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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP23203556.8 filed on 10/13/2023 has been received/retrieved by the office.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, the claim recites “the upper outer guiding vane” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2016/0044823A1 hereinafter “Bhattacharya”
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]) comprising a plurality of guiding vanes (¶28L1-2: the barrier includes a plurality of perforation); wherein
the plurality of guiding vanes are located adjacent to the first component (as shown in Fig.3 foe example); and wherein
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes 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])
Regarding claim 2, Bhattacharya discloses 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 discloses the switchgear according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second component (¶16L14: conductor [126]); wherein
the second component is adjacent to the first component (as shown in Fig.6); wherein
the plurality of guiding vanes are located adjacent to the second component (as shown in Fig.6; ¶39L1-2: the side barrier may be place parallel to each other); 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 (¶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. (¶38L1-10: the hot air exit the compartments from end [624])
Regarding claim 4, Bhattacharya discloses 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 discloses the switchgear according to claim 4, wherein
the second component is parallel to the first component. (as shown in Fig.6)
Regarding claim 14, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 1, wherein
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes are flat plates. (¶35L1-2: the barrier has a flat surface)
Regarding claim 15, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 1, wherein
one or more of the plurality of guiding vanes are airfoils. (¶31L10-125: the creation of in the channel causes acceleration in the air flowing in the channel thereby effecting faster cooling)
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya.
Regarding claim 6, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according claim 1,
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises an upper outer guiding vane located above the first component, and wherein the upper outer guiding vane extends from the entrance of the guide structure to the exit of the air guide structure.
Bhattacharya does recognize that the barrier may be modify to be in different shape/size (¶45L1-17: a measurement of longitudinal dimension may be equal o or smaller than the barrier)as shown in Fig.4 for example, and that additional barrier may be added to the equipment’s in order to cause acceleration in the air flowing in the channel thereby effecting faster cooling. (¶31L1-12)
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 meet the recited limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Bhattacharya disclose that the dimensions and spacing distance (B/L) ratio affects the effectiveness of cooling and thus making the dimensions of the barrier a result effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 3
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the upper outer guiding vane is located above the second component.
Bhattacharya does recognize that the barrier may be modify to be in different shape/size (¶45L1-17: a measurement of longitudinal dimension may be equal o or smaller than the barrier)as shown in Fig.4 for example, and that additional barrier may be added to the equipment’s in order to cause acceleration in the air flowing in the channel thereby effecting faster cooling. (¶31L1-12)
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 meet the recited limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Bhattacharya disclose that the dimensions and spacing distance (B/L) ratio affects the effectiveness of cooling and thus making the dimensions of the barrier a result effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 3,
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises a lower outer guiding vane located below the first component, and wherein the lower outer guiding vane extends from the entrance of the guide structure to the exit of the air guide structure.
Bhattacharya does recognize that the barrier may be modify to be in different shape/size (¶45L1-17: a measurement of longitudinal dimension may be equal o or smaller than the barrier)as shown in Fig.4 for example, and that additional barrier may be added to the equipment’s in order to cause acceleration in the air flowing in the channel thereby effecting faster cooling. (¶31L1-12)
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 meet the recited limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Bhattacharya disclose that the dimensions and spacing distance (B/L) ratio affects the effectiveness of cooling and thus making the dimensions of the barrier a result effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 8,
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the lower outer guiding vane is located below a second component.
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
Bhattacharya does recognize that the barrier may be modify to be in different shape/size (¶45L1-17: a measurement of longitudinal dimension may be equal o or smaller than the barrier)as shown in Fig.4 for example, and that additional barrier may be added to the equipment’s in order to cause acceleration in the air flowing in the channel thereby effecting faster cooling. (¶31L1-12)
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 meet the recited limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Bhattacharya disclose that the dimensions and spacing distance (B/L) ratio affects the effectiveness of cooling and thus making the dimensions of the barrier a result effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya in view of Machine Translation of CN116792832A hereinafter “Choi”
Regarding claim 10, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according to claim 1, Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises one or more front guiding vanes located at the entrance of the air guide structure.
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 11, Bhattacharya in view of Choi hereinafter “Bhattacharya/Choi” discloses in Choi the switchgear according to claim 10, wherein
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. (Page.4: a number of honeycomb holes are provided inside the air guide and flow equalizing plate)
Regarding claim 12, Bhattacharya discloses the switchgear according claim 1,
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of guiding vanes comprises one or more rear guiding vanes located at the exit of the air guide structure.
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/Choi discloses in Choi the switchgear according to claim 12, wherein
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. (Page.4: a number of honeycomb holes are provided inside the air guide and flow equalizing plate)
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights