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 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.
Claims 1-3 & 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US 2022/0122801) in view of Zhou (US 2022/0115859).
With regard to claim 1, Peng, in Fig. 8 teaches an electrical protection device, configured to be connected between a source (coupled to RPL) and a load (RLoad), the device comprising: a mechanical switch (406), configured to toggle between a closed configuration, wherein the mechanical switch conducts a current flowing between the source and the load, and an open configuration, wherein the mechanical switch does not conduct the current (a mechanical switch would necessarily perform this function); a switching cell (412), connected in parallel with the mechanical switch, the switching cell comprising a plurality of switching modules (415 & 418), connected to each other, each switching module comprising: at least one semiconductor element (418); and a voltage limiting element (415), connected in parallel with each semiconductor element, each switching module having a limiting voltage (triggering voltage of the MOVS), each switching module being configured to toggle between a conducting configuration, wherein the current flows through one or each of the semiconductor elements of the switching module, and a blocking configuration, wherein if the current flows through the switching module, the current flows through the voltage limiting element (the switching module would necessarily perform this function as the MOV would trigger to allow current to flow if the FETs of the module are driven to the open configuration); a current sensor configured to measure a value of the current (paragraph 0006 teaches that a current sensor is provided for a wide array of protective functions); a control unit (breaker controller taught in paragraph 0056) comprising: a detection module configured to detect a short-circuit type electrical fault based on the value of the current measured by the current sensor (paragraph 0088 teaches that a module performs fault isolation when a short circuit event is detected); a mechanical switch control module (paragraph 0072 teaches a coil actuator to open the mechanical switch), configured to command the mechanical switch to the open configuration when a short-circuit type electrical fault is detected; and a cell control module (CS), configured to successively switch each switching module to the blocking configuration, one of the switching modules being commanded from the conducting configuration to the blocking configuration when a dielectric strength of the mechanical switch is greater than or equal to a sum of the limiting voltage of said switching module and the limiting voltages of the switching modules in the blocking configuration (paragraphs 0003, 0004 & 0075), wherein an input of the mechanical switch and an input of the switching cell are connected to each other by a non-switchable electrical connection.
Peng does not teach an output of the mechanical switch and an output of the switching cell are connected to each other by a non-switchable electrical connection.
Zhou, in Figure 2A, teaches a hybrid switch similar the invention taught by Peng. It is further taught that an input of a mechanical switch (SW1) and an input of a switching cell (201) are connected to each other by a non-switchable electrical connection (N01) and an output of the mechanical switch (SW1) and an output of the switching cell (201) are connected to each other by a non-switchable electrical connection (N20).
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 Peng with Zhou, by directly connecting the switching cell of Peng to the mechanical switch at both the input and the output and omitting the auxiliary circuit breaker of Peng, for the purpose of reducing the complexity of the circuit and reducing the resistance between the source and the load and decreasing the number of components which can fail.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 6 & 11, Peng in view of Zhou discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses that the switching modules are connected in series with each other (as seen in Fig. 8 of Peng) (re claim 2), wherein each switching module comprises two semiconductor elements that are unidirectional in current and connected to each other in anti-series, and for each semiconductor element, a diode is connected in anti-parallel with the semiconductor element (as seen in Fig. 2A of Zhou) (re claim 3), further comprising a disconnector, connected in series with the mechanical switch without being connected in parallel with the switching cell (this is seen in Fig. 9 of Zhou with circuit breakers 530 & 560 being coupled in series with the mechanical switch 210 but not being in parallel with switching cell 201) (re claim 6),and a method for controlling an electrical protection device, the electrical protection device being according to claim 1, the method comprising at least the following steps: measurement of the value of the current by the current sensor (as taught in paragraph 0006 in Peng and paragraph 0051 of Zhou); detection of a short-circuit type electrical fault by the control unit (paragraph 0088 of Peng and paragraph 0054 of Zhou), based on the value of the current measured by the current sensor; when a short-circuit type electrical fault is detected, commanding the mechanical switch to the open configuration by the mechanical switch control module (paragraph 0054 of Zhou); and successively commanding each switching module to the blocking configuration, one of the switching modules being commanded from the conducting configuration to the blocking configuration when a dielectric strength of the mechanical switch is greater than or equal to the sum of the limiting voltage of said switching module and the limiting voltages of the switching modules in the blocking configuration (paragraphs 0003, 0004 & 0075 of Peng) (re claim 11).
With regard to claim 7, Peng in view of Zhou discloses the claimed invention except that wherein a tripping time between the detection of the short-circuit type electrical fault by the detection module and a transition of all switching modules to the blocking configuration is less than 1ms but shows that the circuit trips at around the 1ms mark in Fig. 7 of Peng. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a preferred tripping time for a specific load, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 8, Peng in view of Zhou discloses the claimed invention except that wherein a tripping time between the detection of the short-circuit type electrical fault by the detection module and a transition of all switching modules to the blocking configuration is less than 400ps but shows that the circuit trips at around the 1ms mark in Fig. 7 of Peng. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a preferred tripping time for a specific load, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 9, Peng in view of Zhou discloses the claimed invention except that a tripping time between the detection of the short-circuit type electrical fault by the detection module and a transition of all switching modules to the blocking configuration is less than 200ps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a preferred tripping time for a specific load, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 10, Peng in view of Zhou discloses the claimed invention except that a nominal voltage of the current flowing between the source and the load being less than 1500 V. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set a limit to the voltage of the system dependent on the load protected, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Zhou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Niehoff (US 2016/0314928).
With regard to claim 4, Peng in view of Zhou teaches the device of claim 2.
Peng in view of Zhou does not teach that the switching cell comprises two rectifying branches, the input and the output of the switching cell forming a midpoint of one of the rectifying branches respectively, each rectifying branch comprising two diodes arranged on either side of the midpoint, connected in anti-series with respect to each other; the switching modules are connected in parallel with the rectifying branches; and each switching module comprises a single semiconductor element connected in parallel with the voltage limiting element.
Niehoff, in Figure 1, teaches a hybrid switch similar to Peng wherein a mechanical switch (SW1) is couped in parallel with a switching cell comprising a solid state switch (IGBT). It is further taught that the switching cell comprises two rectifying branches (D1, D2 & D3, D4), the input and the output of the switching cell forming a midpoint of one of the rectifying branches respectively, each rectifying branch comprising two diodes (D1, D2 & D3, D4) arranged on either side of the midpoint, connected in anti-series with respect to each other; the switching modules are connected in parallel with the rectifying branches; and each switching module comprises a single semiconductor element connected in parallel with the voltage limiting element (as seen in Fig. 1).
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 Peng in view of Zhou with Niehoff, by including the rectifier of Neihoff into the circuit of Peng, for the purpose of allowing the device to use a unidirectional solid-state switch (paragraph 0026 of Neihoff).
With regard to claim 5, Peng in view of Zhou and Niehoff discloses the device of claim 4, and further discloses at least three switching modules (as seen in Fig, 8 of Peng).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Askan (US 2020/0185904) and Carlson (US 11,901,140) both share similarities with Applicant’s invention.
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