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 .
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/07/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guenot (US 20150009593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guenot teaches an electrical protective device configured to mitigate leakage current in an electrical circuit (abstract, Device for protecting against leakage currents, the device being intended to be wired up), the electrical protective device comprising:
a positive side electrical power control ([0046], control can for example stem from a microcontroller, not represented in this figure, which also controls the breaker 4) electrically connected to a positive terminal of a line side of the electrical circuit ([0037], first electrical connection 2 being connected to the output of a breaker 4) and configured to control electrical power from a power source electrically connected to the electrical circuit ([0043], when the breaker 4 is closed and a load is powered by the first and second electrical connections 2 and 3), wherein the positive side electrical power control is electrically connected in series with a load electrically connected to the electrical circuit ([0038], in the wiring for a load); and
a shunt switch (e.g. device 1, figs.1-2) electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the positive side electrical power control and the load ([0037], device 1 is connected to a first electrical connection 2), the shunt switch electrically connected in parallel with the load ([0037], device 1 is connected to a first electrical connection 2 and to a second electrical connection 3), the shunt switch configured to provide a shunt low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load when the electrical protective device enters a standby mode wherein in which the positive side electrical power control is at least partially turned off ([0050], it is when the control signal is zero that the device 1 is considered to be active) ([0051], When the breaker 4 is closed, the device 1 can be rendered inactive by sending a non-zero signal to the control circuit 12).
Regarding claim 6, Guenot teaches the electrical protective device of claim 1, wherein the shunt switch is configured to turn off when the electrical protective device enters an on mode ([0051], When the breaker 4 is closed, the device 1 can be rendered inactive by sending a non-zero signal to the control circuit 12).
Regarding claim 9, Guenot teaches the electrical protective device of claim 1, wherein the shunt switch comprises an electronic shunt switch (i.e. transistor 5, figs.1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenot (US 20150009593 A1), and further in view of Song (X. Song, Y. Du and P. Cairoli, "Survey and Experimental Evaluation of Voltage Clamping Components for Solid State Circuit Breakers," 2021 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2021, pp. 401-406).
Regarding claim 2, Guenot teaches the electrical protective device of claim 1.
Guenot does not teach, wherein the positive side electrical power control comprises an isolation switch, a semiconductor device, and an energy absorbing clamp circuit, the isolation switch configured to isolate the electronic circuit from the power source, the semiconductor device configured to control current flow in the electrical circuit, and the energy absorbing clamp circuit configured to absorb current in the electrical circuit.
Song teaches in a similar field of endeavor of circuit breakers, a positive side electrical power control (e.g. hybrid circuit breaker, fig.1b) comprises an isolation switch (e.g. mechanical switch, fig.1b), a semiconductor device (e.g. low voltage solid state switch and solid state switch, fig.1b), and an energy absorbing clamp circuit (e.g. voltage clamping, fig.1b), the isolation switch configured to isolate the electronic circuit from the power source (page 1, mechanical switch … relatively fast current interruption speed), the semiconductor device configured to control current flow in the electrical circuit (page 1, the solid state switch, … relatively fast current interruption speed), and the energy absorbing clamp circuit configured to absorb current in the electrical circuit (page 1, voltage clamping component, which has two functionalities: a) to clamp the peak voltage across the power semiconductor device to avoid over-voltage damage; and b) to absorb the residual energy).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the positive side electrical power control comprises an isolation switch, a semiconductor device, and an energy absorbing clamp circuit, the isolation switch configured to isolate the electronic circuit from the power source, the semiconductor device configured to control current flow in the electrical circuit, and the energy absorbing clamp circuit configured to absorb current in the electrical circuit in Guenot, as taught by Song, as it provides the advantage of low conduction losses and relatively fast current interruption speed.
Regarding claim 3, Guenot and Song teach the electrical protective device of claim 2, wherein in the standby mode, the semiconductor device is turned off (Song, page 1, after the solid state (SS) switches turn-off).
Regarding claim 4, Guenot and Song teach the electrical protective device of claim 2, wherein the semiconductor device comprises a metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (Song, page 1, like the silicon carbide (SiC) MOSFETs).
Claims 5, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenot (US 20150009593 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 20160322809 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Guenot teaches the electrical protective of claim 1.
Guenot does not teach, further comprising a negative side electrical power control electrically connected to a negative terminal on the line side of the electrical circuit, wherein a first end of the shunt switch is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the positive side electrical power control and the load and a second end of the shunt switch is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the negative side electrical power control and the load, and wherein the shunt switch is configured to provide the shunt low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load and into the negative side electrical power control and vice versa.
Wang teaches in a similar field of endeavor of DC circuit breakers, a negative side electrical power control (e.g. main circuits 530 and transient circuits 532, fig.5) electrically connected to a negative terminal on the line side of the electrical circuit ([0047], a negative DC output 522 that each couple to DC circuit breaker 506), wherein a first end of a shunt switch (e.g. switches 534, fig.5) is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the positive side electrical power control and the load (e.g. connection between 534 and positive DC bus 512, fig.5) and a second end of the shunt switch is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the negative side electrical power control and the load (e.g. connection between 534 and negative DC bus 514, fig.5), and wherein the shunt switch is configured to provide the shunt low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load and into the negative side electrical power control and vice versa ([0028], High-voltage semiconductor switch 322 thus facilitates a quick break sufficient for human fault protection) (functionality of switch 322 of fig.4 is similar to switch 534 of fig.5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included a negative side electrical power control electrically connected to a negative terminal on the line side of the electrical circuit, wherein a first end of the shunt switch is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the positive side electrical power control and the load and a second end of the shunt switch is electrically connected to the electrical circuit between the negative side electrical power control and the load, and wherein the shunt switch is configured to provide the shunt low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load and into the negative side electrical power control and vice versa in Guenot, as taught by Wang, as it provides the advantage of diverting the current from main circuit during fault conditions created by human touch.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 19, Guenot and Wang teach the electrical protective device of claim 18, wherein the common mode voltage protection system comprises a first shunt switch (Wang, switch 534 connected to bus 512, fig.5), a ground (Wang, e.g. ground between switches 534, fig.5), and a second shunt switch Wang, switch 534 connected to bus 514, fig.5), the first shunt switch electrically connected in series between the positive side electrical power control and the ground (Wang, e.g. 534 is in series between 512 and ground, fig.5), the second shunt switch electrically connected in series between the negative side electrical power control and the ground (Wang, e.g. 534 is in series between 514 and ground, fig.5).
Regarding claim 21, Guenot and Wang teach the electrical protective device of claim 19, wherein the first and second shunt switches comprise electronic shunt switches (Wang, [0049], semiconductor switches 534).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
Claims 7-8, 10 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Guenot (US 20150009593 A1) teaches the electrical protective device of claim 6.
Guenot does not teach, wherein the positive side electrical power control is configured to turn on after the shunt switch is turned off when the electrical power device enters the on mode.
Prior art Weinert (US 7924538 B2), Billings (US 4656365 A), Telefus (US 20200106260 A1) and Montgomery (US 20060049818 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the positive side electrical power control is configured to turn on after the shunt switch is turned off when the electrical power device enters the on mode.”
Regarding claim 8, Guenot (US 20150009593 A1) teaches the electrical protective device of claim 1.
Guenot does not teach, wherein the shunt switch comprises a mechanical shunt switch.
Prior art Weinert (US 7924538 B2), Billings (US 4656365 A), Telefus (US 20200106260 A1) and Montgomery (US 20060049818 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the shunt switch comprises a mechanical shunt switch.”
Regarding claim 10, Guenot (US 20150009593 A1) teaches the electrical protective device of claim 1.
Guenot does not teach, further comprising a crowbar circuit electrically connected to the electrical circuit in series with the positive side electrical power control and in parallel with the shunt switch and the load, the crowbar circuit configured to provide a crowbar low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load when the electrical protective device enters the standby mode.
Weinert (US 20090262473 A1) teaches in a similar field of endeavor of protective circuit for an electrical device, a crowbar circuit (i.e. crowbar circuit K, fig.1) electrically connected to the electrical circuit in series with the positive side electrical power control (e.g. connected between input terminal 1 and output terminal 3, fig.1), the crowbar circuit configured to provide a crowbar low resistance path for directing leakage current from the positive side electrical power control away from the load ([0020], thyristor T4 instantaneously becomes conductive. A very high current flows).
Weinert does not teach, in parallel with the shunt switch and the load and when the electrical protective device enters the standby mode.
Prior art Billings (US 4656365 A), Telefus (US 20200106260 A1) and Montgomery (US 20060049818 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “in parallel with the shunt switch and the load and when the electrical protective device enters the standby mode.”
Regarding claim 11, Guenot (US 20150009593 A1) and Weinert (US 20090262473 A1) substantially teach the claim limitations as stated above in claims 1 and 10.
Guenot and Weinert do not teach, when the electrical protective device enters a standby mode in which the electrical power control is at least partially turned off.
Prior art Billings (US 4656365 A), Telefus (US 20200106260 A1) and Montgomery (US 20060049818 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “when the electrical protective device enters a standby mode in which the electrical power control is at least partially turned off.”
Claims 12-17 are allowed, as they depend on allowed claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, it is allowed for the same reasons as stated above for claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights