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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because:
Claim 1, line 10, “the first electrical terminal” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 18, “the current” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 21, phrase, “it” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claims 2-8, lines 1, “A fast mechanical switch” should be -The fast mechanical switch-.
Claim 2, line 3, “second repulsion coil” should be -a second repulsion coil-.
Claim 5, line 4, “the current conduction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5, line 4, phrase, “the repulsion disk” is unclear as to which repulsion disk is being referred to, since there is a plurality of disks, disclosed.
Claim 6, line 1, “the inner wall” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 2, “the outer side” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6, line 4, “the hermeticity” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7, line 7, phrase, “its” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 7, line 9, phrase, “its” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 8, line 2, “the lower portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 1, “a fast mechanical switch” should be -the fast mechanical switch-.
Claim 9, line 2, “it” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 9, line 4, “the direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 6, “the first time period” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 12, “the collective force” lacks antecedent basis
Claim 9, line 13, “it” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 9, line 13, “the predetermined position” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 16, “the downward movement” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10-12, lines 1, “An operation method” should be -The operation method-.
Claim 10, lines 2-3, “the connecting rod” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10, line 3, phrase, its” unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 11, line 2, “the closing operation” should be -a closing operation-.
Claim 11, line 10, “a second time period” should be -the second time period-.
Claim 11, line 14, “it” is unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Claim 11, line 15, “a maximum speed” should be -the maximum speed-.
Claim 11, line 17, “a third time period” should be -the third time period-.
Claim 12, line 2, “a holding mechanism” should be -the holding mechanism.
Claim 12, line 3, phrase, “its” unclear and leave doubts as to what technical feature is being referred to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al, US 6611413 [Takeuchi].
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses (figs.1-25) a fast mechanical switch, comprising:
a closed housing;
a vacuum interrupter (4), where the vacuum interrupter (4) is provided with a stationary fixed contact (1) and a moving contact (2) being capable of slidingly engaged therewith, where the fixed contact (1) is connected to a first busbar (14) projecting out of the housing and the moving contact (2) is connected to a second busbar (15) projecting out of the housing;
an electromagnetic repulsion mechanism (9A) located below the vacuum interrupter (4), which is fixedly connected to the vacuum interrupter (4) via a transmission rod (6) where the electromagnetic repulsion mechanism (9A) comprises:
a first repulsion unit electrically connected to the first electrical terminal (implicit with connections via 42a), comprising a first repulsion disk (11) which is fixed and a second repulsion disk (10a, 10b) which is located below thereof and separated therefrom, where the second repulsion disk (10a, 10b) is fixedly connected to the transmission rod (6) via a drive rod (7) passing through the first repulsion disk (11) to drive the vacuum interrupter (4) to open or close;
a second repulsion unit electrically connected to a second electrical terminal (implicit with connections via 42b) independent of the first electrical terminal, comprising a third repulsion disk (12) disposed below and spaced apart from the second repulsion disk (10)a, 10b, where the second electrical terminal is configured to operatively control the current supplied to the third repulsion disk (12) in response to the first repulsion unit such that the third repulsion disk (12) applies a resistance to the second repulsion disk (10a, 10b) when the second repulsion disk (10a, 10b) is moved downwardly for opening and applies a thrust to the second repulsion disk (10a, 10b) when it is moved upwardly for closing.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Crouch et al, US 4492837 [Crouch].
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi discloses an inner wall of the vacuum interrupter (4) but fails to explicitly disclose a bellows disposed on the outer side of the transmission rod, wherein one end of the bellows is hermetically connected to an end of the vacuum interrupter to keep the hermeticity of the vacuum interrupter.
Crouch discloses a vacuum interrupter (10) comprising a bellows (30) disposed on an outer side of a transmission rod (26), where one end of the bellows (30) is hermetically connected to an end of the vacuum interrupter (10) to keep a hermeticity of the vacuum interrupter (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum interrupter of Takeuchi with the inclusion of the bellows, taught by Crouch, thereby ensuring opening and closing of the contact system, while maintaining a hermetically sealed enclosure, thus satisfying the voltage recovery of the vacuum interrupter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Park et al, US 10818454 [Park].
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi further discloses the claimed invention, but fails to explicitly disclose a holding mechanism pivotally connected to the drive rod between the vacuum interrupter and the electromagnetic repulsion mechanism, comprising:
a slider capable of sliding between a holding position and a retracted position;
a connecting rod pivotally connected to the drive rod, the other end of which is pivotally connected to the slider, wherein the slider in the holding position presses the connecting rod
against its top dead center or bottom dead center, and wherein the slider in the retracted position permits the connecting rod to pivot relative to the drive rod; a compression spring for biasing the slider toward its holding position.
Park discloses (figs.1-6) a high-speed switch (1000) comprising a holding mechanism (1300) pivotally connected to a drive rod (1400) between a vacuum interrupter (1100) and an electromagnetic repulsion mechanism (1200), comprising:
a slider (1310) capable of sliding between a holding position and a retracted position;
a connecting rod (pin, 1310) pivotally connected to the drive rod (1400), the other end of which is pivotally connected to the slider (1310), where the slider (1310) in the holding position presses the connecting rod (1400) against its top dead center or bottom dead center, and where the slider (1310) in the retracted position permits the connecting rod (1310) to pivot relative to the drive rod (1400); a compression spring (1320) for biasing the slider (1310) toward its holding position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum interrupter of Takeuchi with the inclusion of the holding mechanism of Park, thereby providing a state-holding unit for regulating the movement of the drive rod, thus maintaining the contacts in an open state and improving the reliability against environmental variables.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Akita et al, US 6580345 [Akita].
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose a buffer attached to the lower portion of the second repulsion disk, which is configured to avoid hard impacts between the second repulsion disk and the third repulsion disk during downward travel.
Akita discloses (figs.1-3) a high-speed switch comprising a buffer (31) attached to a lower portion of a second repulsion disk (10), which is configured to avoid hard impacts between the second repulsion disk (10) and a third repulsion disk (12) during downward travel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic repulsion mechanism of Takeuchi with the teaching of the buffer (absorber) of Akita, thereby providing electrical insulation and reduced impact forces between the repulsion disks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objections and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claim fast mechanical switch where the first repulsion coil is provided with an input terminal and the second repulsion coil is provided with an output terminal.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed an operating method of a fast mechanical switch, characterized in that it comprises the following steps in performing an opening operation, after a second time period of power supply via the first electrical terminal, activating the second electrical terminal to supply power to the third repulsion disk, the current flow direction in which is opposite to the current flow direction in the second repulsion disk, and the second repulsion disk decelerates downwardly under the collective force of the first repulsion disk and the third repulsion disk until it passes through the predetermined position at a maximum speed.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, cannot reasonably be construed as adequately teaching the above limitations in combination with the remaining claim elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Das et al, Ashtekar et al, Zhou et al, Juds et al, Wang et al and Kim are examples of switching devices comprising electromagnetic repulsion mechanisms 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