Thing 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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed to, i.e. including details of comprising cut-off devices and circuit breakers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in lines 7-8, “a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “one of the cut-off devices”, because of antecedent basis;
in lines 8-9, “the opening and the closure of the cut-off devices” appears that it should read as “an opening and a closure of the cut-off devices”, because of antecedent basis;
in lines 13-14, “the opening and the closure of the switch and of the circuit breaker” appears that it should read as “an opening and a closure of the switch and of the circuit breaker”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, in lines 1-3, “current measuring devices for measuring the currents flowing in the cut-off devices coupled to the electronic control unit” appears that it should read as “current measuring devices coupled to the electronic control unit for measuring the currents flowing in the cut-off devices”, because of the grammar.
Regarding claim 3, in line 2, “a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “the cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, in line 1, “wherein, the” appears that it should read as “wherein the”, because of the extraneous comma;
in line 3, “a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “the cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis;
in lines 5 and 6, “after opening of the cut-off device” appears that it should read as “after the opening of the cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, in lines 2-3, “after closure of the circuit breaker” appears that it should read as “after the closure of the circuit breaker”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 6-7, “a current difference” appears that it should read as “the difference”, because of antecedent basis;
in line 8, “the faulty cut-off device” appears that it should read as “a faulty cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, in line 2, “opening of a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “opening a cut-off device”, because of the grammatical parallel with the preceding recitation of “measuring the currents”.
Regarding claim 10, in lines 1-2, “a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “the cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, in line 2, “a cut-off device” appears that it should read as “the cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, in line 2, “after closure of the circuit breaker” appears that it should read as “after the closure of the circuit breaker”, because of antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, in lines 1-2, “a current of a first phase” appears that it should read as “a first current of a first phase”, because of antecedent basis;
in lines 4-5, “a current difference” appears that it should read as “the difference”, because of antecedent basis;
in line 6, “the faulty cut-off device” appears that it should read as “a faulty cut-off device”, because of antecedent basis. 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. JP 2000-166084 A, hereinafter “Takahashi”) in view of Ferguson (US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0400728 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) an electrical distribution system (power distribution system of Fig. 7) comprising a connection input (input-side terminal of power source switching device SW1 (11B)) for coupling to a power supply line (line from power source S1 (1) to 11B), an electrical distribution line (bus A (61)), a circuit breaker (11B) to be controlled and having an input terminal (input-side terminal of 11B) coupled to the connection input and an output terminal (output-side terminal of 11B) coupled to the electrical distribution line (the output side of 11B is coupled to bus A (61)), cut-off devices (branch switches CB1 (111a), CB2 (111b), and CB3 (111c)) to be controlled and coupled to the electrical distribution line (see [0035] of Takahashi “connected to a branch circuit branched from the bus A (61)”), and an electronic control unit (centralized monitoring control device 100) configured to control the opening and the closure of the cut-off devices (see [0041] of Takahashi “The centralized monitoring control device 100 sends an opening command and a closing command”; the commands are sent to 111a, 111b, and 111c over control lines 81a, 81b, and 81c) (Examiner’s Note: the embodiment of Fig. 7 expressly adopts the structure and operation of the embodiment of Fig. 1. See [0072] of Takahashi “Other configurations are the same as those of the power distribution system shown in FIG. 1” and [0073] of Takahashi “The operation and effects of the power distribution system shown in FIG. 7 are similar to those of the power distribution system”. The machine translation of [0073] of Takahashi omits the figure number at the end of the quoted sentence; the original Japanese text refers to Fig. 1 at that location. The paragraphs of Takahashi directed to Fig. 1 that are relied upon in this Office action are therefore part of the disclosure of the embodiment of Fig. 7. In the embodiment of Fig. 7, the branch switches CB1 to CB3 that are designated 11a to 11c in Fig. 1 are designated 111a to 111c.), wherein the system comprises a switch (semiconductor switch of 11B) to be controlled and comprising two thyristors mounted in a head-to-tail fashion (see [0073] of Takahashi “the thyristor elements are connected in antiparallel”), the switch being coupled to the input and output terminals of the circuit breaker (see [0072] of Takahashi “a high-speed switch connected in parallel to this semiconductor switch”), and the electronic control unit is further configured to control the opening and the closure of the switch and of the circuit breaker (100 sends the opening command and the closing command to 11B over control line 71a). Examiner’s Note: the semiconductor switch and the high-speed switch that together make up the power source switching device SW1 (11B) are connected in parallel with one another, and each therefore extends between the input-side terminal and the output-side terminal of 11B. The recited switch is accordingly coupled to the input and output terminals of the recited circuit breaker under the mapping set forth above. In the alternative, the recited circuit breaker is read on the high-speed switch of 11B and the recited switch is read on the semiconductor switch of 11B that is connected in parallel therewith, in which case the recited switch and the recited circuit breaker are separate elements connected between the same two terminals. Either mapping is supported by the citation to [0072] of Takahashi set forth above.
Takahashi does not disclose electrical distribution outlets for powering electrical circuits, each outlet being coupled to a cut-off device.
However, Ferguson teaches (see Fig. 1) electrical distribution outlets (AC power outlets 10a) for powering electrical circuits (rack mounted assets; see [0023] of Ferguson “Each AC power outlet 10a may be used to power an associated rack mounted asset”), each outlet being coupled to a cut-off device (see [0023] of Ferguson “the bistable relay 40 associated with that specific AC outlet 10a is closed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution system of Takahashi to include electrical distribution outlets for powering electrical circuits, each outlet being coupled to a cut-off device, as taught by Ferguson, because it can help provide a connection point at which each electrical circuit can be connected to and disconnected from its associated cut-off device without rewiring the electrical distribution line.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) further comprising current measuring devices (current detectors 41a, 41b, and 41c) for measuring the currents flowing in the cut-off devices (41a, 41b, and 41c are installed on the load side of the branch switches 111a, 111b, and 111c) coupled to the electronic control unit (see [0041] of Takahashi “information about currents from the current detectors 31, 32, 41a to 41c, 51a to 51c through signal lines”; the current detectors are connected to 100 over signal lines 82a, 82b, and 82c), the electronic control unit being configured to control the opening of a cut-off device (any of 111a, 111b, and 111c) when the current flowing in the cut-off device is higher than or equal to a first fault current threshold (see [0046] of Takahashi “exceeds, for example, the current level I1”) and lower than or equal to a second fault current threshold (see [0055] of Takahashi “if the predetermined branch switch has the capability of interrupting the fault current”), the second threshold being higher than the first threshold (the interrupting capability of the branch switch is higher than the current level I1). Examiner’s Note: the second fault current threshold is read on the current interrupting capability of the branch switch. Takahashi opens the branch switch alone where the fault current is within that capability (see [0055] of Takahashi “only the predetermined branch switch is opened”), and opens the power source switching device where the fault current is not within that capability. That capability is necessarily higher than the current level I1 at which the centralized monitoring control device 100 determines that a fault has occurred, because otherwise no fault current would ever fall within the capability of the branch switch.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) wherein, the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of the circuit breaker (100 sends an opening command to 11B), when a current flowing in a cut-off device (111c) is higher than the second fault current threshold (see [0055] of Takahashi “the current is first cut off by opening the power source switching device 11”; the power source switching device is opened where the fault current exceeds the interrupting capability of the branch switch), to control the opening of the cut-off device (see [0054] of Takahashi “the switch that operates is the branch switch 11c”), to control the closure of the switch after opening of the cut-off device (the closure of 11B closes the semiconductor switch of 11B, and the closing command is sent after the opening of the branch switch is detected at the time t6), and to control the closure of the circuit breaker after opening of the cut-off device (see [0049] of Takahashi “The device 100 sends a closing command to the power supply switching device 11”). Examiner’s Note: the operation relied upon above is described at [0043]-[0055] of Takahashi with reference to Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The accident at accident point A described at [0054] of Takahashi is the case in which the switch that operates is the branch switch 11c, that is, the branch switch 111c of Fig. 7, and the timing of Fig. 2 applies to that case with the branch switch 11c substituted for the branch switch 21c.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) an electrical distribution method, comprising coupling a connection input (input-side terminal of 11B) of an electrical distribution system according to claim 1 to a power supply line (line from power source S1 (1) to 11B), and closing the circuit breaker (11B) and the cut-off devices (111a, 111b, and 111c) of the system to power the electrical circuits (see [0042] of Takahashi “loads 31L and 32L are connected to a power source 1 by a power source switching device 11 and branch switches CB1 (11a) to CB3 (11c)”).
Takahashi does not disclose coupling the electrical distribution outlets of the system to electrical circuits.
However, Ferguson teaches (see Fig. 1) coupling the electrical distribution outlets (AC power outlets 10a) of the system to electrical circuits (rack mounted assets; see [0023] of Ferguson “Each AC power outlet 10a may be used to power an associated rack mounted asset”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution method of Takahashi to include coupling the electrical distribution outlets of the system to electrical circuits, as taught by Ferguson, because it can help connect each electrical circuit to the system at a connection point without rewiring the electrical distribution line.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) comprising measuring the currents flowing in the cut-off devices (current detectors 41a, 41b, and 41c are installed on the load side of the branch switches 111a, 111b, and 111c), and opening of a cut-off device (any of 111a, 111b, and 111c) when a current flowing in the cut-off device is higher than or equal to a first fault current threshold (see [0046] of Takahashi “exceeds, for example, the current level I1”) and lower than or equal to a second fault current threshold (see [0055] of Takahashi “if the predetermined branch switch has the capability of interrupting the fault current”).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Ferguson and further in view of Allen et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 2009/0027824 A1, hereinafter “Allen”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi does not disclose wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of a cut-off device when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold.
However, Allen teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein the electronic control unit (microprocessor 116) is configured to control the opening of a cut-off device (relay 110) when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold (see [0040] of Allen “the relay contacts are opened at or near a zero current cross point”; microprocessor 116 delays de-energizing the coil of relay 110 for a turn off delay time 154 so that the contacts of relay 110 open at a zero crossing point 132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution system of Takahashi such that the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of a cut-off device when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold, as taught by Allen, because it can help prolong the service life of the cut-off device by preventing an arc from being drawn between its contacts when it opens.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi does not disclose wherein opening a cut-off device is performed when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold.
However, Allen teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein opening a cut-off device (relay 110) is performed when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold (see [0040] of Allen “the relay contacts are opened at or near a zero current cross point”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution method of Takahashi such that opening a cut-off device is performed when the current flowing in the cut-off device is lower than or equal to a cut-off current threshold, as taught by Allen, because it can help prolong the service life of the cut-off device by preventing an arc from being drawn between its contacts when it opens.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Ferguson and further in view of Morelli (US Patent 4,814,932).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi does not disclose wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of the switch when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold.
However, Morelli teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein the electronic control unit (circuit 16 for controlling the gates of the thyristors) is configured to control the opening of the switch (thyristors TH1 and TH2 mounted head to tail in parallel with the main power circuit of the upstream current limiting circuit breaker D2) when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold (see col. 3, lines 66-68 of Morelli “The enabled thyristor remains enabled until the short circuit current passes again through a zero”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution system of Takahashi such that the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of the switch when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold, as taught by Morelli, because it can help limit the conduction time of the switch to at most one current half wave, so that little heat is dissipated in the switch and no heat sink is needed for it.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi does not disclose wherein opening the switch is performed when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold. Examiner’s Note: claim 8, from which claim 11 depends, does not recite a step of opening the switch. Claim 11 is interpreted as further comprising a step of opening the switch that is performed when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold, consistent with page 9, lines 17-19 of the specification.
However, Morelli teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein opening the switch (thyristors TH1 and TH2 mounted head to tail in parallel with the main power circuit of the upstream current limiting circuit breaker D2) is performed when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold (see col. 3, lines 66-68 of Morelli “The enabled thyristor remains enabled until the short circuit current passes again through a zero”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution method of Takahashi such that opening the switch is performed when the current flowing in the switch is lower than or equal to an opening current threshold, as taught by Morelli, because it can help limit the conduction time of the switch to at most one current half wave, so that little heat is dissipated in the switch and no heat sink is needed for it.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Ferguson and further in view of Blain et al. (US Patent 6,347,024, hereinafter “Blain”).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi does not disclose wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of the switch after closure of the circuit breaker.
However, Blain teaches (see Fig. 2) wherein the electronic control unit (microcontroller 100) is configured to control the opening of the switch (microcontroller 100 switches the first logic output S1 to the 0 state at the time t3, interrupting the trigger current Ig of the triac 80; see Fig. 3d and Fig. 3f of Blain) after closure of the circuit breaker (the electrical contact 70 having a mechanical movement closes at the time t2, which precedes the time t3; see Fig. 3g of Blain, and see col. 9, lines 18-20 of Blain “starting before the contact 70 closes, at the time t1, and terminating after it closes, at the time t3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution system of Takahashi such that the electronic control unit is configured to control the opening of the switch after closure of the circuit breaker, as taught by Blain, because it can help force the current to flow through the contacts of the circuit breaker rather than through the switch once the circuit breaker is closed, so that the switch is not heated by that current.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi discloses (see Fig. 7) comprising opening the circuit breaker (100 sends an opening command to 11B), when a current flowing in a cut-off device (111c) is higher than the second fault current threshold (see [0055] of Takahashi “the current is first cut off by opening the power source switching device 11”), then opening the cut-off device (see [0054] of Takahashi “the switch that operates is the branch switch 11c”), and thereafter closing the power source switching device 11B (see [0049] of Takahashi “The device 100 sends a closing command to the power supply switching device 11”). Examiner’s Note: the closure of the power source switching device 11B closes both the semiconductor switch and the high-speed switch of 11B. Takahashi does not state that the semiconductor switch is closed before the high-speed switch is closed.
Takahashi does not disclose then closing the switch, and then closing the circuit breaker.
However, Blain teaches (see Fig. 2) then closing the switch (the triac 80 is switched to the on state at the time t1; see Fig. 3f of Blain), and then closing the circuit breaker (the electrical contact 70 having a mechanical movement closes at the time t2, which follows the time t1; see Fig. 3g of Blain, and see col. 9, lines 18-20 of Blain “starting before the contact 70 closes, at the time t1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution method of Takahashi to include then closing the switch, and then closing the circuit breaker, as taught by Blain, because it can help establish the current through the switch before the circuit breaker closes, so that no arc is drawn between the contacts of the circuit breaker as it closes.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi does not disclose comprising opening the switch after closure of the circuit breaker.
However, Blain teaches (see Fig. 2) comprising opening the switch (microcontroller 100 switches the first logic output S1 to the 0 state at the time t3, interrupting the trigger current Ig of the triac 80; see Fig. 3d and Fig. 3f of Blain) after closure of the circuit breaker (the electrical contact 70 having a mechanical movement closes at the time t2, which precedes the time t3; see Fig. 3g of Blain, and see col. 9, lines 18-20 of Blain “starting before the contact 70 closes, at the time t1, and terminating after it closes, at the time t3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical distribution method of Takahashi to include opening the switch after closure of the circuit breaker, as taught by Blain, because it can help force the current to flow through the contacts of the circuit breaker rather than through the switch once the circuit breaker is closed, so that the switch is not heated by that current.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 7, none of the cited prior art alone or in combination discloses or teaches the claimed invention in which “the electronic control unit being configured, when a current difference is higher than or equal to a leakage current threshold, to control the opening, successively, of each cut-off device so as to determine the faulty cut-off device generating the current difference”. The closest prior art, Ferguson, discloses a residual current monitor current transformer 11 that senses a residual current condition affecting the AC outlets 10a (see [0019] of Ferguson) and infers which one of the AC outlets 10a is affected by the path of a residual current (see [0029] of Ferguson), but Ferguson identifies that outlet by a statistical correlation of sampled current waveforms and does not open the cut-off devices in succession (see [0029] of Ferguson “without the need to independently power down each of the properly functioning devices”).
Regarding claim 14, none of the cited prior art alone or in combination discloses or teaches the claimed invention in which “comprising, when a current difference is higher than or equal to a leakage current threshold, successively opening each cut-off device so as to determine the faulty cut-off device generating the current difference”. The closest prior art, Ferguson, discloses a residual current monitor current transformer 11 that senses a residual current condition affecting the AC outlets 10a (see [0019] of Ferguson) and detects the AC outlet 10a through which the residual current path is flowing (see [0031] of Ferguson), but Ferguson identifies that outlet by a statistical correlation of sampled current waveforms and does not open the cut-off devices in succession (see [0067] of Ferguson “manually identify the residual current path by a trial and error method”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 6,735,496 discloses a controller that disconnects all of a plurality of control loops upon detection of a ground fault condition and thereafter individually reconnects each control loop in turn in order to determine which load produced the ground fault condition.
US 6,268,989 discloses a residential load center in which a controller opens branch circuit breakers in order to determine which branch circuit contains an arcing fault.
US 4,897,755 discloses a control circuit that causes the contacts of a relay to open at a zero current point of an AC load circuit in order to eliminate contact arcing.
US 2013/0027829 A1 discloses a hybrid circuit breaker having a semiconductor electronic breaking device connected in parallel with the fixed and movable contacts of an electromechanical breaking device, both being driven by an electronic unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYE-JUNE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7726. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 5712721838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private
PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/JYE-JUNE LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights