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 § 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 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)(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsushita (US 2016/0226238).
With regard to claims 1-5, Matsushita, in Figure 1 & 7, discloses a breaker apparatus comprising: a circuit breaker (5) configured to disconnect and connect a power line connecting a DC power source (1 & paragraph 0049) and a load device (LOAD); and a controller (6b) configured to control the circuit breaker to repeatedly disconnect and connect the power line upon occurrence of a condition in which an inrush current is detected in the power line (as taught in paragraphs 0044-0047) (re claim 1), wherein the controller is configured to: receive a signal indicating an event that generates the inrush current (via current detecting part 6c), and determine, in response to receiving the signal, that the inrush current has been detected, or detect that a magnitude of a current flowing through the power line is equal to or greater than a threshold, and determine that the inrush current has been detected (paragraphs 0044-0047) (re claim 2), wherein the controller is configured to control the circuit breaker to repeatedly perform disconnection during an OFF time and connection during an ON time (as seen in Fig. 7) (re claim 3), wherein the controller is configured to control the circuit breaker such that the ON time gradually increases (paragraph 0045 teaches that the duty ratio is changed and Fig. 7 teaches that the FET is on for a longer time each time that the breaker is turned on) (re claim 4), wherein the controller is configured to bring the circuit breaker into a connected state upon occurrence of a condition in which a peak of a current flowing through the power line is lower than or equal to a threshold (as seen in Fig. 7, once the inrush current no long crosses the threshold current Ith, the circuit breaker is maintained in the connected state) (re claim 5).
With regard to claim 6, Matsushita, in Figures 1 & 7, discloses a control apparatus configured to control a breaker apparatus (5) between a DC power source (1) and a load device (LOAD) that are connected by a power line, the control apparatus comprising: circuitry (6b) configured to: receive a signal (via current detecting part 6c) indicating occurrence of an inrush current in the power line; and instruct the breaker apparatus to repeatedly disconnect and connect the power line, in response to receiving the signal (paragraphs 0044-0047).
With regard to claim 7, Matsushita, in Figures 1 & 7, discloses an inrush current suppression method executed by a breaker apparatus (5) between a DC power source (1) and a load device (LOAD) that are connected by a power line, the inrush current suppression method comprising detecting occurrence of an inrush current in the power line (via current detecting part 6c); and repeatedly disconnecting and connecting the power line (paragraphs 0044-0047).
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 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 of this title, 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Mills (US 2020/0249742).
With regard to claim 8, Matsushita teaches the method of claim 7.
Matsushita does not teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute the inrush current suppression method.
Mills, in Figure 4a, teaches a controller for limiting an inrush current from a DC source to a load by controlling a breaker (306). It is further taught that a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program is configured to cause a computer to execute the inrush current suppression method (paragraph 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsushita with Mills, by using a computer with non-transitory media to perform the functions of the controller of Matsushita, for the purpose of allowing a programmable controller to act as the controller which is readily available and able to be upgraded.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun (US 2024/0388080) teaches a circuit to protect against an inrush current from a DC source by repeatedly turning a circuit breaker on and off until the inrush subsides. It is also taught that a duty cycle or duration of the switching can be changed during the limiting event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm 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 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights