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 1-9 are pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Country FRENCH REPUBLIC on 12/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR23/15172 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
The quality of drawings submitted are hard to see. It appears to be scanning issues. Please ensure that the drawings and all the lines within it are readily visible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7, “fault ;” should be -- fault;--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleureau (US 20220013308 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fleureau teaches an electrical circuit (abstract, protection device for an electrical circuit) for supplying at least one electric charge of an aircraft (e.g. load 3, fig.8), the electrical circuit comprising:
at least one electrical power supply electrically connected to the at least one electric charge ([0039], is intended to be connected to an unrepresented source of current, direct, or alternating) by at least one conductive element (e.g. input conductor 4, intermediate conductor 5, o conductor 6, fig.8);
at least one main electrical protection element (e.g. fuse 10, fig.8) positioned between the at least one electrical power supply (e.g. power supply to conductor 4, fig.8) and an upstream point of a section of the at least one conductive element (e.g. upstream of pyroelectric circuit breaker 12A, fig.8) to be protected during an occurrence of an electrical fault ([0076], when these power zones 18 are in a state permitting current flow);
at least one first pyrotechnic switch (i.e. pyroelectric circuit breaker 12A, fig.8) provided with at least one first initiator element ([0048], The first zone 16 is referred to as the control zone and is able to receive a tripping signal S) and at least one first mechanical cut-off element configured to electrically cut-off ([0055], the power zone 18 corresponds to a cut-off zone) the at least one conductive element between the at least one electrical power supply and the upstream point of the section to be protected ([0068], the protective device 2 is in its opening configuration C3 where the pyroelectric circuit breaker 12 is tripped, the power zone 18 is open); and
at least one second pyrotechnic switch (i.e. pyroelectric circuit breaker 12B, fig.8) provided with at least one second initiator element ([0048], The first zone 16 is referred to as the control zone and is able to receive a tripping signal S) and at least one second mechanical cut-off element configured to electrically cut-off ([0055], the power zone 18 corresponds to a cut-off zone) the at least one conductive element between a downstream point of the section to be protected and the at least one electric charge ([0068], the protective device 2 is in its opening configuration C3 where the pyroelectric circuit breaker 12 is tripped, the power zone 18 is open),
wherein the at least one first initiator element and the at least one second initiator element are each electrically positioned in parallel with the at least one main electrical protection element ([0071], two circuit breakers 12A and 12B are connected in parallel between the input conductor 4 and the output conductor 6 in such a way that the current I flowing through the fuse 10).
Regarding claim 2, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein a response time of a triggering of the at least one first initiator element and the at least one second initiator element is less than a mechanical response time of the at least one first mechanical cut-off element and the at least one second mechanical cut-off element ([0056], when an electric current flows through the resistor 20 of the control zone 16, the resistor 20 heats up and triggers the detonation of the explosive agent, which causes the cut-off element) (it is necessarily true that initiator element 20 responds before mechanical cut-off of 18 happens).
Regarding claim 3, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one first initiator element and the at least one second initiator element comprises at least one electrical resistor surrounded by a pyrotechnic powder or liquid ([0056], resistor 20 heats up and triggers the detonation of the explosive agent).
Regarding claim 4, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one first mechanical cut-off element and the at least one second mechanical cut-off element comprises a sectioning piston ([0056], cut-off element, which is not shown, is made of an electrically insulating material, for example plastic).
Regarding claim 6, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one first adjustment resistor electrically positioned in series with the at least one first initiator element ([0064], the electrical resistor 140 is electrically connected in series with the electrical resistor 20).
Regarding claim 7, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one second adjustment resistor electrically positioned in series with the at least one second initiator element ([0064], the electrical resistor 140 is electrically connected in series with the electrical resistor 20).
Regarding claim 8, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one distribution box provided with at least one switching element (e.g. housing of fuse 10, fig.8).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleureau (US 20220013308 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one main electrical protection element has an operating voltage corresponding to half a voltage of the at least one electrical power supply that is applied to the at least one electric charge ([0045], rated voltage is at least four times, for example five times or ten times lower than the nominal value V.sub.n).
Fleureau does not specifically teach, half a voltage of the at least one electrical power supply.
However, 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 the at least one main electrical protection element has an operating voltage corresponding to half a voltage of the at least one electrical power supply, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one main electrical protection element has an operating voltage corresponding to half a voltage of the at least one electrical power supply of Fleureau to provide the advantage of optimal protection to a circuit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleureau (US 20220013308 A1), and further in view of Rousset (US 20230005684 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fleureau teaches the electrical circuit according to Claim 1.
Fleureau does not teach, an aircraft comprising the at least one electric charge powered by the electrical circuit.
Rousset teaches in a similar field of endeavor of pyrotechnic circuit breaker, an aircraft comprising the at least one electric charge powered by the electrical circuit ([0017], the aircraft comprises at least one means of electric propulsion).
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 aircraft comprising the at least one electric charge powered by the electrical circuit in Fleureau, as taught by Rousset, as it provides the advantage of protecting the main circuit from faults, while maintain smaller dimensions of protective components.
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 06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights