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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1; “wherein the first and second portions of the duct comprise a duct arranged along a surface of the switchgear, wherein the duct comprises a first side and a second side separated by an internal division, wherein the first side corresponds to the first portion of the duct and the second side corresponds to the second portion of the duct” asserted in line(s) 14-19 is unclear; whereas line 4 previously asserts “a duct having atleast first and second portions” then line 14 asserts the first and second portion of the duct comprise a duct, and line(s) 16-17 further asserts “wherein the first and second portion of the duct comprise a duct” (as discussed below, may denote a side duct), and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if the same duct or an additional duct is intended. Further, in line(s) 17-19, “wherein the first side corresponds to the first portion of the duct and the second side corresponds to the second portion of the duct”, is subsequently unclear since the limitation allows the first side to correspond to the first portion of an additional duct OR otherwise allows the first surface to correspond by representing the actual duct (first mentioned in line 4). The office herein notes that the limitation(s) read on more than one plausible claim construction which may read on varying inventive structures. Going further, “the side duct” in line 20 is unclear; whereas the term side duct has not been previously asserted, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained of intended to refer back to an already asserted structure of otherwise intended to assert a different structure. The office hereby notes that it appears the applicant intends “the side duct” to refer back to “a duct” in line 14, and “the path turns 180 degrees” between the first side, and the second side via the side duct located therebetween. As such, “wherein a minimum angle between the path in two of the at least two ducting portions is 180 degrees”; whereas a minimum angle between two of the at least two ducting portions reads on more than one plausible claim construction in which the so-called minimum may be defined between i.e. the first portion and the second portion OR i.e. between the alleged side duct and the second portion, and in either claim construction more than two so-called ducting portions are needed to present necessary structures to constitute the asserted function(s) of the path defining a first duct portion, a side duct portion, and a second duct portion and a minimum angle therebetween of 180 degrees. Regarding Claim 5; “a side duct arranged along one of the side surfaces” is unclear; whereas a side duct does not readily refer back to a side duct in claim 1 line 20 or a duct in claim 1 line 14—if so intended, and the side surfaces are not asserted including or different with respect to a surface—already asserted in claim 1 line 15. Regarding Claim(s) 7, 8 and 10; “a side duct arranged along one of the side surfaces, wherein he side duct comprises a first side and a second side separated by an internal division” is unclear; where the assertion does not readily refer back to the side duct, first side, second side or internal division, as already asserted in claim 1, or otherwise present the same as additional and separate structures. Regarding Claim 14; “the third portion” is not previously asserted in the base claim, and thus it cannot be readily ascertained if deemed as a different structure or otherwise intended to refer back to a feature that is previously asserted in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 11-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (Florez 2016/0307716).
Regarding Claim 1; Florez, as best understood discloses a system (as constituted by an exhaust system—as set forth by the abstract), comprising: a switchgear (as set forth by para. 0001), wherein gas is generated within the switchgear during an arc event (as constituted by a part of the fluid located in the area where the electric arc is generated is considerably heated up—as set forth by para. 0004, wherein an electric arc is formed between arcing contacts i.e. 3a, 3b, 4a, and/or 4b—para’s 0060-0061, and 0086 in which the fluid is insulating gas—as further set forth by para.’s 0042, 0045); and a duct having at least first and second portions (a duct at least in-part comprising volume(s) defined by 7, 7”, 7”, 7’’’ and along path-2--as set forth by para. 0063, wherein in atleast one claim construction 7’’’ constitutes a first portion, and either opening 11a, or volume 7 defining connecting portion(s) to space defined by guiding wall(s) having 18 or 19 which constitutes a second portion in part defining path-2—as depicted by Fig. ‘s 1-2), the duct further comprising: an inlet to receive the generated gas into the duct, wherein the inlet is formed in the first portion of the duct (whereas an inlet is atleast in-part defined between 3a and an exterior of 7” fluidly coupling arcing region at 6—as depicted by Fig. 2), an outlet to expel the generated gas from the duct, wherein the outlet is formed in the second portion of the duct (whereas an outlet is defined atleast in-part by path-2 in which exhaust exits along 7b), and a path formed between the inlet and the outlet to channel the generated gas through the duct (as already set forth by path 2—as depicted by Fig. 2); wherein a minimum angle between the path in two of the at least two ducting portions is 180 degrees (whereas atleast two of the respective paths are disposed horizontally and in parallel—as depicted by Fig. 2); and wherein the first and second portions of the duct comprise a duct arranged along of a surface the switchgear (as depicted by Fig. 2), wherein the duct comprises a first side and a second side separated by an internal division, wherein the first side corresponds to the first portion of the duct and the second side corresponds to the second portion of the duct (as depicted by Fig.’s 1-2—whereas 7 is separated from 7’’’ via a tube thereof OR where 7’ is separated from 7 via a surface therebetween), and wherein the path enters the side duct on the first side of the internal division and the outlet is on the second side of the internal division, wherein the path turns 180 degrees between the first side of the internal division and the second side of the internal division (whereas the guiding wall is disposed between the first side and the second side).
Regarding Claim 2; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the duct further comprises a third portion, the third portion disposed between the first and second portions, optionally, wherein there is at least a 90 degree turn between the path in the first portion and the path in the third portion, and wherein there is at least a 90 degree turn between the path in the third portion and the path in the second portion (atleast constituted by a 90 turn through 11a and/or via jet 77, wherein each is disposed in-part between the first and second portions—as depicted by Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the path within at least two of the first, second and third portions of the duct comprises at least one 180 degree turn, optionally, wherein the path within at least two of the first, second and third portions of the duct comprises at least two 180 degree turns (as depicted by Fig. 2—whereas each of the jets 77 forms 180 turns at each 2 around the guiding wall(s)).
Regarding Claim 11; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 1, wherein one or more arc absorbers are disposed within the duct (atleast in-part constituted by ceramic impregnated in 7b).
Regarding Claim 12; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 11, wherein each of the one or more arc absorbers comprises a ceramic arc absorber (atleast in-part constituted by ceramic impregnated in 7b).
Regarding Claim 13; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 12, wherein each stack of perforated metal sheets comprises: a stack of metal sheets with round apertures (as set forth by para. 0006—whereas holes are covered by perforated metal panels which constitute a stack with round holes—as further depicted by Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 1, two or more of the first, third and second portions of the duct are integrally formed (whereas at least two of the respective portions are atleast in indirect physical contact through a structure in contact therewith—as depicted by Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4, and 9, and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Florez 2016/0307716).
Regarding Claim 4; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 2, except, explicitly wherein the switchgear comprises a front surface, a rear surface opposite the front surface, two side surfaces, each extending between the front surface and the rear surface, a top surface, and a base surface opposite the top surface (whereas para. 0057 discloses 5 a shell or enclosure which is normally cylindrical but suggests than other shapes are plausible), and thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape as rectangular and defines each of the asserted sides in accordance with a desired application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 10; Florez, as best understood discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first portion of the duct comprises a rear duct arranged along the rear surface, the third portion of the duct comprises a top duct arranged along the top surface, and the second portion of the duct comprises a side duct arranged along one of the side surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9, 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.
Regarding Claim 5; the system of claim 4, wherein the first portion of the duct comprises a base duct arranged along the base surface, the third portion of the duct comprises a rear duct arranged along the rear surface, and the second portion of the duct comprises a side duct arranged along one of the side surfaces.
Regarding Claim 6; the system of claim 4, the duct further comprising a fourth portion disposed between the second and third portions of the duct, wherein the first portion of the duct comprises a base duct arranged along the base surface, the third portion of the duct comprises a rear duct arranged along the rear surface, and the second and fourth portions of the duct comprise a side duct arranged along one of the side surfaces, wherein the side duct comprises a first side and a second side separated by an internal division, wherein the first side corresponds to the fourth portion of the duct and the second side corresponds to the second portion of the duct, wherein the path enters the side duct on the first side of the internal division and the outlet is on the second side of the internal division, wherein the path turns 180 degrees between the first side of the internal division and the second side of the internal division. Regarding Claim 9; the system of claim 4, wherein the first portion of the duct comprises a base duct arranged along the base surface, and the third and second portions of the duct comprise a rear duct arranged along the rear surface, wherein the rear duct comprises a first side and a second side separated by an internal division, wherein the first side corresponds to the third portion of the duct and the second side corresponds to the second portion of the duct, wherein the path enters the rear duct on the first side of the internal division and the outlet is on the second side of the internal division, wherein the path turns 180 degrees between the first side of the internal division and the second side of the internal division.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160042896 A1
Kingston; Murray Peter
Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p.
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.
/COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights