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 19-36 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Claim 32 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Application argues that paragraphs 0002 and 0003 of Lindell et al. U.S. Patent Application 2016/0149396 (hereinafter “Lindell”) “relate to surge arresters and do not mention fault interrupters, let alone contemplate over-voltage events that may be specifically caused by fault interrupters” and fault interrupters “which protect against ground faults and electrical shorts, and surge arresters, which protect against voltage spikes (e.g., caused by lightning), are not equivalent.” However, the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/06/2026 clearly cites the circuit breakers 108, 110, and 112 as the fault interrupter. These circuit breakers are referred to in paragraphs 0002 and 0003 (i.e. “vacuum circuit breakers” in both paragraphs) and the circuit breakers are described as protecting against electrical shorts (i.e. “Opening during the transformer inrush current or during a short circuit” in paragraph 0003). Furthermore, these two paragraphs were cited to teach “a voltage protector…to protect the transformer from transient over-voltage events caused by the at least one fault interrupter” and [0002] and [0003] discuss the fact that the circuit breakers cause transient over voltages and surge arresters (cited as surge arresters 120, 122, 128, 130, 134, and 136 in the Non-Final Rejection) are used to limit the transient over voltages (refer to [0003] “surge arresters may be utilized to limit transient voltage amplitudes”). In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/06/2026, the surge arresters are cited as equivalent to the claimed “voltage protector” not the claimed “fault interrupter”. Therefore, Lindell does teach both fault interrupters and voltage protectors and the argument is not persuasive. Applicant further argues that “’implicit’ is improper in an anticipation rejection.” However, “implicit” is defined as “capable of being understood from something else though not clearly or directly stated.” In this case, the paragraphs, abstract, and/or claims do not specifically state that the voltage protector is coupled to the at least one winding or that the voltage protector is configured to clamp the voltage along the at least one winding; however, when looking at figure 5 of Lindell, the surge arrestors (equivalent to the voltage protector) are coupled to the windings 102, 104, 106 and based on how the surge arrestors are connected in figure 5, they are configured to clamp the voltage along the windings. Even though it is not explicitly stated in the text of Lindell, Lindell clearly teaches the limitations through the drawings. The word “implicit” was used to indicate this. Applicant also argues that [0002] and [0003] make no mention of clamping the voltage along the at least one winding, however as stated above, the surge arresters are used to limit transient over voltages (refer to [0003] “surge arresters may be utilized to limit transient voltage amplitudes”). This is done by shorting (or clamping) across the terminals of the surge arrester as shown in figure 5 of Lindell. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 22, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindell et al. U.S. Patent Application 2016/0149396 (hereinafter “Lindell”).
Regarding claim 19, Lindell teaches a protection arrangement (refer to fig.5) for a transformer (refer to windings 102, 104, and 106)(fig.5), comprising: at least one fault interrupter (i.e. circuit breaker arrangement 108, 110, and 112)(fig.5) configured to be coupled to at least one winding of the transformer (implicit)(refer to fig.5), to protect the transformer from over-current faults (refer to [0049]); and a voltage protector (i.e. surge arresters 120, 122, 128, 130, 134, and 136)(fig.5) configured to be coupled to the at least one winding (implicit), to protect the transformer from transient over-voltage events caused by the at least one fault interrupter (refer to [0002] and [0003]), wherein the voltage protector is configured to clamp the voltage along the at least one winding to reduce damage to the transformer (implicit)(refer to surge arresters 120, 122, 128, 130, 134, and 136)(fig.5)(refer also to [0002] and [0003]).
Regarding claim 22, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, wherein the at least one fault interrupter includes a pair of fault interrupters (i.e. circuit breaker arrangement 108 and 110)(fig.5) configured to be coupled with a respective pair of sources (i.e. Phase A and Phase B)(fig.5).
Regarding claim 35, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, wherein the transformer is a dry transformer (refer to [0058]).
Regarding claim 36, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, wherein the at least one fault interrupter is a medium-voltage interrupter (refer to [0002]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Tepper et al. U.S. Patent Application 2015/0270699 (hereinafter “Tepper”).
Regarding claim 20, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19; however, Lindell does not teach wherein the at least one fault interrupter is located outside of an enclosure housing the transformer. However, Tepper teaches wherein the at least one fault interrupter is located outside of an enclosure housing the transformer (refer to housing 12 and power switch 40)(fig.1). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell to include the housing of Tepper to provide the advantage of preventing heat or arcing from the transformer from affecting the fault interrupter.
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hermann et al. U.S. Patent No. 3,040,212 (hereinafter “Hermann”).
Regarding claim 21, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19; however, Lindell does not teach wherein the at least one fault interrupter is located inside of an enclosure housing the transformer. However, Hermann teaches wherein the at least one fault interrupter is located inside of an enclosure housing the transformer (refer to tank 5, transformer 2, and circuit breaker 10)(fig.1). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell to include the housing of Hermann to provide the advantage of providing all of the components of the system within a single compact housing which protects all of the components from the elements.
Regarding claim 23, Hermann teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, wherein the voltage protector is located inside of an enclosure housing the transformer (refer to tank 5, transformer 2, and arrester 18)(fig.1). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell to include the housing of Hermann to provide the advantage of providing all of the components of the system within a single compact housing which protects all of the components from the elements.
Regarding claim 34, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19; however, Lindell does not teach wherein the transformer is a liquid-immersed transformer. However, Hermann teaches wherein the transformer is a liquid-immersed transformer (refer to col. 4 line 20). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell to include the liquid-immersed transformer of Hermann to provide the advantage of protecting many different common types of transformers.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Piasecki et al. U.S. Patent Application 2007/0103823 (hereinafter “Piasecki”).
Regarding claim 24, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, wherein the voltage protector includes at least one of metal oxide varistors (refer to surge arresters 120, 122, 128, 130, 134, and 136)(fig.5); however, Lindell does not teach the voltage protector further including at least one of surge arresters as winding arresters. However, Piasecki teaches the voltage protector further including at least one of surge arresters as winding arresters (i.e. thermal fuse 2)(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 modify the protection arrangement of Piasecki to provide the advantage of protecting the varistor from damage due to overheating.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Papapana-Giotou International Patent Document WO 2011/032585 A1 (hereinafter “Papapana”).
Regarding claim 25, Lindell teaches the protection arrangement of claim 19, further comprising one or more monitoring systems (refer to [0058] “power system controller”); however, Lindell does not teach the one or more monitoring systems to monitor one or more conditions in the protection arrangement to determine at least one of the over-current faults and the over-voltage events. However, Papapana teaches the one or more monitoring systems to monitor one or more conditions in the protection arrangement to determine at least one of the over-current faults and the over-voltage events (refer to page 5 lines 11-22). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell to include the monitoring system of Papapana to provide the advantage of protecting the transformer from a number of different types of faults to better prevent damage to the transformer or its connected systems.
Regarding claim 26, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the one or more monitoring systems include a first monitoring system (i.e. Papapana sensors 107)(fig.4) located inside of an enclosure housing the transformer (i.e. Papapana second container 403)(fig.4) and a second monitoring system located outside of the enclosure housing the transformer (i.e. Papapana zero sequence sensors 103 and 103’)(fig.4).
Regarding claim 28, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the one or more monitoring systems include one or more sensors (i.e. Papapana sensors 103, 103’ and 107)(fig.4).
Regarding claim 30, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the one or more monitoring systems is configured to monitor current from an external network to the protection arrangement (refer to Lindell [0080]).
Regarding claim 31, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the protection arrangement includes one or more lines, and the one or more monitoring systems include one or more current transformers (CT) configured to measure current in the one or more lines (refer to Papapana fig.5).
Regarding claim 33, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein at least one of the one or more monitoring systems is coupled to another winding (refer to Lindell [0080]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell and Papapana as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Hulse U.S. Patent Application 2015/0124358 (hereinafter “Hulse”).
Regarding claim 27, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25; however, they do not teach wherein the one or more monitoring systems include one or more relays. However, Hulse teaches wherein the one or more monitoring systems include one or more relays (i.e. MPCV relay 64)(Fig.2). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell and Papapana to include the relays of Hulse to provide the advantage of detecting open feeder conditions.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell and Papapana as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Ma et al. Chinese Patent Document CN 108711829 A (hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 29, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25; however, they do not teach wherein the one or more monitoring systems is configured to monitor current to ground. However, Ma teaches wherein the one or more monitoring systems is configured to monitor current to ground (refer to current transformer CT1)(fig.1). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell and Papapana to include the ground current monitoring of Ma to provide the advantage of detecting a ground fault to determine proper operation of the transformer.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell and Papapana as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Murray U.S. Patent Application 2002/0135964 (hereinafter “Murray”).
Regarding claim 32, Lindell and Papapana teach the protection arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the protection arrangement includes one or more lines (refer to Lindell Phase A, Phase B, and Phase C)(fig.5); however they do not teach the one or more monitoring systems include one or more potential transformers (PT) that measure voltage in the one or more lines. However, Murray teaches the one or more monitoring systems include one or more potential transformers (PT) that measure voltage in the one or more lines (refer to [0126]). 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 protection arrangement of Lindell and Papapana to include the potential transformers of Murray to provide the advantage of allowing the monitoring system to detect and respond to many different types of faults, thereby better protecting the transformer and its connected systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights