DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Information Disclosure Statement filed 14 November 2024 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent typographic error “interrupted a result of” (should be “interrupted [as] a result of”?)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 10-13, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuller et al., US Pg-Pub 2011/0222200.
Regarding Claim 1, Fuller discloses:
An aircraft electric power supply system (fig. 1, see [0033] “high power SSPC 10, suitable for aircraft primary electric power distribution”) comprising: an electric power source (fig. 1, source not depicted, see “Main Power Bus 26” left hand side.) with an electric power supply terminal configured to supply electric power; (see [0021] “a main bus 26, for example a main power bus that carries power between about 25 to about 300 amperes”)
an electric power supply line (i.e. main bus 26) configured to electrically couple the electric power supply terminal to a line terminal of an electric load; (fig. 1, load not depicted; see Main power bus 26, right hand side and [0010] “the SSPC including a solid state switching device (SSSD) receiving power from a main power bus, an electromechanical contactor electrically connected in series to the SSSD, wherein an output from the contactor provides a power output of the SSPC;”)
an electric power controller, (fig. 1, SSSD [0009] “solid state switching device (SSSD)”) arranged in the electric power supply line, (fig. 1, as depicted) configured to selectively control the supply of electric power from the electric power source via the electric power supply line to the electric load; ([0023] “The SSSD 12 responsible for the main bus power switching” see also [0030] “The SSPC control engine 20 may then issue an "on" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning on the SSSD 12 and permitting power flow through the SSPC 10 at step 58.”)
and an electric circuit breaker, (fig. 1, electromechanical contactor 14) arranged in the electric power supply line in serial configuration with the electric power controller, ([0014] “an electromechanical contactor electrically connected in series to the SSSD”) configured to interrupt the supply of electric power from the electric power source via the electric power supply line to the electric load independently of the electric power controller; ([0020] “Furthermore, if the SSSD fails shorted, the electromechanical contactor may serve as a secondary means of fault isolation, thereby aiding in the certification of the SSPC solution according to embodiments of the present invention.”)
wherein the electric circuit breaker has a different configuration than the electric power controller. (citations supra. SSSD is described as a solid state device see [0023], whereas contactor 14 is a conventional electromechanical switch, see [0019]. Which are different components in different configurations.)
Regarding Independent Claim 17, this/these claim(s) recite(s) substantively the same subject matter discussed with respect to claim 1 above, except embodied as a method. Mutatis mutandis, this/these claim(s) is/are likewise anticipated by the disclosure of Fuller for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
wherein the electric power controller (SSSD, see fig. 1) and the electric circuit breaker (electromechanical switch 14, see fig. 1) are serially connected in a common section of the electric power supply line (Main power bus 26) extending between the electric power supply terminal of the electric power source and the line terminal of the electric load. (as depicted in fig. 1, see also [0009] “a solid state power controller (SSPC) comprises a solid state switching device (SSSD) receiving power from a main power bus; a contactor electrically connected in series to the SSSD, wherein an output from the contactor provides a power output of the SSPC.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
the electric power controller comprises a solid state power controller (SSPC); (see [0009], described as an SSPC)
and the SSPC comprises a power transistor as a solid state electric power control element. ([0023] “The SSSD 12 responsible for the main bus power switching can be formed by either conventional Si based MOSFETs, or MOSFETs in combination with IGBTs”)
Regarding Claim 6, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 5,
Fuller further discloses:
wherein the power transistor comprises a field effect transistor. ([0023] “[0023] The SSSD 12 responsible for the main bus power switching can be formed by either conventional Si based MOSFETs” nb. MOSFET – (M)etal–(O)xide–(S)emiconductor (F)ield-(E)ffect (T)ransistor).
Regarding Claim 10, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
wherein the electric power supply line does not include any fuse in addition to the electric power controller and the electric circuit breaker. (no fuse is recited in the preferred embodiment of the disclosure of Fuller. See Fuller background c. [0005]-[0006] discussing why fuses are not used in Fuller.)
Regarding Claim 11, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
a safety controller (fig. 1 [0021] “a DSP based SSPC control engine 20”) configured to control at least one of the electric power controller or the electric circuit breaker. ([0026] “The DSP based SSPC control engine 20 may be responsible for the entire operation of the SSPC 10, including the power commutation (turning power on/off), over current and differential current protection, receiving command and SSPC status reporting through communication network interfaces, coordinated control between the SSSD 12 and the electromechanical contactor 14, contactor coil 24 power minimization, and SSPC's diagnostic/prognostic health management (DPHM).”)
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 11 and 17, respectively.
Fuller further discloses:
(Claim 12 representative) an overcurrent detector configured to detect an overcurrent flowing in the electric power supply line; (at least [0022] “An input power bus current sensor 16 and an output bus current sensor 18 may be used to facilitate SSPC functions and differential current sensing required for primary bus power controls and management.”)
wherein the safety controller is configured to instruct ([0026] “The DSP based SSPC control engine 20 may be responsible for the entire operation of the SSPC 10, including the power commutation (turning power on/off), over current and differential current protection”) at least one of the electric power controller or the electric circuit breaker to interrupt the supply of electric power from the electric power source to the electric load in case the overcurrent is detected in the electric power supply line. ([0031] “the SSPC 10 may receive a turn-off command or may decide to trip due to an overcurrent fault. After this step 64, the SSPC control engine 20 may issue an "off" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning off the SSSD 12 at step 66.” And [0032] “the contactor 14 may serve as a secondary mean for overcurrent fault isolation.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Fuller further discloses:
instruct the electric power controller to switch off in case the overcurrent is detected in the electric power supply line; ([0031] “the SSPC 10 may receive a turn-off command or may decide to trip due to an overcurrent fault. After this step 64, the SSPC control engine 20 may issue an "off" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning off the SSSD 12 at step 66.”)
and cause the electric circuit breaker to trip in case the supply of electric power from the electric power source via the electric power supply line to the electric load is not interrupted a result of instructing the electric power controller to switch off. ([0031] “At a decision point 68, the current through the SSPC 10 may be measured. … However, at decision point 68, if the current is greater than the predetermined current, then the process 62 moves to decision point 72, where the current time spent in process 62 (T) may be compared to a predetermined time (T.sub.P). If T.gtoreq.T.sub.P, then the SSPC control logic 20 may issue an "open" logic to the contactor coil driver 30, thereby opening the contactor 14 at step 74.” [0032] “the contactor 14 may serve as a secondary mean for overcurrent fault isolation.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
An aircraft comprising an aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1. (see claim 8 and [0033] “The hardware configuration of the high power SSPC 10, suitable for aircraft primary electric power distribution applications, may achieve reduced power dissipation, improved reliability and fault current handling capability, simplified component structure, and easy certifiability”)
Regarding Claim 20, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 17,
Fuller further discloses:
instructing the electric power controller to switch off; ([0031] “the SSPC 10 may receive a turn-off command or may decide to trip due to an overcurrent fault. After this step 64, the SSPC control engine 20 may issue an "off" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning off the SSSD 12 at step 66.”)
and causing the electric circuit breaker to trip in case the supply of electric power from the electric power source to the electric load via the electric power supply line is not interrupted as a result of instructing the electric power controller to switch off. ([0031] “At a decision point 68, the current through the SSPC 10 may be measured. … However, at decision point 68, if the current is greater than the predetermined current, then the process 62 moves to decision point 72, where the current time spent in process 62 (T) may be compared to a predetermined time (T.sub.P). If T.gtoreq.T.sub.P, then the SSPC control logic 20 may issue an "open" logic to the contactor coil driver 30, thereby opening the contactor 14 at step 74.” [0032] “the contactor 14 may serve as a secondary mean for overcurrent fault isolation.”)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fuller; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fuller in view of general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as exemplified by Du et al., US Pg-Pub 2021/0143630.
Regarding Claim 2, Fuller discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further discloses:
wherein the electric power controller is able to switch off faster than the electric circuit breaker. ([0003] “SSPC technology is gaining acceptance as a modern alternative to electromechanical contactors due to its high reliability, "soft" switching characteristics, fast response time”)
Should applicant feel that the above cited disclosure of Fuller is not sufficient to anticipate the claimed limitation, in the interest of compact prosecution the claim is alternatively further rejected as obvious over Fuller in view of General knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as exemplified by Du et al., US Pg-Pub 2021/0143630 [0039] “mechanical circuit breakers are disposed downstream of faster-response SSCB”) that solid-state MOSFET based circuit interrupters may be selected/constructed to have faster deactivation time than electromechanical circuit breakers.
Accordingly, examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Fuller, which differ from the claimed device by the express disclosure of the relative de-actuation times of the solid state switch and the electromechanical switch; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Du, representative of the general background knowledge of one ordinary skill in the art, which describes an electromechanical circuit breaker which has a slower de-actuation time than a solid state switch; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because each component is merely performing their intended functions. Accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of General Knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as exemplified by Du et al., US Pg-Pub 2021/0143630 and Horinouchi et al., US PG-Pub 2023/0030964.
Regarding Claim 4, Fuller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller further teaches:
the electric power supply terminal is a first electric power supply terminal of the electric power source; (this limitation is merely enumerating the previously disclosed/taught feature as “a first” feature, and accordingly is also disclosed/taught by Fuller.)
the line terminal of the electric load is a first line terminal; (this limitation is merely enumerating the previously disclosed/taught feature as “a first” feature, and accordingly is also disclosed/taught by Fuller.
Fuller does not clearly articulate:
the electric power source further comprises a second electric power supply terminal;
the electric load further comprises a second line terminal;
and the second electric power supply terminal and the second line terminal are both electrically coupled to a common electric ground.
However, multiplying input/output terminals with a common ground is easily derivable from the disclosure of Fuller and is customary practice in the art of electrical power circuit protection, one example is Du, see e.g. fig. 2, batteries 112 for power sources; and another example is Horinouchi, see e.g. fig. 1, motors 11, for loads. It is also customary in the art to use the airframe itself as the common ground line, see e.g. Horinouchi ([0044] “The airframe of the aircraft or the like sometimes serves also as the ground line.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have made the modification to duplicate the source and/or load terminals as needed by the overall aircraft system design, as one of ordinary skill in the art would know from customary practice.
Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; Examiner is unable to find evidence of record that a new and unexpected result was produced, and accordingly the modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B citing in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Elliot, US Pg-Pub 2018/0226789.
Regarding Claim 7, Fuller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller differs from the claimed invention in that:
Fuller does not appear to clearly articulate:
wherein the electric circuit breaker is a solid state power controller (SSPC) or a solid state tripping device.
However, Elliot teaches a power distribution protection circuit (see fig. 3) for an aircraft (see [0002] “in applications such as aircraft”) where a solid state tripping device is acknowledged as a suitable substitute (and vice versa) for an electromechanical device. (see Elliot fig. 3, and paragraph [0037] “[0037] Although the term SSPC implies that the switching element is accomplished by solid state components such as MOSFETs, it should be understood that a hybrid type SSPC, typically consisting of solid state control logic which in turn commands a relay, contactor, or similar electro-mechanical device, to switch the main current flow may be used in any embodiment of the present invention.”)
Elliot is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of power circuit protection devices.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Fuller, which differ from the claimed device by the use of a solid state switch as the secondary switching component instead of the electromechanical switch disclosed by Fuller; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Elliot, which describe solid state switches and electromechanical switches as mutually interchangeable for the application of power circuit protection in a primary/secondary series line-up; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because each component is merely performing their intended functions and Elliot expressly discloses that these components may be substituted one for the other. (see Elliot [0037]). Accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Regarding Claim 8, Fuller in view of Elliot teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 7,
Elliot further teaches:
wherein the SSPC or the solid state tripping device comprises a power transistor as a solid state electric power switching element. ([0037] “the term SSPC implies that the switching element is accomplished by solid state components such as MOSFETs”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Musiol et al., US 6,639,775.
Regarding Claim 9, Fuller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Fuller fails to clearly articulate:
the electric circuit breaker comprises a circuit breaker overcurrent detector configured to detect an overcurrent flowing through the electric circuit breaker
and the electric circuit breaker is configured to interrupt the supply of electric power from the electric power source to the electric load in case the overcurrent is detected by the circuit breaker overcurrent detector.
However, Musiol teaches an electromechanical circuit breaker (see fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 1-10 “the dashed outer contour represents power circuit breaker 1 as an entity”) which comprises an overcurrent detector configured to detect an overcurrent flowing through the circuit breaker (Col. 3 line 12 “Furthermore, the power circuit breaker 1 has an electronic overcurrent trip unit 4, which performs a protection device in a known manner…”) configured to interrupt supply of power in the case of an over-current detection (ibid. “…in order to open the switching contact 2 where predetermined conditions are satisfied. To this end, the overcurrent trip unit 4 is connected by means of a moving connecting line 5 to a current transformer 6”)
Musiol is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of power circuit protection devices.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Fuller, which differ from the claimed device by the substitution of a circuit breaker with overcurrent detection and trip capabilities for the generic/conventionally described electromechanical circuit breaker of fuller. 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Musiol, which describes an electromechanical circuit breaker which further comprises overcurrent detection/protection features in the circuit breaker; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Musiol teaches that a circuit breaker so constituted improves the reliability of the device against spurious operation (Musiol, col. 1 line 56 “the invention is based on the object of improving the reliability against spurious operation of the power circuit breaker, by improving the transfer of parameters to the electronic overcurrent trip unit.”) and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Holley et al., US Pg-Pub 2014/0103990.
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Fuller teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 11 and 17 respectively,
Fuller further teaches:
(Claim 14 representative) an overvoltage detector configured to detect an overvoltage at the electric power supply line; (see fig. 1, sensors 16, 18, and [0025] “input/output current/voltage sensing signals 16, 18”)
wherein the safety controller is configured to instruct at least one of the electric power controller or the electric circuit breaker to interrupt the supply of electric power from the electric power source to the electric load ([0031] “the SSPC 10 may receive a turn-off command or may decide to trip due to an overcurrent fault. After this step 64, the SSPC control engine 20 may issue an "off" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning off the SSSD 12 at step 66.”)
Fuller differs from the claimed invention in that:
Fuller does not appear to clearly articulate [breaking the supply of power] in case the overvoltage is detected at the electric power supply line.
However, Holley teaches a fail-safe power protection circuit (see fig. 1) for an airframe (see [0033] “that detects, for example, over voltage and over current conditions, for instance, on a mobile platform or vehicle, e.g. aircraft”) which includes monitoring for an overvoltage condition ([0006] “a built-in test circuit that senses an overvoltage condition.”) and interrupting supply of electric power in response (see e.g. [0029] “[0029] The Built-In-Tester Equipment (BITE) circuit 50' detects whether either solid state switches 1-4 have failed by first activating a test gate 60' on a test solid state switch T to apply a small load to the Solid State Power Controller B. With all other primary stage gate drives 20' and 30' off, i.e., open, and a voltage applied to the input, the voltage is sensed at sense line Va. If voltage is present, either solid state switch 2 or solid state switch 4 is shorted. With solid state switch 1 and solid state switch 3 on, or closed, and solid state switch 2 and solid state switch 4 off, or open, a voltage is sensed at sense line Vb. If voltage is present on Vb, one of the solid state switches is shorted. If the test shows that the SSPC B has a failed solid state switch, it can be locked out until repaired.”)
Holley is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of power circuit protection devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Fuller to also open the SSSD and/or electromechanical relay in response to an over-volt condition as suggested by Holley.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved thermal protection to extend the usable life of components, as suggested by Holley ([0033] “thermal protection circuit, for example, that detects, for example, over voltage and over current conditions, for instance, on a mobile platform or vehicle, e.g., aircraft, so as to prevent shortening an expected usable life of a component”)
Regarding Claim 15, Fuller in view of Holley teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 14,
Fuller further teaches:
instruct the electric power controller to switch off in case the overvoltage is detected at the electric power supply line; ([0031] “the SSPC 10 may receive a turn-off command or may decide to trip due to an overcurrent fault. After this step 64, the SSPC control engine 20 may issue an "off" logic to the SSSD gate driver 32, thereby turning off the SSSD 12 at step 66.”) (nb. Holley relied upon to teach: also monitoring for overvoltage conditions. See rejection claim 14 supra).
and cause the electric circuit breaker to trip in case the supply of electric power from the electric power source via the electric power supply line to the electric load is not interrupted as a result of instructing the electric power controller to switch off. ([0031] “At a decision point 68, the current through the SSPC 10 may be measured. … However, at decision point 68, if the current is greater than the predetermined current, then the process 62 moves to decision point 72, where the current time spent in process 62 (T) may be compared to a predetermined time (T.sub.P). If T.gtoreq.T.sub.P, then the SSPC control logic 20 may issue an "open" logic to the contactor coil driver 30, thereby opening the contactor 14 at step 74.” [0032] “the contactor 14 may serve as a secondary mean for overcurrent fault isolation.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kojori et al., US Pg-Pub 2007/0268726 particularly figure 2, depicting multiple power source terminals connected through switching equipment to a load and with a common ground circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights