Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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
Claim 1, line 4, “its” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10, line 3, “the pulling cable end” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15, line 3, “its” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-13, 14, 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kries (DE102011078575).
Regarding claim 1, Kries teaches an actuating device for a switching apparatus 2 of a switch panel of electrical energy technology, said actuating device comprising an operable drive unit (5,6), a pulling cable 9 that is fastened to the drive unit with its pulling cable start (paragraph 24 of the enclosed translation), and a pivot unit 3 that can be mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus 2 (paragraph 23) and that is mechanically connected to the drive unit via the pulling cable (Figs. 1-4 and paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 2, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the switch panel is of medium-voltage technology (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 3, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the pivot unit 3 comprises a connection piece 3a that is configured as pivotable about a pivot axis and the pulling cable 9 is connected to the connection piece (through the lever arm 3b) with its pulling cable end spaced apart from the pivot axis (Figs.1-2 and paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 4, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the pivot unit comprises a return spring that that is fastened to the connection piece spaced apart from the pivot axis (paragraphs 39-41).
Regarding claim 5, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the return spring is configured as a tension spring (paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 6, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the return spring is connected in an articulated manner (through the cable 9) to the connection piece 3a spaced apart from the pivot axis (paragraphs 39-41).
Regarding claim 7, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the pivot unit 3 comprises a first base 3b at which the pulling cable 9 is supported, at which the connection piece is pivotably supported about the pivot axis (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the return spring is connected (the connection is through the cable) in an articulated manner to the connection piece (Figs.1-4 and paragraphs 39-41).
Regarding claim 9, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the connection piece comprises a guide pin 12 that is spaced apart in parallel from the pivot axis, wherein the first base 3b has a first guide contour 10 in which the guide pin is guided (the pully and its supporting structure 11/housing mounting provides a guide contour that guides and constrains the movement of the cable end, see paragraphs 25, 30-31).
Regarding claim 10, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the pivot unit comprises a clamping spring 5 (the drive itself act as clamping spring) that is configured as a tension spring and that is fastened to the connection piece at the pulling cable end and spaced apart from the pivot axis (paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 11, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the clamping spring is configured as a tension spring 5 (the drive itself act as clamping spring, see paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 12, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the clamping spring 5 is connected in an articulated manner to the connection piece at the pulling cable end 9 and spaced apart from the pivot axis (see paragraphs 39-40).
Regarding claim 14, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the drive unit (5, 6) is configured to apply a pulling force to the pulling cable 9 in order to pivot the pivot unit 3 (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 17, Kries teaches the actuating device wherein the drive unit comprises a releasable blocking device (15/15’-18, together form the blocking device) that is configured to block the pivot unit against a pivoting (together the prevent the drive from applying force to the cable, and therefore prevent the pivot unit from being pivoted; and when the current is too high, they release that block when the current is acceptable, see paragraphs 35-37) .
Regarding claim 21, Kries teaches a switch panel of electrical energy technology, comprising a switching apparatus 2 and an actuating device that is mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus, said actuating device comprising an operable drive unit (5, 6), a pulling cable 9 that is fastened to the drive unit with its pulling cable start, and a pivot unit 3 that can be mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus and that is mechanically connected to the drive unit via the pulling cable (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 23-25).
Regarding claim 22, Kries teaches a method for actuating a switching apparatus of a switch panel of electrical energy technology by means of an actuating device that is mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus, said method comprising: operating a drive unit (5, 6) of the actuating device, whereby a pulling force is applied to a pulling cable 9 such that a pivot unit 3 mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus is pivoted, whereby the switching apparatus is actuated (Figs. 1-4 and paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 23, Kries teaches the method wherein the actuating device comprises the drive unit (5, 6) that is an operable drive unit, the pulling cable 9 that is fastened to the drive unit with its pulling cable start, and the pivot unit 3 that can be mechanically coupled to the switching apparatus and that is mechanically connected to the drive unit via the pulling cable (Figs. 1-4 and paragraph 25).
.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 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kries in view of Elm (US. Pat. 6,637,842).
Regarding claim 13, Kries does not teach the pulling cable 9 is guided in a Bowden cable sheath. However, Elm teaches a similar actuation device that have a pulling cable 30 is guided in a Bowden cable sheath (col. 3, lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Elm for guiding and protecting the cable.
Regarding claim 15, Kries does not teach the drive unit being a rotary drive unit. However, Elm teaches a similar actuation device that have a driver unit 40 with a pulling piece 45 that is configured as rotatable about an axis of rotation, wherein a pulling cable 30 is connected to the pulling piece with its pulling cable start spaced apart from the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-3 and col. 3, lines 30-55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Elm, since both the linear traction drives and the rotary to linear traction drives were conventional ways to generate a pulling force on a remote and substitute one for the other is a simple design choice.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kries in view of Coudert (US. Pat. 6,184,483).
Regarding claim 16, Kries does not teach the pulling piece has a plug-in section that is configured as connectable to a hand crank. However, Coudert teaches a similar actuating device that comprises a pulling piece 21 has a plug-in section (free end of the shaft) that is configured as connectable to a hand crank 26 (Fig. 2 and col. 6, lines 35-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equip a rotary drive member with a such a plug-in interface for emergency or manual operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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 18, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed actuation device wherein the drive unit comprises a releasable blocking device that is configured to block the pivot unit against a pivoting, and wherein the blocking device comprises a locking bolt having a spring-loaded locking pin and the pulling piece has a recess configured as receiving the locking pin in a form-fitting manner.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed actuation device wherein the drive unit comprises a second base at which the pulling cable is supported, at which the pulling piece is rotatably supported about the axis of rotation, and/or at which the blocking device is arranged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M SAEED whose telephone number is (571)270-7976. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/AHMED M SAEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights