DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/7/26.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan Fenglei (CN 113224739, also see English translation).
Regarding claim 1: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) a direct-current limiter (i.e. circuit of figure 1) for limiting a direct current in order to interrupt the direct current flowing through a direct-current line (i.e. line for L), comprising:
an LC parallel circuit (i.e. L2, C) having a first inductor (i.e. L2) and a capacitor (i.e. C) connected in parallel to each other; and
a second inductor (i.e. L) inserted in the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) and connected in series to the LC parallel circuit (i.e. L2, C).
Regarding claim 3: (i.e. figure 1) a direct-current circuit breaker system (i.e. system of figure 1) comprising: the direct-current limiter (i.e. circuit of figure 1) according to claim 1 and an interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when a passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) that has passed through the LC parallel circuit (i.e. L2, C) and the second inductor (i.e. L) satisfies a predetermined condition (i.e. condition for circuit of figure 1 and/or controlling switch E) (i.e. ¶ 36-51).
Regarding claim 4: (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) is configured to interrupt (i.e. turn off D or E) the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) becomes equal to or less than a predetermined current value (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 6: (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) varies by a predetermined value or more from a current value of the direct current (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 7: (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit(i.e. D or E) is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) repeatedly increases and decreases with a predetermined amplitude or more (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 14: (i.e. figure 1) the LC parallel circuit consists of only the first inductor (i.e. L2) and the capacitor (i.e. C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan Fenglei (CN 113224739, also see English translation) in views of Boom et al. (US 4032959).
Regarding claim 2: Fenglei discloses the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor is made of superconducting coils.
Boom et al. disclose a device comprising at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor is made of superconducting coils (i.e. Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Fenglei’s invention with the device as disclose by Boom et al., because it capable of maintaining a relatively large current flowing therethrough.
Regarding claim 8: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) an interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when a passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) that has passed through the LC parallel circuit (i.e. L2, C) and the second inductor (i.e. L) satisfies a predetermined condition (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 9: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) becomes equal to or less than a predetermined current value (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 11: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) varies by a predetermined value or more from a current value of the direct current (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
Regarding claim 12: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) wherein the interrupting unit (i.e. D or E) is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) when the passing current (i.e. current through L2, C) repeatedly increases and decreases with a predetermined amplitude or more (i.e. ¶ 36-51 and 55-65).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan Fenglei (CN 113224739, also see English translation) in views of Tokoyoda et al. (US 20210358702).
Regarding claim 5: Fenglei discloses the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the interrupting unit is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct- current line when the passing current becomes zero amperes.
Tokoyoda et al. disclose a circuit (i.e. figures 1-2) comprising the interrupting unit is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct- current line when the passing current becomes zero amperes (i.e. ¶ 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Fenglei’s invention with the circuit as disclose by Tokoyoda et al. to protect a load facility.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan Fenglei (CN 113224739, also see English translation) in views of Boom et al. (US 4032959) and further in view of Tokoyoda et al. (US 20210358702).
Regarding claim 5: Fenglei discloses the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the interrupting unit is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct- current line when the passing current becomes zero amperes.
Tokoyoda et al. disclose a circuit (i.e. figures 1-2) comprising the interrupting unit is configured to interrupt the current flowing through the direct- current line when the passing current becomes zero amperes (i.e. ¶ 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Fenglei’s invention with the circuit as disclose by Tokoyoda et al. to protect a load facility.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan Fenglei (CN 113224739, also see English translation) in views of Li Bin (CN110912083. Cited in the IDS filed on 8/7/26).
Regarding claim 13: Fenglei discloses (i.e. figure 1) comprising the LC parallel circuit, but does not specifically disclose the direct- current line is directly connected to a direct-current power supply and the LC parallel circuit is connected to the direct-current power supply via the direct-current line.
Bin discloses a power supply (i.e. figure 1) comprising the direct-current line (i.e. line connected to Lw2) is directly connected to a direct-current power supply (i.e. DC power supply from rectifier 4) and the LC parallel circuit (i.e. circuit of 2 includes Cs and Ls1) is connected to the direct-current power supply (i.e. DC power supply from rectifier 4) via the direct-current line (i.e. line connected to Lw2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Fenglei’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Bin, because it provides a current limiter with enhanced magnetic coupling.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 is directed to "direct current." For example, claim 1 recites, among other things, "the direct current flowing through a direct-current line" and "a second inductor inserted in the direct-current line and connected in series to the LC parallel circuit". Tan does not disclose such features. Tan relates to a current-limiting device for a synchronous condenser during a ground fault (see the title and paragraph [0001] of Tan). Since a synchronous condenser operates using alternating current (AC), Tan's device operates on AC (see "forming a resonant circuit at the power frequency" of paragraphs [0032] and [0065] of Tan), instead of DC (direct current) required in claim 1. It is well-known that DC circuits and AC circuits differ in their principles and operations. It is also well-known that an AC circuit (such as Tan's device) cannot be applied to a DC circuit like that recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees, because claim 1 does not require a “DC circuit”. In addition, the transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Furthermore, “comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim (see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Therefore, Fenglei disclose (i.e. figure 1) “a second inductor (i.e. L) inserted in the direct-current line (i.e. line for L) and connected in series to the LC parallel circuit (i.e. L2, C).”
In addition, Applicant argues that “The other applied references fail to cure the deficiencies of Tan. For example, although Tokoyoda is directed to a DC circuit breaker, as discussed above, DC circuits and AC circuits differ in their principles and operations. Thus, one skilled in the art would not have had any reasonable rationale to combine Tokoyoda's features applicable to DC circuits to the AC circuits of Tan. As such, claim 1 is patentable over all applied references.”
The Examiner disagree, because claim 1 is rejected using only the prior art of Fenglei (see the above rejection).
Conclusion
11. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
