DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 10/5/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 6 and 8 are canceled;
Claims 1, 9, and 12 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-15 are pending;
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 .
35 USC § 112
The rejection to claim 7, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0044823A1 hereinafter “Bhattacharya” in view of NPL “Heat Transfer Enhancement in a Rectangular Cooling Channel with Airfoil Shaped Fins” hereinafter “NPL”
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharya discloses a low voltage, medium voltage or high voltage switchgear (¶19L1: electrical equipment), comprising:
a first component (¶16L14: conductor [124]); and
an air guide structure (¶19L2: a barrier [204]) wherein
the first component is a busbar (¶16L14: conductor [124]); wherein
one or more of the air guide structures are configured to direct air to enter the air guide structure at an entrance (¶37L1-10: air enters the compartment from the end [622]) then flow tangentially to a first surface of the first component (as shown in Fig.6) and then leave the air guide structure at an exit. (¶38L1-10: the hot air exit the compartments from end [624])
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the air guide structure comprises a plurality of guiding vanes; wherein the plurality of guiding vanes are located adjacent to the first component, wherein
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises an upper outer guiding vane located above the first component, and wherein the plurality of guiding vanes comprises a lower outer guiding vane located below the first component; and wherein
the upper outer guiding vane extends from the entrance of the air guide structure to the exit of the air guide structure, and wherein the lower outer guiding vane extends from the entrance of the air guide structure to the exit of the air guide structure.
NPL discloses an air cool structure wherein airfoil fins are used (Page. 3 Right Column L12: each row of the fin array) and wherein there in an inlet array (Page. 3 Right Column L21: row 1, inlet guide vanes) and there is an outlet array (Page. 3 Left Column L13-16: the shaped fins were added to his section of the channel, outlet section)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the barrier disclosed by Bhattacharya to incorporate the fin array disclosed by the NPL, thereby making the inlet guide vanes to be below the conductor [124] where in the air enters [622] and the outlet guide vanes to be above the conductors [124] where the air exits [624], and the guide vanes extends from the inlet all the way to the outlet as shown in Fig.2a of the NPL.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because NPL discovered the airfoil shaped guide vanes helps improves the heat transfer within the rectangular channel by approximately three times. (NPL Page.11 Left Column L44-65)
Regarding claim 2, Bhattacharya in view of NPL hereinafter “Bhattacharya/NPL” discloses in Bhattacharya the switchgear according to claim 1, wherein
the first surface of the first component is flat. (as shown in Fig.3, the conductor [124] is flat)
Regarding claim 3, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second component (Bhattacharya ¶16L14: conductor [126]); wherein
the second component is adjacent to the first component (as shown in Fig.6 of Bhattacharya); wherein
the plurality of guiding vanes are located adjacent to the second component (as modified in claim 1 above); and wherein
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes are configured to direct air to enter the air guide structure at the entrance (Bhattacharya ¶37L1-10: air enters the compartment from the end [622]) then flow tangentially to a first surface of the second component and then leave the air guide structure at the exit. (Bhattacharya ¶38L1-10: the hot air exit the compartments from end [624])
Regarding claim 4, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses in Bhattacharya the switchgear according to claim 3, wherein the first surface of the second component is flat. (as shown in Fig.3, the conductor [126] is flat)
Regarding claim 5, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses in Bhattacharya the switchgear according to claim 4, wherein
the second component is parallel to the first component. (as shown in Fig.6)
Regarding claim 7, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 3
the upper outer guiding vane is located above the second component. (as modified in claim 1 above)
Bhattacharya to incorporate the fin array disclosed by the NPL, thereby making the inlet guide vanes to be below the conductor [124] where in the air enters [622] and the outlet guide vanes to be above the conductors [124] where the air exits [624], and the guide vanes extends from the inlet all the way to the outlet as shown in Fig.2a of the NPL.
Regarding claim 9, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 8,
the lower outer guiding vane is located below a second component. (as modified in claim 1 above)
Bhattacharya to incorporate the fin array disclosed by the NPL, thereby making the inlet guide vanes to be below the conductor [124] where in the air enters [622] and the outlet guide vanes to be above the conductors [124] where the air exits [624], and the guide vanes extends from the inlet all the way to the outlet as shown in Fig.2a of the NPL.
Regarding claim 10, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 1,
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises one or more front guiding vanes located at the entrance of the air guide structure. (as modified in claim 1 above)
Bhattacharya to incorporate the fin array disclosed by the NPL, thereby making the inlet guide vanes to be below the conductor [124] where in the air enters [622] and the outlet guide vanes to be above the conductors [124] where the air exits [624], and the guide vanes extends from the inlet all the way to the outlet as shown in Fig.2a of the NPL.
Regarding claim 12, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according claim 1,
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises one or more rear guiding vanes located at the exit of the air guide structure. (as modified in claim 1 above)
Bhattacharya to incorporate the fin array disclosed by the NPL, thereby making the inlet guide vanes to be below the conductor [124] where in the air enters [622] and the outlet guide vanes to be above the conductors [124] where the air exits [624], and the guide vanes extends from the inlet all the way to the outlet as shown in Fig.2a of the NPL.
Regarding claim 14, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 1,
Bhattacharya/NPL does not explicitly disclose:
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes are flat plates.
NPL does recognize that round pins and narrow strip fins are also commonly used (Page.11 L41-43)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the fins to be a narrow strip fin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because NPL recognizes the two shape is an equivalent structure known in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the in the NPL switchgear according to claim 1, wherein
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes are airfoils. (Page.11 Left Column L35: airfoil shaped fin array)
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya/NPL in view of Machine Translation of CN116792832A hereinafter “Choi”
Regarding claim 11, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 10,
Bhattacharya/NPL does not explicitly disclose:
the one or more front guiding vanes comprises a plurality of front guiding vanes, and wherein a honey comb structure is formed at least in part from the plurality of front guiding vanes.
Choi discloses an air cooling channel wherein a honeycomb plate is adopted. (Page.4: a number of honeycomb holes are provided inside the air guide and flow equalizing plate)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the barrier disclosed by Bhattacharya to include a honeycomb equalizing plate at the inlet and outlet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the vanes to guide the air evenly. (Choi Page.4)
Regarding claim 13, Bhattacharya/NPL discloses the switchgear according to claim 12, Bhattacharya/NPL does not explicitly disclose:
Bhattacharya/NPL does not explicitly disclose:
the one or more rear guiding vanes comprises a plurality of rear guiding vanes, and wherein a honey comb structure is formed at least in part from the plurality of rear guiding vanes.
Choi discloses an air cooling channel wherein a honeycomb plate is adopted. (Page.4: a number of honeycomb holes are provided inside the air guide and flow equalizing plate)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the barrier disclosed by Bhattacharya to include a honeycomb equalizing plate at the inlet and outlet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the vanes to guide the air evenly. (Choi Page.4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on a the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
