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 .
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 21-22, 30-32 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US Publication No. 20140268436) in view of Blanchard et al (US Publication No. 20180372800).
Regarding claim 21, Du teaches a circuit breaker (i.e., CB 10) (fig. 2G) for protecting a low-voltage electrical circuit (i.e., low-voltage electric circuit 10) for AC voltage (i.e., AC voltage Vs), the circuit breaker comprising: a housing (i.e., housing 72) having grid-side (i.e., grid-side connections 1-2) and load-side connections (i.e., load-side connections 3-4) for conductors of the low-voltage circuit; a differential current sensor unit (i.e., differential current sensor unit L1) for determining a level of a differential current (i.e., to sense a current differential; para. [0021]) on the conductors of the low-voltage circuit (e.g., Because the differential transformer L1 is configured to sense a current differential, the equal signals provided by the grounded neutral transmitter L2 effectively cancel each other out; para. [0021]); a mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e., mechanical isolating contact unit 20/K1) (fig. 3) including isolating contacts (i.e., contacts 20; fig. 3) having a closed state (ON) for a flow of current (ON) in the low-voltage circuit or an open state (OFF) for a current-flow-preventing electrical isolation (OFF) in the low-voltage circuit; an electronic interruption unit (i.e., electronic interruption unit Q1 and Q4) having a circuit side connected in series with said mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e., Q1 is in series with coil K1-1 and Q4 is in series with coil K1-2), said electronic interruption unit including semiconductor-based switching elements (i.e., Q1 and Q4 are SCR transistors) having a high-impedance state (OFF) preventing a flow of current (OFF) or a low-impedance state (ON) for a flow of current (ON) in the low-voltage circuit; a control unit (i.e., control unit 18; fig. 3) connected to said differential current sensor unit, to said mechanical isolating contact unit and to said electronic interruption unit (implicit, as seen in fig. 3).
Du does not teach the circuit breaker or said control unit being configured to cause exceeding of first differential current time limit values to result in initiating prevention of a flow of current in the low-voltage circuit: a) by way of a high-impedance state of said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit when said isolating contacts are in a closed state, or b) by way of an open state of said isolating contacts; and exceeding of a second differential current limit value resulting in a prevention of a flow of current in the low-voltage circuit being initiated by way of a high- impedance state of said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit when said isolating contacts are in the closed state.
Blanchard teaches in a similar field of endeavor in power switching systems (i.e., CB 2) (fig. 6); wherein the circuit breaker (i.e., the circuit breaker 2) or said control unit (i.e., control unit 6) being configured to cause exceeding of first differential current time limit values (i.e., first differential current time limit values 5 mA, 30 mA, 100 mA, 1 A, 5 A, 10 A; The measurement 41 of the primary current Ip is preferably an RMS value of the primary current Ip. Said measurement may also be a peak value or a mean value of the primary current Ip. The measurement 41 of the primary current Ip is delivered to a trip circuit 5. The trip circuit 5 includes means 55 for selecting a trip threshold Sd from among multiple possible thresholds Sd, for example: 5 mA, 30 mA, 100 mA, 1 A, 5 A, 10 A or 100 A, this list being nonlimiting; para. [0047]) to result in initiating prevention of a flow of current (OFF) in the low-voltage circuit (e.g., The current transformer 3 thus described is a differential current sensor, delivering a signal representative of a difference in current flowing through the conductors 31, said signal being delivered to a measurement circuit 4 and to a trip circuit 5 such as are described above; para. [0060]): a) by way of a high-impedance state (OFF) of said switching elements (i.e., switching elements Tr; fig. 2) of said electronic interruption unit (i.e., electronic interruption unit 6; fig. 2) when said isolating contacts (i.e., isolating contacts 9; fig. 6) are in a closed state (ON), or b) by way of an open state (OFF) of said isolating contacts; and exceeding of a second differential current limit value (i.e., second differential current limit value 100A; para. [0047]) resulting in a prevention of a flow of current (OFF) in the low-voltage circuit being initiated by way of a high- impedance state (OFF) of said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit when said isolating contacts are in the closed state (implicit, as seen in fig. 6).
Therefore, 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 controller scheme in Du, as taught by Blanchard, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design.
Regarding claim 22, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Blanchard further teaches the circuit breaker of claim 21, wherein an RMS value of the differential current is used to determine the exceeding of the first differential current time limit values (e.g., The measurement 41 of the primary current Ip is preferably an RMS value of the primary current Ip. Said measurement may also be a peak value or a mean value of the primary current Ip. The measurement 41 of the primary current Ip is delivered to a trip circuit 5. The trip circuit 5 includes means 55 for selecting a trip threshold Sd from among multiple possible thresholds Sd, for example: 5 mA, 30 mA, 100 mA, 1 A, 5 A, 10 A or 100 A, this list being nonlimiting. The selection means 55 may be a button, a switch or else a drop-down menu on a screen, this list being nonlimiting. When the measurement 41 of the primary current is higher than the selected threshold Sd, the trip circuit 5 transmits a trip order 52 to an actuator so as to interrupt the flow of the current Ip; para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 30, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Du further teaches the circuit-breaker of claim 21, wherein said mechanical isolating contact unit (i.e., mechanical break contact unit 20/K1) (fig. 2G) is associated with said load-side connections (i.e., load side connections 3-4).
Regarding claim 31, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Du further teaches a method for operating a circuit breaker for protecting a low-voltage electrical circuit for AC voltage (i.e., CB 10) (fig. 2G/fig. 3). And, for the rest of the limitations/features in claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 21. {See rejection of claim 21}
Regarding claim 32, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 22. {See rejection of claim 22}
Regarding claim 37, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 21. {See rejection of claim 21}
Regarding claim 38, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Du further teaches the method of claim 31, a non-transitory computer program product (i.e., non-transitory computer program product; para. [0031]), comprising commands (i.e., commands; para. [0031]) that, upon executing the program on a microcontroller (i.e., microcontroller 40; para. [0030]), cause the microcontroller to facilitate or carry out (implicit, as seen in fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 39, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Du further teaches the method of claim 38, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which the computer program product is stored (e.g., The processing circuit is configured to store a wiring state indicator in a wiring state register based on a wiring state determination; para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 40, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Du further teaches the method of claim 38, a data carrier signal transmitting the computer program product (e.g., Taken together, RAM and ROM may be referred to herein as "computer-readable media." The term "computer-readable medium," as used herein, refers to any medium that participates in providing data and/or instructions to the processor for execution; para. [0031]).
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US Publication No. 20140268436) in view of Blanchard et al (US Publication No. 20180372800) and further in view of Nomura et al (US Patent No. 5844193).
Regarding claim 23, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Neither Du nor Blanchard teaches wherein an instantaneous value of the differential current is used to determine the exceeding of the second differential current limit value.
Nomura teaches in a similar field of endeavor in power switching systems (i.e., controller/driving circuit) (fig. 19); wherein an instantaneous value of the differential current (i.e., instantaneous value of the differential current i01) is used to determine the exceeding of the second differential current limit value (i.e., second differential current limit value b).
Therefore, 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 controller scheme in Du, as taught by Nomura, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design.
Regarding claim 33, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 23. {See rejection of claim 23}
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US Publication No. 20140268436) in view of Blanchard et al (US Publication No. 20180372800) and further in view of Deppe et al (US Publication No. 20080273179).
Regarding claim 24, Du in view of Blanchard and the teachings of Du as modified by Blanchard have been discussed above.
Blanchard further teaches the circuit breaker of claim 21, wherein the exceeding of the second differential current limit value results in the prevention of the flow of current in the low-voltage circuit being effected by way of a high-impedance state of said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit (e.g., The trip circuit 5 includes means 55 for selecting a trip threshold Sd from among multiple possible thresholds Sd, for example: 5 mA, 30 mA, 100 mA, 1 A, 5 A, 10 A or 100 A, this list being nonlimiting. The selection means 55 may be a button, a switch or else a drop-down menu on a screen, this list being nonlimiting; para. [0047]).
Neither Du nor Blanchard teaches wherein within a first break time being less than 20 ms.
Deppe teaches in a similar field of endeavor in power switching systems (i.e. switching plot) (fig. 3); wherein within a first break time (i.e., first switch-off time is the first lower case s in the VT-axis; fig. 3) being less than 20 ms (e.g., The duration of the individual switch-on and switch-off phases is therefore usually of the order of 100 to 1,000 .mu.s in practice, with small switching phases preferably being used; para. [0041]).
Therefore, 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 controller-prevention scheme in Du, as taught by Deppe, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design.
Regarding claim 34, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 24. {See rejection of claim 24}
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 and 35-36 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 25, Du in view of Blanchard teaches the invention set forth above. However, neither Du nor Blanchard particularly teaches wherein: the prevention of the flow of current in the low-voltage circuit brought about by the exceeding of the second differential current limit value is followed by said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit changing to low impedance; a voltage sensor unit is connected to said control unit for determining a level of a voltage of the conductors of the low-voltage circuit; and the change to low impedance takes place when an absolute value of the instantaneous value of the AC voltage is less than a first voltage limit.
Hence claim 25 will be deemed allowable if rewritten in an independent form.
Claims 26-27 depend on objected claim 25, consequently claims 26-27 will also be deemed allowable.
Regarding claim 28, Du in view of Blanchard teaches the invention set forth above. However, neither Du nor Blanchard particularly teaches wherein the second differential current limit value has a higher absolute value than a first differential current limit value or the first differential current time limit value, and the second differential current limit value is a value having a range of 2 to 100 times a first differential current limit value or the first differential current time limit value.
Hence claim 28 will be deemed allowable if rewritten in an independent form.
Regarding claim 29, Du in view of Blanchard teaches the invention set forth above. However, neither Du nor Blanchard particularly teaches which further comprises: a current sensor unit connected to said control unit for determining the level of the current on the conductors of the low-voltage circuit; and the circuit breaker or said control unit being configured to cause exceeding of first current limit values or first current time limit values to result in a prevention of a flow of current in the low-voltage circuit being initiated by way of a high- impedance state of said switching elements of said electronic interruption unit when said isolating contacts are in the closed state.
Hence claim 29 will be deemed allowable if rewritten in an independent form.
Regarding claim 35, Du in view of Blanchard teaches the invention set forth above. However, neither Du nor Blanchard particularly teaches which further comprises: carrying out the prevention of the flow of current in the low-voltage circuit by exceeding the second differential current limit value followed by the switching elements of the electronic interruption unit changing to low impedance; and carrying out the change to low impedance when an absolute value of an instantaneous value of the AC voltage is less than a first voltage limit.
Hence claim 35 will be deemed allowable if rewritten in an independent form.
Claim 36 depends on objected claim 35, consequently claim 36 will also be deemed allowable.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUAAMAR Q AL-TAWEEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0339. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700.
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.
/MUAAMAR QAHTAN AL-TAWEEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights