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 (IDS) was submitted on 12/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0020], “methods. provide” should be –methods provide--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 lines 2-3, “methods. provide” should be –methods provide--. Similar correction is required in claim 14.
Claim 10 line 2, “switch on/off” should be –switched on/off--. Similar correction is required in claim 20.
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 4 and 14 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.
The term “provide good effectiveness in reducing” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good effectiveness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as –reduces--.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as –comprising--.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Nicolescu (US 20150381111 A1) teaches a circuit breaker (i.e. arc fault extinguisher 200, fig.2) for active detection of an arc fault ([0001], arc fault detection and extinguishing) comprising:
a set of power electronics (i.e. switch 214, fig.2) configured to make an arc fault detection active ([0121], to control the second switch to close on detection of an arc fault in the power system); and
a sensing and control circuitry (e.g. circuitry comprising sense resistor 210, controller 220 and analog front end processor 240, fig.2) coupled to the set of power electronics (e.g. 210, 220 and 240 are coupled to 214, fig.2) and stores in a memory for execution a detection algorithm code with a detection logic ([0058], Controller 220 could be a microcontroller and could comprise a processor, signal processing circuitry, and non-volatile and/or volatile memory for the storage of such contents as firmware, system parameters, and/or measurements), and
wherein the sensing and control circuitry monitoring a load current of at least one device connected to the circuit breaker, the sensing and control circuitry detecting an arc-like signal in the load current, and by monitoring a change of the arc-like signal during a short on/off period of power electronics ([0102], With switches 212 and 214 open or high impedance a series arc fault current could not flow), the detection algorithm code can determine if there is an arc in the circuit ([0113], then the arc fault is reported to be a series arc) ([0114], the arc fault is reported to be a parallel arc fault).
Nicolescu does not teach, a current limiting resistor in series with the set of power electronics.
Telefus (US 20210226441 A1) teaches in a similar field of endeavor of intelligent circuit interrupters, a current limiting resistor (i.e. current limiting resistor R4, fig.1) in series with a set of power electronics ([0021], an internal short-circuit switch 121/122 and a short-circuit current limiting resistor R4 … serially connected).
However, it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Nicolescu with Telefus, as the power electronic switches in Telefus are not used for detection of arc fault, instead they are used to cause a circuit breaker to trip.
Prior art Leidy (US 20220247163 A1) and Laschinski (US 20130335861 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “a current limiting resistor in series with the set of power electronics”.
Claims 2-10 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the method is allowed for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Claims 12-20 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 02/23/2026