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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024 and 02/10/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause U.S. Patent No. 5,400,207 (hereinafter “Krause”) and further in view of Leonard et al. U.S. Patent No. 3,073,993 (hereinafter “Leonard”).
Regarding claim 1, Krause teaches an arrester assembly (refer to fig.1) comprising: a first support member (i.e. clamp 30)(fig.1) ; a conductive member (i.e. conductive terminal 26)(fig.1) including a first end (i.e. first end in the figure below)(fig.1) and a second end (i.e. second end in the figure below)(fig.1), the first end mechanically coupled to the first support member (refer to col. 3 lines 45-55) and the second end of the constant tension spring extends in a downward direction (implicit)(refer to fig.1); a disconnector assembly (i.e. disconnector 12)(fig.1) electrically connected to the second end of the conductive member (implicit)(refer to fig.1); a ground connector (i.e. support bracket 20)(fig.1) electrically connected to electrical ground (i.e. ground 22)(fig.1); and an arrester (i.e. arrester 14)(fig.1) electrically connected between the disconnector assembly and electrical ground (implicit)(refer to fig.1); however, Krause does not teach wherein the conductive member is a constant tension spring. However, Leonard teaches wherein the conductive member is a constant tension spring (i.e. torsion spring 64 and support arm 17)(fig.2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrester assembly of Krause to include connection of the spring, disconnector, and line conductor of Leonard oriented upside down to fit with the disconnector and line conductor of Krause to provide the advantage of pulling the ends of the disconnector away from each other faster than gravity can alone, thereby minimizing an arc between the two ends of the severed disconnector.
PNG
media_image1.png
753
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, further comprising a hot stick loop (i.e. Leonard eyelet 44)(fig.2) configured to engage a hot stick (refer to Leonard col. 4 lines 44-47), the hot stick loop connected to one of the disconnector assembly and the arrester (implicit)(refer to Leonard arrester 80 and fusible device 16)(fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, wherein the first support member is a conductive rod (i.e. Leonard terminal stud 47)(figs.2 and 9) that is electrically connected to a line conductor (i.e. Leonard high-voltage winding 48)(fig.9).
Regarding claim 4, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 3, wherein the conductive rod is clamped by a configurable mount (i.e. Leonard hinge bracket 23 and cap nut 24)(fig.2) that is supported by an electrical device (i.e. Leonard high-voltage bushing 7)(fig.2) proximate the arrester assembly (implicit)(refer to Leonard fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, wherein the first end of the constant tension spring is mounted to the first support member by a mounting device (i.e. Leonard bracket 23)(fig.2 and 8) that includes an aperture (i.e. Leonard hole 60)(fig.8) configured to receive the first support member (refer to Leonard col. 5 lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, wherein the second end of the constant tension spring is configured to retract vertically upwards upon operation of the disconnector assembly (implicit)(when configured to hand from a conductor as in Krause, the torsion spring 64 of Leonard would cause the support arm 17 of Leonard to switch upwards when the disconnector operates).
Regarding claim 10, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, wherein the disconnector assembly is connected to the second end of the constant tension spring by a spring clip (i.e. Leonard eyelet 45)(fig.2) that includes a protruding member that is configured to engage a hot stick (refer to Leonard col. 4 lines 44-47).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindemulder U.S. Patent Application 2019/0280463 (hereinafter “Lindemulder”).
Regarding claim 6, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1, further including a ground connector (i.e. ground connector 2 and ground clamp 3)(fig.1) with a ground clamp (i.e. ground clamp 3)(fig.1) and a ground bracket (i.e. ground connector 2)(fig.1) that is connected to the ground clamp by a snap fit connection (implicit)(refer to fig.1 and [0020] and [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrester assembly of Krause and Leonard to include the ground connector of Lindemulder to provide the advantage of facilitating easy connection of the arrester to the ground thereby facilitating replacement of the arrester at end of life (refer to Lindemulder [0020] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Krause, Leonard, and Lindemulder teach the arrester assembly of claim 6, wherein the ground bracket includes an aperture (i.e. Lindemulder loop 7)(fig.1) formed within (implicit)(refer to Lindemulder fig.1 and fig. 5) and configured to engage a hot stick (refer to Lindemulder [0022]).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and Leonard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van Besouw et al. U.S. Patent Application 2020/0343713 (hereinafter “Besouw”).
Regarding claim 11, Krause and Leonard teach the arrester assembly of claim 1; however, they do not teach wherein the disconnector assembly includes: an insulator coupled to a first terminal and to a second terminal; and a sleeve positioned around the insulator and moveable between an unextended position prior to the insulator breaking and an extended position after the insulator breaks, the sleeve being configured to trap debris produced by breaking the insulator. However, Besouw teaches wherein the disconnector assembly includes: an insulator (i.e. isolator 14)(fig.6) coupled to a first terminal (i.e. upper stud 18)(fig.6) and to a second terminal (i.e. lower stud 22)(fig.6); and a sleeve (i.e. sleeve 46)(fig.6) positioned around the insulator (refer to [0036]) and moveable between an unextended position prior to the insulator breaking and an extended position after the insulator breaks (refer to abstract and [0036]), the sleeve being configured to trap debris produced by breaking the insulator (refer to abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrester assembly of Krause and Leonard to include the disconnector assembly of Besouw to provide the advantage of containing debris created by the operation of the disconnector, thereby preventing fires (refer to Besouw [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Krause, Leonard, and Besouw teach the arrester assembly of claim 11, wherein the sleeve is a fire-resistant sleeve (refer to Besouw [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Krause, Leonard, and Besouw teach the arrester assembly of claim 11, wherein the disconnector assembly further includes a housing (i.e. Besouw cap 58 and bottom cover 62)(fig.6) containing the insulator and the sleeve in the unextended position (refer to Besouw [0037]), the housing configured to break after the insulator breaks (refer to Besouw [0042] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Krause, Leonard, and Besouw teach the arrester assembly of claim 13, wherein one of the housing and the sleeve further includes an arc-quenching material (i.e. Besouw arc quenching material 53)(fig.6)(refer also to Besouw [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Krause, Leonard, and Besouw teach the arrester assembly of claim 13, wherein the insulator is coupled between a first insulator connector (i.e. Besouw upper sleeve connector 26)(fig.6) and a second insulator connector (i.e. Besouw lower sleeve connector 30)(fig.6), and the sleeve is coupled to the first insulator connector and to the second insulator connector (refer to Besouw [0036]), wherein the first terminal is coupled to the first insulator connector (refer to Besouw [0035]) and the second terminal coupled to the second insulator connector (refer to Besouw [0035]), and wherein an electrical connection between the first terminal and the second terminal is broken after the insulator breaks (refer to Besouw [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Krause, Leonard, and Besouw teach the arrester assembly of claim 11, wherein when a temperature threshold, an overvoltage threshold, leakage current, or an overcurrent threshold is met, the insulator breaks and the sleeve moves from the unextended position to the extended position (refer to Besouw [0042] to [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 7, especially wherein the ground bracket includes a conductive spring that is electrically connected to the arrester.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 V. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights