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 1-2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.8: the clause “moving by energy received from the igniter” should be amended to recite “moving by the energy received from the igniter” for antecedent reasons.
Claim 2 Lns.2-3: it is believed that the clause “opposite to a side of the projectile with respect” should be amended to recite “opposite to the side of the projectile with respect” for antecedent reasons (i.e., it is believed that “a side opposite to a side of the projectile with respect to the cutoff portion before actuation of the igniter” is supposed to be in reference to “a side of the projectile with respect to the cutoff portion before actuation of the igniter in the accommodation space” of claim 1). The Office requests that Applicant review the claim and see if the Office’s conclusion is correct.
Claim 6 Ln.8: the clause “moving by energy received from the igniter” should be amended to recite “moving by the energy received from the igniter” for antecedent reasons.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,153 (Referred to as Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Reference Patent anticipate the claims of the Instant Application. Please see the table below in which bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the Instant Application and the Reference Patent.
Instant Application: 18/846,280
Reference Patent: US 12,537,153
6) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided in a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodation space formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being configured to be projected along the accommodation space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece provided in the housing and forming a part of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including, in a part of the conductor piece, a cutoff portion to be cut off by the projectile moving by energy received from the igniter, the cutoff portion being disposed crossing the accommodation space; and a coolant material disposed in a coolant material accommodation space provided inside the housing (scope encompassed by “the arc-extinguishing region being positioned within the accommodating space” of claim 1 of the Reference Patent).
1) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided to a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodating space, the accommodating space being formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being configured to be projected along the accommodating space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece that is provided to the housing, forms a portion of an electric circuit, includes in a portion thereof a cutoff portion to be cut off by the projectile that moves by the energy received from the igniter, and is disposed with the cutoff portion crossing the accommodating space; a coolant material that removes thermal energy of an arc generated at the cutoff portion, the coolant material being disposed in a container defining an arc-extinguishing region, the arc-extinguishing region being positioned within the accommodating space, on a side opposite to the projectile prior to actuation of the igniter with the cutoff portion interposed between the arc-extinguishing region and the projectile, and configured to receive the cutoff portion cut off by the projectile; and a resin material that is disposed extending along an inner wall of the housing and configured to be modified by heat associated with actuation of the igniter.
Claim 14 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 6 of the Reference Patent.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,548,722 (Referred to as Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Reference Patent anticipate the claims of the Instant Application. Please see the table below in which bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the Instant Application and the Reference Patent.
Instant Application: 18/846,280
Reference Patent: US 12,548,722
6) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided in a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodation space formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being configured to be projected along the accommodation space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece provided in the housing and forming a part of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including, in a part of the conductor piece, a cutoff portion to be cut off by the projectile moving by energy received from the igniter, the cutoff portion being disposed crossing the accommodation space; and a coolant material (encompassed by the “first coolant material” as claimed in claim 1 of the Reference Patent) disposed in a coolant material accommodation space provided inside the housing (scope encompassed by “arc-extinguishing region positioned within the accommodating space” as claimed in claim 1 of the Reference Patent).
1) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided to a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodating space, the accommodating space being formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being to be projected along the accommodating space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece that is provided to the housing, forms a portion of an electric circuit, includes in a portion thereof a cutoff portion to be cut off by the projectile that moves by the energy received from the igniter, and is disposed with the cutoff portion crossing the accommodating space; an arc-extinguishing region positioned within the accommodating space, on a side opposite to the projectile prior to actuation of the igniter with the cutoff portion interposed between the arc-extinguishing region and the projectile, and configured to receive the cutoff portion cut off by the projectile; a first coolant material disposed in the arc-extinguishing region; and a second coolant material disposed between the projectile and the cutoff portion in the accommodating space prior to actuation of the igniter, wherein the second coolant material is solid, and the second coolant material is formed from a metal fiber.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,406,818 (Referred to as Reference Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Reference Patent anticipate the claims of the Instant Application. Please see the table below in which bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the Instant Application and the Reference Patent.
Instant Application: 18/846,280
Reference Patent: US 12,406,818
6) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided in a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodation space formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being configured to be projected along the accommodation space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece provided in the housing and forming a part of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including, in a part of the conductor piece, a cutoff portion to be cut off by the projectile moving by energy received from the igniter, the cutoff portion being disposed crossing the accommodation space; and a coolant material disposed in a coolant material accommodation space provided inside the housing.
1) An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter provided on a housing; a projectile disposed in an accommodating space, the accommodating space being formed in the housing and extending in one direction, the projectile being configured to be projected along the accommodating space by energy received from the igniter; a conductor piece provided on housing and forming portion of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including a cutoff portion disposed crossing the accommodating space and configured to be cut off by the projectile; and an arc-extinguishing region that is provided in the accommodating space and in which a coolant material is disposed, the arc-extinguishing region being configured to receive the cutoff portion after being cut off, wherein the projectile includes a first projectile configured to cut off the cutoff portion from the conductor piece by being projected by the energy received from the igniter, and a second projectile configured to press, into the arc-extinguishing region, the cutoff portion cut off by the first projectile.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Poeltl (US 20250385060) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Poeltl discloses (Figs.1-2):
An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter (14) provided in a housing (8 and 10 in combination); a projectile (2) disposed in an accommodation space (7 and 9 in combination) formed in the housing (8 and 10 in combination) and extending in one direction (Fig.1: the shown longitudinal line will define the "one direction"), the projectile (2) being configured to be projected along the accommodation space (7 and 9 in combination) by energy received from the igniter (14) (Figs.1-2 and [0023]: when 14 ignites, it will generate a force, and thus an energy, that will project/move 2 along 7 and 9); a conductor piece (3) provided in the housing (8 and 10 in combination) and forming a part of an electric circuit (Fig.1 and [0023]: 3 is used to connect to a circuit to allow current to flow through 3, and thus is a part of an electric circuit), the conductor piece (3) including, in a part of the conductor piece (3), a cutoff portion (5) to be cut off by the projectile (2) moving by energy received from the igniter (14) (Figs.1-2 and [0023]: 5 is cut off by 2 when 14 ignites and protects 2 along 7 and 9), the cutoff portion (5) being disposed crossing the accommodation space (7 and 9 in combination); and a coolant material (18) positioned on a side (Fig.1: side of 2 that has 17 and 8 will define the "side" which is located above 2 with respect to 5) of the projectile (2) with respect to the cutoff portion (5) before actuation (See Fig.1) of the igniter (14) in the accommodation space (7 and 9 in combination).
Regarding claim 3, Poeltl further discloses:
Wherein the coolant material (18) is disposed in a projectile outer circumferential accommodation space (17) provided in an outer circumferential surface (Fig.1: 17 is provided on an outer surface of 2, and that surface will define the outer circumferential surface) of the projectile (2).
Claims 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20220285114) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses (Figs.1-7):
An electric circuit breaker device comprising: an igniter (7) provided in a housing (9); a projectile (8) disposed in an accommodation space (90) formed in the housing (9) and extending in one direction ([0031]: the "up-down direction" will define the "one direction"), the projectile (8) being configured to be projected (See Figs.5-7) along the accommodation space (90) by energy received from the igniter (7) (Figs.5-7, [0064], and [0093]: force/energy produced by 7 will move/project 8 along 90 to break 2 at 23); a conductor piece (2) provided in the housing (9) and forming a part of an electric circuit ([0021]: "an external conductive flow path"- 2 is used to form a part of an electric circuit), the conductor piece (2) including, in a part (See Fig.3) of the conductor piece (2), a cutoff portion (23) to be cut off by the projectile (8) moving by energy received from the igniter (7) (Figs.5-7, [0064], and [0093]: force/energy produced by 7 will move/project 8 along 90 to break 2 at 23), the cutoff portion (23) being disposed crossing (See Figs.1 and 4-5) the accommodation space (90); and a coolant material (3) disposed in a coolant material accommodation space (SP2) provided inside the housing (9).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura further discloses:
Wherein the coolant material (3) includes a fibrous body (300).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura further discloses:
Wherein the coolant material (3) includes an inorganic oxide ([0082]: “aluminum oxide”-aluminum oxide is an inorganic oxide).
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 2, 4, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poeltl (US 20250385060) in view of Nakatani (US 20210233729) (both references of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Poeltl does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material is positioned, after actuation of the igniter, on a side opposite to a side of the projectile with respect to the cutoff portion before actuation of the igniter.
Nakatani however teaches (Figs.5-8):
Wherein the coolant material (M) is positioned, after actuation (See Fig.8) of the igniter (P), on a side opposite to a side of the projectile (500) with respect to the cutoff portion (420) before actuation (See Fig.6) of the igniter (P) (Figs.6 and 8: before actuation of P, the M in X1 is located on a side of 500 that is above 420, and after actuation of P, the M in X1 is located on a side of 500 that would be below the position 420 before actuation).
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 Nakatani to modify the device of Poeltl such that the coolant material is positioned, after actuation of the igniter, on a side opposite to a side of the projectile with respect to the cutoff portion before actuation of the igniter, as claimed, in order to further improve the arc dissipation capabilities (i.e., as a result of the combination, the distance between the cutoff portion and the broken ends of the conductor can be increased, and thus the total arc length can be increased, which can make it easier for the coolant material to cool and quench the electrical arc).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Poeltl does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material is disposed in a projectile inner accommodation space provided inside the projectile.
Nakatani however teaches (Figs.16-18):
Wherein the coolant material (M) is disposed in a projectile inner accommodation space (X1C) provided inside the projectile (500C).
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 Nakatani to modify the device of Poeltl such that the coolant material is disposed in a projectile inner accommodation space provided inside the projectile, as respectively claimed in claims 4 and 13, in order to further improve the overall arc cooling and quenching capabilities (i.e., in addition to the coolant material of Poeltl, additional coolant material can be provided inside of the projectile, and thus increasing the total volume of cooling material that can be used to dissipate the electrical arc that will form when the igniter detonates).
Regarding claim 11, Poeltl further discloses:
Wherein the coolant material (18) is disposed in a projectile outer circumferential accommodation space (17) provided in an outer circumferential surface (Fig.1: 17 is provided on an outer surface of 2, and that surface will define the outer circumferential surface) of the projectile (2).
Regarding claim 12, Nakatani further teaches:
Wherein the coolant material (M) is disposed in a projectile inner accommodation space (X2) provided inside the projectile (500) (Figs.5-6 and [0074]: X2 is in an area that is inside 500).
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 Nakatani to further modify the device of modified Poeltl such that the coolant material is disposed in a projectile inner accommodation space provided inside the projectile, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall arc cooling and quenching capabilities (i.e., due to the coolant material now also being included in a projectile inner accommodation space, the total volume of the coolant material is increased, which will then have the ability to more quickly dissipate the electrical arc generated by the conductor piece when the cut off portion is broken).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poeltl (US 20250385060) and Nakatani (US 20210233729) (both references of record, cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lorenzon (FR 3085534).
Regarding claim 5, modified Poeltl does not teach:
Wherein the projectile includes a through hole extending between the projectile inner accommodation space in which the coolant material is disposed and an outside of the projectile.
Lorenzon however teaches (Figs.1-3B):
Wherein the projectile (30) includes a through hole (35) extending between the projectile inner accommodation space (Fig.2B: inner space of 30) and an outside of the projectile (30) (Figs.2A-3B: 35 is provided between the inner space of 30 and an outside of 30).
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 Lorenzon to further modify the device of modified Poeltl such that the projectile includes a through hole that extends between the projectile inner accommodation space in which the coolant material is disposed and an outside of the projectile, as claimed, in order to further improve the arc dissipation capabilities due to the increased number of means of dissipating the electrical arc (i.e., in addition to the cooling material, the through hole can also be used to provide arc dissipation means).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poeltl (US 20250385060) in view of Nakamura (US 20220285114) (both references of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Poeltl does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material includes a fibrous body.
Nakamura however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein the coolant material (3) includes a fibrous body (300).
See next page→
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 Nakamura to modify the device of Poeltl such that the coolant material includes a fibrous body, as claimed in order to provide coolant material that can accelerate the extinction of arc and improve handleability since an increase in pressure as a result from electric arc can be better prevented as taught by Nakamura ([0023] and [0104]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poeltl (US 20250385060) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Douglass (US 20160343531).
Regarding claim 8, Poeltl does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material includes an inorganic oxide.
Douglass however teaches (Fig.2):
Wherein the coolant material (68) includes an inorganic oxide ([0062]: Zeolite is an inorganic oxide).
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 Douglass to modify the device of Poeltl such that the coolant material includes an inorganic oxide such as zeolite, as claimed, in order to further optimize the arc cooling and quenching capabilities due to the advanced arc quenching capabilities of the inorganic oxide as taught by Douglass ([0062]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Douglass further teaches:
Wherein the inorganic oxide includes zeolite ([0062]: zeolite is used as the inorganic oxide).
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 Douglass to further modify the device of modified Poeltl such that the inorganic oxide includes zeolite, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized arc cooling and quenching capabilities as outlined in claim 8 above.
Furthermore, modifying the material of the coolant material such that it is made out of a desired material, including as respectively claimed in claims 8-9 (i.e., an inorganic oxide, specifically including zeolite), 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 optimized arc cooling and dissipation capabilities as outlined in claims 8 and 9 above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poeltl (US 20250385060) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Yoshida (US 20150002258).
Regarding claim 10, Poeltl does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material includes a modified resin material.
Yoshida however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein the coolant material (26) includes a modified resin material ([0035]: 26 can be made out of silicone, which is a modified resin material as defined in paragraph [0055] of Applicant’s specification, see US-PG Pub version of Applicant’s specification).
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 Yoshida to modify the device of Poeltl such that the cooling material includes a modified resin material, as claimed, in order to provide a cooling material that is thermally stable and is not carbonized as taught by Yoshida ([0035]), and thus further optimize the arc resisting and suppressing capabilities.
Furthermore, modifying the material of the coolant material such that it is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., a modified resin), 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 optimized arc resisting and suppressing capabilities as outlined above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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).
See next page→
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20220285114) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Douglass (US 20160343531).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura does not disclose:
Wherein the inorganic oxide includes zeolite.
Douglass however teaches (Fig.2):
Wherein the inorganic oxide includes zeolite ([0062]: zeolite is used as the inorganic oxide).
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 Douglass to modify the device of Nakamura such that the inorganic oxide includes zeolite, as claimed, in order to further optimize the arc cooling and quenching capabilities due to the advanced arc quenching capabilities of zeolite as taught by Douglass ([0062]-[0066]).
Furthermore, modifying the material of the coolant material such that it is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., zeolite), 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 optimized arc cooling and dissipation capabilities as outlined above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20220285114) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Yoshida (US 20150002258).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura does not disclose:
Wherein the coolant material includes a modified resin material.
Yoshida however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein the coolant material (26) includes a modified resin material ([0035]: 26 can be made out of silicone, which is a modified resin material as defined in paragraph [0055] of Applicant’s specification, see US-PG Pub version of Applicant’s specification).
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 Yoshida to modify the device of Nakamura such that the cooling material includes a modified resin material, as claimed, in order to provide a cooling material that is thermally stable and is not carbonized as taught by Yoshida ([0035]), and thus further optimize the arc resisting and suppressing capabilities.
Furthermore, modifying the material of the coolant material such that it is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., a cooling material that includes a modified resin), 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 optimized arc resisting and suppressing capabilities as outlined above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 20230141970: teaches a pyrotechnic switch that utilizes arc quenching material.
US 20220037094: teaches a pyrotechnic switch that utilizes arc quenching material.
US 20210350991: teaches a pyrotechnic switch that utilizes a modified resin material for cooling electrical arc.
US 11049681: teaches how polyamide is a known material for quenching electrical arc.
US 20190148098: teaches how silicone is a known material for quenching arc.
US 20070075822: teaches how it is known in the art to use silicone for quenching electrical arc.
See next page→
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