein if the collected data is within the designated safety ranges, the controller allows the operation of the contactor assembly to continue (Rushabh, e.g., paragraph 81, the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles).
Rushabh specifically contemplates that the disclosed arrangements may be used to augment other types of safety interlocks, such as interlocks based on coil current differential (Rushabh, e.g., paragraphs 99, 101). Rushabh explicitly states in paragraph 101 that “contact over-travel, armature pull-in time, and coil current differential are discussed as useful for estimating future faults or remaining useful life, etc.” and that “it should be recognized that no single one of these parameters individually is necessary to predict wellness, that all are inter-compatible in determining wellness, and that other components, parameters, predictors, and indicators not explicitly mentioned herein may also be used in conjunction with the present invention”. Accordingly, although the particular embodiments of Rushabh relied upon above do not explicitly disclose the sensors consisting essentially of sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing, Rushabh at the very least suggests augmenting such embodiments with a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Zhou (which is in fact cited by Rushabh in paragraph 10) discloses sensors located internal to a housing of a contactor assembly, with the sensors consisting essentially of sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing (Zhou, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraph 36, current sensor or shunt 68 is included in series with coil 56 and a voltage sensing device or circuit 66 is included in parallel with coil 56; a wire 72 is attached at one end of shunt 68 so that the voltage drop thereacross (as a measure of current flow) can be ascertained; also see paragraph 51, coil current differential may be used as an indicator for carrier jam or contact weld; also see paragraph 47, when a measured coil current differential does not fall within the coil current differential threshold, it is likely that a fault such as contact weld or carrier jam has already occurred; indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; also see paragraphs 51-52; also see claims 1 and 9-11).
It 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 to modify Rushabh such that the sensors consist essentially of sensors which monitor load, current, voltage, resistance, temperature or internal atmosphere inside of the housing. In this way, in the manner suggested by Rushabh and disclosed by Zhou, Rushabh’s functionality may be augmented using a coil current sensor for implementing an interlock based on coil current differential.
Regarding claim 14, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the collected data is communicated via the communication bus outside of the housing of the contactor assembly (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 68, controller 91 is configured to provide reporting signals on a reporting line output 97; this allows for reporting of the status of the contactor 12 over an industrial communication network; the reporting line output 97 may for instance be part of an Ethernet, Profibus or Modbus link; also see paragraph 76, reporting of information via reporting line output 97 may alternatively involve sending information identifying the movement of the contact carrier 50 relative to the housing 20; for instance, the information may include a time series of data, with each data item indicating a location at a particular moment in time; alternatively, the information may represent the movement, for instance by defining the location as a function of time).
Regarding claim 15, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein if the collected data is outside of the designated safety ranges, a coil current applied to an electrically conductive coil of the contactor assembly is stopped (Rushabh, e.g., paragraph 81, the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles; it is implicit in the case of automatic shutdown that current for operating electromagnetic coil 56 (Fig. 3) is stopped).
Regarding claim 16, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the internal controller continues to compare, in real time, the collected data to the stored data to determine if the collected data is outside of the designated safety ranges, wherein if the collected data is outside of the designated safety ranges, the controller terminates the operation of the contactor assembly (see Rushabh as applied to claims 13 and 15, controller 91 is provided with information about the location of the contact carrier 50 relative to the sensor 70; moreover, the controller 91 receives the location information in real-time; the controller 91 may be able to detect whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range; the determination as to whether the time falls within or without the range provides an indication as to whether the contactor 12 is developing a fault and thus may fail at a time in the future; the examiner notes that Rushabh’s determination of whether the time taken for the contactor 12 to move from the contacts open position to the contacts closed position is within a predetermined range, or whether it falls outside that range implicitly entails a comparison of the collected data with stored data performed by the controller 91; the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles).
Regarding claim 17, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the internal controller is a microcontroller (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry).
Regarding claim 18, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the internal controller includes a memory (Rushabh, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 65, control system 90 is based around a controller 91; this may take any suitable form, and may for example a programmed microprocessor, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microcontrollers, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry; it is implicit in the case of a microcontroller that controller 91 includes a memory storing programmed instructions).
Regarding claim 20, Rushabh in view of Zhou discloses wherein the contactor assembly has fixed contacts and a movable electrical contact bridge, wherein if the collected data is outside of the designated safety ranges, a coil current applied to an electrically conductive coil of the contactor assembly is stopped to prevent the mating of the movable electrical contact bridge with the fixed contacts (Rushabh, e.g., Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 42-86; see Fig. 3 in particular, fixed contacts including stationary contacts 46 and movable electrical contact bridge including a pair of moveable contacts 48 mounted to a moveable contact carrier 50; also see paragraph 81, the indication of impending or existing fault may take the form of a warning light or alarm, a user alert, or an automatic shutdown for contactor replacement; if the wellness metric (or metrics) does not exceed the corresponding threshold, then the contactor is permitted to continue operation cycles; it is implicit in the case of automatic shutdown that current for operating electromagnetic coil 56 (Fig. 3) is stopped to prevent mating of stationary contacts 46 with moveable contacts 48).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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 R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
