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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is not clear where the claimed “projecting direction side” is supposed to be located. The Office recommends amending the figures to provide a reference character to indicate where the “projecting direction side” is located.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The below claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.11: the Office recommends amending the clause “a pair of first conductor pieces provided inserted” should be amended to recite “a pair of first conductor pieces inserted” for grammatical reasons (i.e., “provided inserted” is redundant).
Claim 1 Lns.13 and 20: both instances of “the first electric circuit” should be amended to recite “the predetermined first electric circuit” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 1 Ln.12: the clause “closer to the projecting direction side than” should be amended to recite “closer to a projecting direction side than” for antecedent reasons (i.e., this is the first instance in which the projecting direction side is recited).
Claims 2-4, 8-9, and 14-20: every instance of “the projecting direction” should be amended to “the predetermined projecting direction” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 4 Ln.9: the clause “in line in the arrayed direction” should be amended to recite “in line in an arrayed direction” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 4 Lns.17-18: the clause “and sandwiching the other of the pair of first conductor pieces between the other of the pair of extending portions and the main body portion” should be amended to recite “and sandwiching another one of the pair of first conductor pieces between another one of the pair of extending portions and the main body portion” for antecedent reasons.
See next page→
Claims 6 and 10-13: all instances of “the second electric circuit” should be amended to recite “the predetermined second electric circuit” for consistent claim nomenclature.
The Office 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding newly added claims 18-19, the claims are believed to constitute new matter since Applicant’s original disclosure does not appear to support an embodiment in which a device has both a piston and a projectile that has a recessed portion. Referring to claim 2, which claim 3 is also dependent on, the subject matter is directed to the embodiment shown in figure 1 and/or figure 7. Referring now to claims 18-19, the subject matter is drawn to the embodiment shown in figure 9 and/or figure 15. Furthermore, paragraph [0077] of Applicant’s specification (see US PG-Pub version) explicitly states that the distinct feature between the first embodiment and the second embodiment is the presence of the piston. Therefore, there is no evidence in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure (i.e., Applicant’s originally filed specification, drawings, and claims) that Applicant was in possession of an electric circuit switching device that has both a piston and a projectile that has a recessed portion (i.e., Applicant’s originally filed disclosure shows no evidence to support that Applicant was in possession of a device that has a combination of the embodiments shown in figures 1/7 and 9/15). For all of the reasons provided above, claims 18 and 19 are believed to constitute new matter.
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.
See next page→
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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreuz (AT 521539).
Regarding claim 1, Kreuz discloses (Figs.1-4):
An electric circuit switching device configured to switch a predetermined first electric circuit (Figs.1 and 3: circuit that is connected to 5a and 5b will define the "first electric circuit") from an interrupted state (See Fig.1) to a conductive state (See Fig.3) upon actuation, the electric circuit switching device comprising: a housing (2); an igniter (3) provided in the housing (2) and configured to release a combustion gas upon actuation (See Pg.7 Par.4 of Translation: 3 is explicitly called a "pyrotechnic charge", which will by definition release a combustion gas to actuate 4); a tubular space (21) formed in the housing (2) and extending in one direction (Fig.1: the vertical direction); a projectile (4 with/without 10) having conductivity (See Pg.7 Par.4 and Pg.8 Par.5 of Translation: all of 4 can be electrically conductive or just 10 of 4 can be electrically conductive), positioned at a first position (See Fig.1) in the tubular space (21) in an initial state (See Fig.1) before actuation of the igniter (3), and configured to be projected in a predetermined projecting direction (Figs.1 and 3: the downward direction will define the "predetermined projecting direction") along the tubular space (21) by energy of the combustion gas (Figs.1 and 3, Pg.7 Par.4 of Translation, and Pg.8 Par.2 of Translation: when 3 detonates and creates the combustion gas, an energy will be produced to move 4 and 10 into the conductive state); a pair of first conductor pieces (5a and b) provided inserted (See Figs. and 3-4), in a spaced apart state (See Fig.1), into the tubular space (21) at a second position (See Fig.1) closer to the projecting direction side (Fig.1: lower portion of 2 will define the "projecting direction side") than the first position (See Fig.1) (Fig.1: 5a,b are located, which define the second position, closer to the bottom portion of 2, which defines the "projecting direction side", than it is to the first position defined by 4), and forming part of the first electric circuit (Figs.1 and 3: circuit that is connected to 5a and 5b will define the "first electric circuit") in cooperation with each other (Fig.3: in the actuated state, 5a and 5b are connected and help forms the "first electric circuit" via 4); and a support (6) disposed closer to the projecting direction side (Fig.1: lower portion of 2 will define the "projecting direction side") than the first position (See Fig.1) in the tubular space (21) (Fig.1: 6 is located closer to the lower portion of 2 that it is to the first position as defined by 4), and configured to receive (See Fig.3), at the second position (See Fig.1), the projectile (4 with/without 10) projected by actuation of the igniter (3), wherein when the igniter (3) is actuated and the projectile (4 with/without 10) is projected, the projectile (4 with/without 10) deforms by collision with the support (6) (See Fig.3, Pg.8 Par.6 of Translation, and Pg.9 Par.1-2 of Translation: both 4 and 10 will deform when it collides with 6), the projectile (4 with/without 10) and each of the pair of first conductor pieces (5a and b) come into contact with each other (See Fig.3), and the projectile (4 with/without 10) becomes engaged (See Fig.3) with the pair of first conductor pieces (See Figs.5a and b), switching the first electric circuit (Figs.1 and 3: circuit that is connected to 5a and 5b will define the "first electric circuit") from the interrupted state (See Fig.1) to the conductive state (See Fig.3).
See next page→
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuz (AT 521539) in view of Suzuki (US 20100328014) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Kreuz does not disclose:
The electric circuit switching device configured to further switch a predetermined second electric circuit from a conductive state to an interrupted state upon actuation, the electric circuit switching device further comprising: a pair of second conductor pieces provided inserted, in a spaced apart state, into the tubular space at the first position, and forming part of the second electric circuit in cooperation with each other, wherein in the initial state, the pair of second conductor pieces are electrically connected to each other via the projectile, causing the second electric circuit to be in the conductive state, and an electrical connection between the pair of second conductor pieces via the projectile is disconnected when the igniter is actuated and the projectile is projected, switching the second electric circuit from the conductive state to the interrupted state.
Suzuki however teaches (Figs.3a-b):
The electric circuit switching device (See Fig.3a) configured to further switch a predetermined second electric circuit (Fig.3a: circuit connected to 53 and 54 will define the “second electric circuit”) from a conductive state (See Fig.3a) to an interrupted state (See Fig.3b) upon actuation (See Fig.3b), the electric circuit switching device (See Fig.3a) further comprising: a pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54) provided inserted, in a spaced apart state (Fig.3A: 53a and 54a are separated from each and connected via 57), into the tubular space (52) at the first position (See Fig.3a), and forming part of the second electric circuit (Fig.3a: circuit connected to 53 and 54 will define the “second electric circuit”) in cooperation with each other (Fig.3a: the second electric circuit is only formed when 53, 57, and 54 are electrically coupled to each other), wherein in the initial state (See Fig.3a), the pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54) are electrically connected to each other via the projectile (57) (Fig.3a: 57 electrically connects 53 to 54 in order to create the second electric circuit), causing the second electric circuit (Fig.3a: circuit connected to 53 and 54 will define the “second electric circuit”) to be in the conductive state, and an electrical connection between the pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54) via the projectile (57) is disconnected when the igniter (56) is actuated and the projectile (57) is projected, switching the second electric circuit (Fig.3a: circuit connected to 53 and 54 will define the “second electric circuit”) from the conductive state (See Fig.3a) to the interrupted state (See Fig.3b) (Fig.3b: the electrical connection between 53 and 54 is broken when 56 actuates 57 to move the second electric circuit from the conductive state to the interrupted state).
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 Suzuki to modify the device of Kreuz such that the electric circuit switching device further switches a predetermined second electric circuit from a conductive state to an interrupted state upon actuation, and the second electric circuit comprising a pair of second conductor pieces that is provided in a spaced apart state at the first position in the tubular space, and forming part of the second electric circuit in cooperation with each other, so that in the initial state, the pair of second conductor pieces are electrically connected to each other via the projectile so that the second electric circuit is in the conductive state, and such that an electrical connection between the pair of second conductor pieces via the projectile is disconnected when the igniter is actuated and the projectile is projected, switching the second electric circuit from the conductive state to the interrupted state, as claimed, in order to provide an device with improved circuit interruption means as taught by Sasaki ([0064]-[0066], [0068]-[0072], and [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki further teaches:
Wherein in the initial state (See Fig.3a), the projectile (57) is interposed between (See Fig.3a) the pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54), integrally connecting the projectile (57) and the pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54), and the projectile (57) is separated (See Fig.3b) from each of the pair of second conductor pieces (53 and 54) by the energy of the combustion gas (Fig.3b and [0080]: the combustion gas produced by 56 will create an energy to separate 57 from 53 and 54).
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 Sasaki to further modify the device of modified Kreuz such that the initial state, the projectile is interposed between the pair of second conductor pieces to be integrally connected to the projectile and the pair of second conductor pieces, and the projectile is separated from each of the pair of second conductor pieces by the energy of the combustion gas, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved circuit interruption means as outlined in claim 6 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuz (AT 521539) in view of Marlin (US 20220262587).
Regarding claim 8, Kreuz further discloses:
Wherein the projectile (4 with/without 10) is fitted to an inner wall (inner wall of 2) of the tubular space (21).
However, Kreuz does not disclose:
The inner wall of the tubular space is formed with a width of the tubular space gradually decreasing in the projecting direction.
Kreuz however teaches (Figs.1-5B):
Wherein the projectile (30) is fitted to an inner wall (Fig.3: inner wall of 10a) of the tubular space (14), and the inner wall (Fig.3: inner wall of 10a) of the tubular space (14) is formed with a width of the tubular space (14) gradually decreasing in the projecting direction (Figs.5A-B: the downward direction that 30 travels will define the "projecting direction") (Fig.3 and [0031]: the width from 14a to 14c gradually decreases).
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 Marlin to modify the device of Kreuz such that the inner wall of the tubular space is formed with a width that gradually decreases in the predetermined projecting direction, as claimed, in order to better hold the projectile in the pair of first conductor pieces since the tapering width will allow for a greater and tighter contact among the support, housing, and projectile when the first circuit is in the conductive state.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuz (AT 521539) in view of Ukon (US 20140326122).
Regarding claim 9, Kreuz does not disclose:
A piston disposed in the tubular space, interposedly between the igniter and the projectile, and configured to be projected in the projecting direction by the energy of the combustion gas.
Ukon however teaches (Figs.1-2):
A piston (32) disposed in the tubular space (Fig.1: interior space of 24 where 30 and 37 are located), interposedly between (Fig.1: 32 is between 31 and 37) the igniter (37) and the projectile (31), and configured to be projected in the projecting direction (Figs.1-2: the direction that 31 moves) by the energy of the combustion gas (Figs.1-2, [0006]-[0007], and [0092]: the igniter will create an explosive gas that will create an energy that will move 32 and 31 into the second position).
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 Ukon to modify the device of Kreuz such that it has a piston that is disposed in the tubular space between the igniter and the projectile, and such that the piston is configured to be projected in the projecting direction by the energy of the combustion gas, as claimed, in order to provide a sealing mechanism that can improve cutting abilities as taught by Ukon ([0111]-[0112], [0114], and [0117]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the 112 rejections.
Claims 3, 5, and 10-20 are objected to as being dependent upon an allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The Office notes that if Applicant elects to amend claim 1 such that it incorporates the limitations of claim 2, then claim 4 needs to be canceled since the subject matter of claims 2 and 4 are directed to different embodiments. The Office also notes that there is no teaching and/or suggestion that the embodiments claimed in claims 2 and 4 are usable together. Similarly, if Applicant elects to amend claim 1 such that it incorporates the limitations of claim 4, then claim 2 needs to be canceled for similar reasons as outlined above. However, if Applicant wishes to have both claims 2 and 4 still pending in the application, then the Office recommends amending independent claim 1 such that it recites the limitations of either one of claim 2 or claim 4, and to amend the other claim such that it is written in independent form with all of the limitations of claim 1 and the claim (e.g., if Applicant amends independent claim 1 such that is recites the limitations of claim 2, then amend claim 4 such that it is in independent form and includes the limitations of both claims 1 and 4).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1-2, or as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 4, and at least in part, because claims 2 and 4 recite the limitations:
See next page→
(Claim 2): “wherein the pair of first conductor pieces are provided inserted at the second position in a manner that the pair of first conductor pieces oppose each other with the projectile, received by the support, interposed therebetween, the support includes a protruding portion protruding toward a side opposite to the projecting direction, a recessed portion is formed in an end surface of the projectile on the projecting direction side, and when the igniter is actuated and the projectile is projected, the projectile enters between the pair of first conductor pieces, the protruding portion enters the recessed portion, and the protruding portion deforms the projectile, pressing and expanding the recessed portion, thereby increasing a width of the projectile in an arrayed direction of the pair of first conductor pieces and press-fitting the projectile between the pair of first conductor pieces”.
(Claim 4): “wherein the pair of first conductor pieces are provided inserted at the second position in a manner that the pair of first conductor pieces oppose each other with the projectile, received by the support, interposed therebetween, the support includes a protruding portion protruding toward a side opposite to the projecting direction, the projectile includes a main body portion positioned at the first position in the initial state, and a pair of extending portions provided in line in the arrayed direction of the pair of first conductor pieces and extending from the main body portion in the projecting direction, and when the igniter is actuated and the projectile is projected, the pair of extending portions enter between the pair of first conductor pieces, the protruding portion enters between the pair of extending portions, and the protruding portion deforms the projectile in a manner that the pair of extending portions are bent outward, thereby sandwiching one of the pair of first conductor pieces between one of the pair of extending portions and the main body portion and sandwiching the other of the pair of first conductor pieces between the other of the pair of extending portions and the main body portion”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claims 2 and/or 4, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1-2, or the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 4, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the 112 rejections.
The remaining prior art references teach other circuit protection devices that are known in the art. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the allowable limitations as respectively recited in claims 2 and 4. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed.
Furthermore, all of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier also indicate that claims 2 and 4 are also believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, claims 2 and 4 of the instant application are also believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, claims 2 and 4 are believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240222053: teaches a circuit switching device with a projectile that has deformable extending portions.
US 20220262587: teaches a circuit switching device that has a tapering tubular space.
WO 9741582: teaches a circuit switching device that has two distinct pairs of conductor pieces.
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