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 .
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 11-12 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 11 recites the limitation "the second stroke" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from rejected Claim 11.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Johansson (US 2023/0335359).
Regarding Claim 1, Johansson discloses a contactor (Figures 1-6), comprising:
an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 4b, 5, Figures 1, 3),
a static contact (comprising lower/static contact of the set of contacts 2, Figures 1, 3),
a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising upper/movable contact of the set of contacts 2, Figures 1, 3), a first elastic part (comprising 6, Figure 1) and a driving part (comprising 4a, Figure 1), wherein the movable contact is configured to be operably close with the static contact (both movable/upper and static/lower contacts of 2 are close with each other, Figures 1, 3), the first elastic part is configured to generate an elastic force supporting the movable component (Figure 1, Paragraph 24, “…When no control current Ic is flowing through the coil 5, there is no magnetic attraction between the core 4b and the armature 4a, why the armature is held away from the core by means of the separation spring(s) 6 and the contacts 2 are held separated from each other, i.e. the contactor is in its open position….”), the driving part is configured to produce an electromagnetic driving force through the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic component (Figure 1, Paragraph 24, “…When the control current Ic is turned on and thus flowing through the coil 5, the coil and thus the electromagnet 4 is magnetized whereby the armature 4a is pulled magnetically towards the core 4b, bringing the contact pairs in contact with each other and thus bringing the contactor from its open position to its closed position”),
a sensor (comprising 30, Figure 3) configured to detect the displacement of the driving part based on the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact in the case that the movable contact and the static contact are closed (Figure 3, Paragraph 33), and a controller (10, Figures 1, 3, 6, Paragraph 26) configured to:
control the movable contact of the movable component and the static contact to be closed (Paragraph 26, “…a controller 10, arranged to control the control current Ic, including turning the control current on and off as desired, by means of control signals…”), in response to the sensor detecting that the driving part is displaced based on the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact (Paragraphs 32-34), control the electromagnetic component to adjust the generated magnetic field, to reduce the electromagnetic driving force produced by the driving part according to the generated magnetic field in the opposite direction to the electric repulsion force, so that the movable contact is not closed with the static contact again (Paragraphs 36-37).
Regarding Claim 2, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 1, wherein the elastic force is in the opposite direction to the electromagnetic driving force (Figure 2, Paragraphs 27-28).
Regarding Claim 3, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 1, wherein the electric repulsion force acts on the movable component, and the direction of the electric repulsion force is opposite to the direction from the movable contact to the static contact, and the electric repulsion force includes a Lorentz force and a Holm force (Figure 2, Paragraphs 16, 25, Paragraph 27, “….The constriction of current results in antiparallel current paths 22 and Lorenz forces between these paths 22 will create separation forces F on the two contacts 2. When the current increases, the separation forces F will also increase and there is approximately a square relation between separation force and current, F~I2. …. During such a fault it may be not only the Lorenz forces that effect the contacts 2 but also the pressure built up by the high energy consumption”).
Regarding Claim 4, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the electric repulsion force depends on the shape of the current path of the current, and the shapes of the movable contact and the static contact (Figure 2, Paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 5, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 1, wherein when the controller controls the electromagnetic component not to generate a magnetic field, the elastic force generated by the first elastic part disconnects the movable contact from the static contact (Figures 1, 3, Paragraph 24, “…The electromagnet 4 comprises a movable armature 4a and a stationary core 4b, around which core 4b a coil 5 is wound and arranged to carry a control current Ic. When no control current Ic is flowing through the coil 5, there is no magnetic attraction between the core 4b and the armature 4a, why the armature is held away from the core by means of the separation spring(s) 6 and the contacts 2 are held separated from each other, i.e. the contactor is in its open position…”, Claim 1), and wherein controlling the movable contact of the movable component and the static contact to be closed comprises:
controlling the electromagnetic component to generate a magnetic field, wherein the driving part produces an electromagnetic driving force through the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic component, the driving part moves at least a first stroke under the drive of the electromagnetic driving force, and after the driving part moves the first stroke, the movable contact of the movable component and the static contact are closed (Paragraph 22, “…at least one pair of contacts 2, which make the main current Im when brought in contact with each other (closing the contactor, i.e. bringing the contactor from an open position to a closed position)”, Paragraph 24, “… When the control current Ic is turned on and thus flowing through the coil 5, the coil and thus the electromagnet 4 is magnetized whereby the armature 4a is pulled magnetically towards the core 4b, bringing the contact pairs in contact with each other and thus bringing the contactor from its open position to its closed position…”, Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 5, wherein the electromagnetic component and the driving part are configured to, when a normal current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is not displace based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Paragraph 24), and when a short-circuit current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is displaced based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Paragraph 25, “…In case of a fault, typically a short circuit fault, when the mains current Im is increased, the contacts 2 of a contact pair may be forced away from each other by so called Lorenz forces, possibly separating the contacts and allowing an arc to form therebetween while the contactor is in its closed position. If the contactor remains in its closed position by the control current Ic flowing through the coil 5, the contacts 2 of the pair may then be forced together again after the fault current is over, by the armature 4a and/or the contact spring 3. If an arc has melted the contact surfaces 2a of the contacts 2 during the fault, the contacts may then be welded together when forced into contact again”).
Regarding Claim 10, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 1, wherein the movable component includes a second elastic part (comprising 3, Figure 1), wherein the second elastic part is configured to provide a pressure for the movable contact in a direction toward the static contact when the movable contact and the static contact are closed (Paragraph 24, “…While the control current Ic is flowing, the contactor remains in the closed position. Optionally, a contact spring 3 is used to evenly press the contacts 2 against each other while the contactor in the closed position…”), and,
wherein that the driving part is displaced based on the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact includes, after the movable contact causes the second elastic part to actuate based on the electric repulsion force, the driving part is displaced (Paragraph 24, “…When the control current Ic is turned on and thus flowing through the coil 5, the coil and thus the electromagnet 4 is magnetized whereby the armature 4a is pulled magnetically towards the core 4b, bringing the contact pairs in contact with each other and thus bringing the contactor from its open position to its closed position. While the control current Ic is flowing, the contactor remains in the closed position. Optionally, a contact spring 3 is used to evenly press the contacts 2 against each other while the contactor in the closed position…”).
Regarding Claim 11, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 5, wherein, in response to the sensor detecting that the driving part is displaced based on the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact, controlling the electromagnetic component to adjust the generated magnetic field includes:
in response to the sensor detecting that the displacement of the driving part based on the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact is greater than the second stroke, controlling the electromagnetic component to adjust the generated magnetic field (Paragraphs 35-38).
Regarding Claim 13, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 1, wherein controlling the electromagnetic component to adjust the produced magnetic field to reduce the electromagnetic driving force produced by the driving part according to the generated magnetic field and in the opposite direction to the electric repulsion force comprises:
controlling the electromagnetic component not to generate a magnetic field to reduce the electromagnetic driving force of the driving part to zero, so that the movable contact is not closed with the static contact again (Paragraph 37, “….To avoid reclosing of a contact pair after unintentional separation of the contacts 2 thereof, it is desirable to be able to quickly open the contactor by demagnetizing the coil 5….”, Paragraph 38).
Regarding Claim 14, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 5, wherein the contactor is a main loop AC contactor (Figure 3), wherein the static contact includes at least three static contacts corresponding to the three-phase current, and the movable contact includes at least three movable contacts respectively configured in pairs with the three static contacts, and the three movable contacts are configured to be operably closed with the three static contacts respectively (Figure 3 shows 3 movable contacts and three static contacts for the three phases, Paragraph 32, “FIG. 3 illustrates a contactor 1 and its relation to its surroundings. In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the main current Im is a three-phase current controlled by the contactor 1 having pairs of contacts 2 for each phase, the opening and closing of which are controlled by the controller 10 via the control current Ic as discussed in relation to FIG. 1”).
Regarding Claim 15, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 14, wherein the electric repulsion force produced on the closed static contact and movable contact corresponding to two phases of the three-phase current is greater than the electric repulsion force produced on the closed static contact and movable contact corresponding to the other phase of the three-phase current (main current carrying phases having higher current resulting in higher repulsion forces than and neutral/ground current carrying phase having lower repulson force).
Regarding Claim 20, Johansson discloses a method for controlling a contactor (Figures 1-6), comprising:
controlling the movable contact of a movable component (comprising upper/movable contact of the set of contacts 2, Figures 1, 3) and the static contact (comprising lower/static contact of the set of contacts 2, Figures 1, 3) to be closed by a controller (10, Figures 1, 3, 6, Paragraph 26),
wherein, the movable component comprises (comprising upper/movable contact of the set of contacts 2, Figures 1, 3), a first elastic part (comprising 6, Figure 1) and a driving part (comprising 4a, Figure 1), wherein the movable contact is configured to be operably close with the static contact (both movable/upper and static/lower contacts of 2 are close with each other, Figures 1, 3), the first elastic part is configured to generate an elastic force supporting the movable component (Figure 1, Paragraph 24, “…When no control current Ic is flowing through the coil 5, there is no magnetic attraction between the core 4b and the armature 4a, why the armature is held away from the core by means of the separation spring(s) 6 and the contacts 2 are held separated from each other, i.e. the contactor is in its open position….”), the driving part is configured to produce an electromagnetic driving force through the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic component (Figure 1, Paragraph 24, “…When the control current Ic is turned on and thus flowing through the coil 5, the coil and thus the electromagnet 4 is magnetized whereby the armature 4a is pulled magnetically towards the core 4b, bringing the contact pairs in contact with each other and thus bringing the contactor from its open position to its closed position”),
in response to a sensor (comprising 30, Figure 3) detecting that the driving part is displaced by an electric repulsion force generated by a current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact (Figure 3, Paragraph 33), the controller controls the electromagnetic component to adjust the generated magnetic field to reduce the electromagnetic driving force produced by the driving part according to the generated magnetic field in the opposite direction to the electric repulsion force, so that the movable contact is not closed with the static contact again (Paragraph 26, “…a controller 10, arranged to control the control current Ic, including turning the control current on and off as desired, by means of control signals…”, Paragraphs 36-37).
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.
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 7, 9, 12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 2023/0335359).
Regarding Claim 7, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 6, wherein the electromagnetic component comprises a core and a winding around the iron core (comprising winding 5 around 4b, Figures 1, 3), wherein controlling the electromagnetic component to generate a magnetic field comprises controlling the control current flowing through the winding to control the electromagnetic component to generate a magnetic field (controlling current Ic through 5, movable armature 4a, Figure 1, Paragraph 24), the driving part comprises an armature (comprising 4a, Figure 1), and,
wherein the electromagnetic component is configured by changing the material and shape of the core and the number of turns and shape of the winding, and the driving part is configured by changing the material and shape of the armature, such that when a normal current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is not displace based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Figures 1-2, Paragraphs 24, 27), and when a short-circuit current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is displaced based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Paragraphs 25, 27-28).
Johansson does not disclose the core being an iron core.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the core material in the contactor of Johansson, as iron having the advantage of a highly permeable magnetic material that form a strong electromagnet.
Regarding Claim 9, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 5, wherein the electromagnetic component comprises a core and a winding around the core (comprising winding 5 around 4b, Figures 1, 3), wherein controlling the electromagnetic component to generate a magnetic field comprises controlling a control current flowing through the winding to control the electromagnetic component to generate a magnetic field (controlling current Ic through 5, movable armature 4a, Figure 1, Paragraph 24), the driving part comprises an armature (comprising 4a, Figure 1), and wherein the controller is configured to control the control current flowing through the winding so that when a normal current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is not displace based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Paragraphs 24, 26, 32-33), and when a short-circuit current flows through the closed static contact and movable contact, the driving part is displaced based at least on the produced electric repulsion force and the electromagnetic driving force (Paragraphs 25, 34-35).
Johansson does not disclose the core being an iron core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the core material in the contactor of Johansson, as iron having the advantage of a highly permeable magnetic material that form a strong electromagnet.
Regarding Claim 12, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 11, wherein the second stroke is at a lower percentage of the first stroke (Paragraphs 36-38).
Johansson does not specifically disclose percentage being at least 85%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the second stroke at a desired percentage of the first stroke to quickly and safely demagnetize the coil to prevent any damage to the contacts (see Johansson, Paragraphs 37-38).
Regarding Claim 17, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 6, wherein the short-circuit current is high (Paragraphs 25, 35, short circuit current resulting in arc forming between the contacts and arc current typically can in the range of hundreds and thousands). Johansson does not specifically disclose the short-circuit current being at least 10,000 amperes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the short circuit current in the contactor of Johansson, be at least 10,000 ampere or above based on the operating parameters and dimensions of the contacts.
Regarding Claim 18, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 7, wherein the sensor comprises a current sensor configured to detect the displacement of the driving part due to the electric repulsion force generated by the current flowing through the movable contact and the static contact by determining the change in control current caused by the change in the positional relationship between the driving part and the electromagnetic component when the driving part is displaced (Paragraph 34, “…An SCPD 30 is arranged to break the main current Im upon detection of a fault current, i.e. detecting that the main current increases above a predetermined threshold…. if the SCPD detects a fault current, it may send an open contactor signal 32 to the controller 10, inducing the controller to turn off the control current Ic,…”),
wherein the controller is configured to control the electromagnetic component to adjust the generated magnetic field in response to the change in control current detected by the current sensor (Paragraph 37, “To avoid reclosing of a contact pair after unintentional separation of the contacts 2 thereof, it is desirable to be able to quickly open the contactor by demagnetizing the coil 5…”, Paragraph 38.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 2023/0335359) in view of Naka et al. (US 2015/0054606).
Regarding Claim 8, Johansson does not specifically disclose the contactor of Claim 1, wherein the contactor comprises a permanent magnet contactor.
Naka discloses a contactor (Figures 1-11), comprising:
an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 200, Figures 1-7), a static contact (comprising 111, 112, Figures 1, 3, 7), and a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising 130, Figures 1, 3, 7), wherein the contactor comprises a permanent magnet contactor (comprising permanent magnets 144, 143, Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the contactor of Johansson, a permanent magnet contactor as taught to secure the necessarily magnetic force and efficiently use the magnetic force (see Naka, Paragraph 7).
Claims 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 2023/0335359) in view of Kim (US 5,457,437).
Regarding Claim 16, Johansson discloses the contactor of Claim 5, wherein the contactor is a main loop contactor (contactor 2 in the main loop connecting line and load, Figure 1).
Johansson does not specifically disclose the contactor being a DC contactor.
Kim discloses a contactor (Figures 1-3), comprising:
an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 14, Figures 1-3), a static contact (comprising 28, Figures 1, 3), and a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising 26, Figures 1-3), wherein the contactor is a main loop DC contactor (DC source 18, Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the contactor of Johansson, as a DC contactor by providing DC power source (in place of AC power source) as taught by Kim, to facilitate the use of the contactor in DC circuits/applications.
Regarding Claim 19, Johansson does not specifically disclose the contactor of Claim 1, wherein the contactor comprises a normally closed contactor.
Kim discloses a contactor (Figures 1-3), comprising:
an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 14, Figures 1-3), a static contact (comprising 28, Figures 1, 3), and a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising 26, Figures 1-3), wherein the contactor comprises a normally closed contactor (normally closed contacts 26, 28, Figures 1-3, Abstract, “…an interrupter having a pair of normally-closed contacts including a fixed contact and a movable contact and connected at one contact to a DC power source”, Column 3, lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the contactor of Johansson, normally closed contactor as taught by Kim to reduce the power requirement during normal operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Isozaki et al. (US 2015/0048908) discloses a contactor (Figures 1-4), comprising: an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 200, Figure 3), a static contact (comprising 111, 112, Figure 3), and a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising 130, Figure 3), wherein the contactor comprises a permanent magnet contactor (comprising permanent magnets 144, 143, Figure 3); Tennies et al. (US 5,754,387) discloses a contactor (12, Figure 1), comprising: an electromagnetic component configured to generate a magnetic field (comprising 48, 16, Figure 1), a static contact (comprising 34, 26, Figure 1), and a movable component comprising a connected movable contact (comprising 20, 22, 50, Figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 6/04/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights