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 Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: the claim should be amended to be dependent on claim 5 in order to provide the proper antecedent basis for “the insertion groove” recited in line 3 of the claim. Alternatively, the clause “fit into the insertion groove” (see line 3 of claim 6) can be amended to recite “fit into an insertion groove” to correct the antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 was examined such that the clause “fit into the insertion groove” was interpreted as “fit into an insertion groove”.
Claim 7 Lns.2-3: the clause “disposed in the side wall” should be amended to recite “disposed in a side wall” for antecedent reasons (i.e., neither claim 1 nor claim 7 provides the antecedent basis for the side wall).
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahiro (JP 2006134633) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) in view of Woo (US 20100164658).
Regarding claim 1, Nagahiro discloses (Figs.1-3):
A trip device for a manual motor starter, the trip device comprising: a trip unit body (1) constituting a base of a trip unit (See Fig.1: 1 serves as a base for the unit, which can define a "trip unit"); a fixed contact (5) coupled to a lower portion (See Fig.1 and [0002] of Translation) of the trip unit body (1); a heater assembly (3) inserted and coupled into the trip unit body (1) and configured to detect a heat variation (See [0002] of Translation); a coil (7) coupled to an upper portion (See Fig.1) of the trip unit body (1); a core unit (9, 10, and 13 in combination) inserted into the coil (7); a terminal rod (11) coupled to the core unit (9, 10, and 13 in combination) and the trip unit body (1) and having one end (See Figure Below) constituting a terminal unit (See Figure Below); and an instant trip lever ([0002]: the "tripping mechanism of the circuit breaker" will define the instant trip lever) coupled to the trip unit body (1) and operated by the core unit (9, 10, and 13 in combination) (Figs.1-2 and [0002] of Translation: the "tripping mechanism of the circuit breaker" is operated by 9 and is coupled to 1 via 3, 4, and 9), wherein a coil attachment portion (6) into which the coil (7) is installed to be inserted is disposed to protrude on the trip unit body (1) (See Figs.1-2 and [0002]: 6 protrudes from 1 so that 7 can be mounted on "the outer circumference of the bobbin 6").
PNG
media_image1.png
784
885
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
However, Nagahiro does not explicitly disclose:
An instant trip lever rotatably coupled to the trip unit body and operated by the core unit (emphasis added).
Woo however teaches (Figs.5-6):
An instant trip lever (216) rotatably coupled ([0059]) and operated by the core unit (214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Woo to modify the device of Nagahiro such that the instant trip lever is rotatably coupled to the trip unit body, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of actuating the trip lever between the tripped and un-tripped positions.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Woo further teaches:
Wherein a shaft groove (212a) into which a rotating shaft portion (216b) of the instant trip lever (216) is fit to be coupled ([0059]) is disposed in the side wall (212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Woo to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that it has a side wall that has a shaft groove into which a rotating shaft portion of the instant trip lever fits into, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of connecting and retaining the instant trip lever to the trip unit body, and thus achieve the efficient actuation means of the instant trip lever as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein the core unit (9, 10, and 13 in combination) comprises a fixed core (13), a movable core (9), and a core spring (10), and the fixed core (13) is fixed onto an upper surface of the terminal rod (11) (Figs.1-3: in the assembled state, 13 will be at least indirectly fixed to an upper surface of 11).
Regarding claim 9, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein a lever pressing portion (9a) configured to operate (See [0002] of Translation) the instant trip lever ([0002]: the "tripping mechanism of the circuit breaker" will define the instant trip lever).
However, Nagahiro does not disclose:
Wherein a lever pressing portion is disposed on a lower portion of the movable core.
Woo however further teaches:
Wherein a lever pressing portion (the bottom 214h) configured to operate ([0059]) the instant trip lever (216) is disposed on a lower portion (Fig.6: with respect to 214n of 214, the bottom 214h is on a lower portion of 214n that can define a “lower portion” of 214) of the movable core (214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Woo to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that the lever pressing portion is disposed on a lower portion of the movable core, as claimed, in order to achieve the efficient actuation means for the instant trip lever as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein the coil attachment portion (6) is configured to have a shape of a cylinder or a circular pipe (See Fig.3 and [0002] of Translation: since 6 is cylindrical, 6 is shaped as a cylinder and/or a circular pipe).
Regarding claim 12, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein the coil attachment portion (6) is disposed inside the coil (7) (See Fig.3 and [0002] of Translation: "a current coil (trip coil) 7 wound around the outer circumference of the bobbin 6"- since 7 is wound around the outer circumference of 6, this means that 6 has to be disposed inside of 7).
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahiro (JP 2006134633) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) and Woo (US 20100164658) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Guenin (EP 0501844) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nagahiro does not explicitly teach:
Wherein a contact insertion portion into which the fixed contact is fit to be coupled is disposed on the trip unit body.
Guenin however teaches (Figs.3-10):
Wherein a contact insertion portion (134) into which the fixed contact (23) is fit to be coupled is disposed on (See Figs.7-8) the trip unit body (72 and 86 in combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Guenin to further modify the device of Nagahiro such that it has a contact insertion portion into which the fixed contact fits to couple the fixed contact to the trip unit body, as claimed, in order to further improve the connection between the trip unit body and the fixed contact due to the contact insertion portion allowing the trip unit body and the fixed contact having a greater contact area, and thus further improving the connection between the trip unit body and the fixed contact.
Regarding claim 3, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein a terminal mounting portion (See Figure Below) is disposed on one end portion (See Figure Below) of the trip unit body (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
782
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See next page→
However, modified Nagahiro does not teach:
A rod fitting hole into which the terminal rod is fit to be coupled is disposed in the terminal mounting portion.
Guenin however teaches (Figs.3-10):
A rod fitting hole (119 and/or 120) into which the terminal rod (115) is fit to be coupled is disposed in the terminal mounting portion (Fig.3: 109, 110, and the space between 109 and 110 in combination will define the “terminal mounting portion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Guenin to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that it has a rod fitting hole into which the terminal rod is fit to be coupled is disposed in the terminal mounting portion, as claimed, in order to provide a greater contact area between the trip unit body and the terminal rod and thus further optimize the secure connection between the trip unit body and the terminal rod.
Regarding claim 10, Guenin further teaches:
Wherein a fitting protrusion (118) fit to be coupled into the terminal mounting portion (119 and/or 120) is disposed on the terminal unit (116) located on a lower surface (See Fig.3) of the terminal rod (115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Guenin to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that the terminal rod has a fitting protrusion that is disposed on the terminal unit on a lower surface of the terminal rod and couples to the terminal mounting portion, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized coupling and retaining means as outlined in claim 3 above.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahiro (JP 2006134633) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) and Woo (US 20100164658) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 109390192).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nagahiro does not teach:
Wherein the coil attachment portion is disposed on an upper support plate of the trip unit body, and a side wall is disposed between the upper support plate and a support portion of the trip unit body.
Xu however teaches (Fig.3):
Wherein the coil attachment portion (140) is disposed on an upper support plate (310) of the trip unit body (300 and 310 in combination), and a side wall is (341) disposed between the upper support plate (310) and a support portion (side walls of 300) of the trip unit body (300 and 310 in combination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xu to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that the coil attachment portion is disposed on an upper support plate of the trip unit body and such that it has a side wall that is disposed between the upper support plate and a support portion of the trip unit body, as claimed, in order to provide a more space efficient trip unit body design (i.e., by providing an upper plate portion, the overall width of the trip unit body can be minimized while still providing adequate spacing between the coil and the heater, and thus providing an overall more compact design).
Regarding claim 5, Xu further teaches:
An insertion groove (Fig.3: the groove in 320 that fits into 340) to be coupled to the side wall (341).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xu to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that it has an insertion groove that is coupled to the side wall, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of coupling and retaining the heater assembly to the trip unit body (i.e., using a groove and protrusion provides a simple and efficient means of aligning, coupling, and retaining the heater assembly to the side wall of the trip unit body).
However, the above combination does not teach:
Wherein an insertion groove into which the heater assembly is fit to be coupled is disposed in the side wall.
However, reversing the location of the insertion groove and fixing mechanism (Xu: 340) such that the insertion groove is provided on the side wall and the fixing mechanism provided on the heater assembly so that the insertion groove is made to fit to the heater assembly, as claimed, would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the efficient coupling and retaining means as outlined in claim 4 above, since it has been held that a reversal of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Nagahiro further discloses:
Wherein the heater assembly (3) comprises a heater (3b) and a bimetal (3a).
However, Nagahiro does not disclose:
Wherein the heater assembly comprises a heater, a bimetal, and a bimetal support plate, and a plurality of insertion protrusions fit into the insertion groove are disposed to protrude on the bimetal support plate.
Xu however further teaches:
Wherein the heater assembly (210, 220, and 320 in combination) comprises a heater (220), a bimetal (310), and a bimetal support plate (230), and an insertion protrusion (340) that fits into the insertion groove (Fig.3: the groove in 320 that is aligned with 340).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Xu to further modify the device of modified Nagahiro such that the heater assembly further comprises a bimetal support plate so that the heater assembly comprises a heater, bimetal, and a bimetal support plate, and such that it has an insertion protrusion that fits into the insertion groove, as claimed, in order to further improve the connection between the heater assembly and the trip unit body due to the bimetal support providing a greater surface contact between the heater assembly and the trip unit body.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
A plurality of insertion protrusions fit into the insertion groove are disposed to protrude on the bimetal support plate.
However, duplicating the insertion protrusion (and thus defining “a plurality of insertion protrusions”) and the insertion groove (i.e., the combination of the insertion grooves used to define the “insertion groove”) and then reversing them so that the plurality of insertion grooves is formed on the trip unit body and the plurality of insertion protrusions is formed on the bimetal support plate so that the plurality of insertion protrusions are disposed to protrude on the bimetal support plate and fit into the insertion groove, as claimed, would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to further optimize the connection between the heater assembly and trip unit body (i.e., there will now be a greater number of mechanical components being used to hold the heater assembly to the trip unit body, and thus further increasing the overall contact area between the two components), since a duplication of essential working parts of a device and a reversal of parts are considered to involve only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6310528: teaches a tripping device with a heater and coil that actuates a trip lever.
US 5901025: teaches a tripping device with a heater and a coil that actuates a trip lever.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights