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
In re Claim 17, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the one or more processor extracts fuse curve data from a selector-position signal and adjusting controller operating parameters based on fuse curve data extracted from said signal) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 17 is drawn to extracting fuse curve data based on a signal that is based on the change in position of a selector. As discussed in the previous action, Steinberger teaches a signal generated based on the change in position of a user controlled selector delivered to the processor 8A of controller 8 determines which fuse curve data is extracted from a memory 8C (paragraph 82).
In re Claim 1, Steinberger clearly teaches selecting from a various number of operation characteristics of a fuse (i.e., fuse curves) in paragraph 82. Whether that is based on load type or use case does not discredit the applied to teaching of Steinberger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a selector and characteristic memory as taught by Steinberger with the processor of Klippel since Steinberger teaches it would allow the fault protection to be tailored to best suit the load or loads being protected.
The previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
CLAIM 17:
In line 5, replace “a” before “controller” with --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steinberger et al (2022/0352841).
In re Claim 17, Steinberger teaches a method of setting the operating parameters of a controller (8) for a distribution system fuse device (paragraphs 85 and 86) as seen in Figure 6 comprising: adjusting the position of a selector (keys, buttons, or levers, paragraph 82); sensing the change in position of the selector and emitting a signal to the controller based on the change in position of the selector (paragraph 82); receiving, by one or more processors (8A) of the controller, the signal and extracting fuse curve data based on the signal (from characteristics memory 8C, paragraph 82); and adjusting the operating parameters of a controller based on the fuse curve data (paragraph 82).
In re Claim 19, Steinberger teaches the fuse curve data includes a curve type (paragraph 82).
In re Claim 20, Steinberger teaches the data is extracted from local memory 8C (paragraph 82).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippel et al (2022/0181866) in view of Steinberger et al (20220352841).
In re Claims 1 and 14, Klippel teaches a distribution system fuse device as seen in Figures 2 and 4 comprising: an insulator body (48, paragraph 16) having a weathershed (50); a support bracket (52) extending from the insulator body; a hood (64) connected to the insulator body, the hood having a hood contact (80, paragraph 17); a hinge member (46) extending from the insulator body; and a recloser pivotally (42, paragraph 16) connected to the insulator body by engagement of a pivot (60) with the hinge member (paragraph 16), the recloser having, a current sensor (102) configured to measure an operating current of a distribution system (paragraph 20), a controller (106) connected to the current sensor, the controller having at least one processor (paragraph 20), and a circuit interrupter (76) connected to the controller and configured to open a circuit to interrupt power in at least a portion of the distribution system in response to a detected fault (paragraphs 17 and 18).
Klippel does not teach a selector in communication with the controller, the selector operable by a user to select one of a plurality of fuse curves, wherein the controller is configured to trigger the circuit interrupter to open the circuit in response to a detected fault current and wherein the fault current is determined based on a selected fuse curve of one of the plurality of fuse curves.
Steinberger teaches a distribution protective device as seen in Figure 6 wherein a selector 12 and characteristic memory 8C in communication with a processor 8A of a controller allow a user to select a fuse curve to tailor the protective action based on the type of use or particular load being protected (paragraph 82).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a selector and characteristic memory as taught by Steinberger with the processor of Klippel since Steinberger teaches it would allow the fault protection to be tailored to best suit the load or loads being protected.
In re Claim 5, Steinberger teaches the user interface is connected to the controller via a non-wireless connection (Figure 6, paragraph 82).
In re Claim 6, Steinberger teaches the user can select the fuse curve type based on the load type (paragraphs 71 and 82).
In re Claim 8, Steinberger teaches the user can select an operating parameter (paragraphs 71 and 82).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-13, 15, 16, and 18 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.
In re Claims 2 and 15, Steinberger fails to teach the selector is in radio frequency communication with the controller.
In re Claims 3 and 4, Steinberger fails to teach a first and second knob.
In re Claim 7, Steinberger fails to teach the selector allows a user to select an amperage rating for the fuse curve.
In re Claims 9 and 10, Steinberger fails to teach an inner, first outer, and second outer selector as claimed.
In re Claim 11, Steinberger fails to teach the selector is in magnetic communication with the controller.
In re Claims 12 and 13, Steinberger fails to teach the selector is a first magnet and a sensor as claimed.
In re Claims 16, Steinberger fails to teach the selector includes a plurality of magnets and a plurality of hall effect sensors as claimed.
In re Claim 18, Steinberger fails to teach moving the position of a magnet and sensing the change in position of the magnet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights