So I want to know, is this current invasion significantly different from what the USA has done in past?
There are some similarities. Of course there are also differences.
I'd say one close comparison is the 2004 invasion of Iraq. In that war the US (and others) invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government on the grounds that it had a WMD program.
Another one is the NATO intervention in the Kosovo war. That intervention in Kosovo was also based on an allegation of genocide which later turned out to be false. According to Wikipedia:
The NATO intervention has been seen as a political diversionary
tactic, coming as it did on the heels of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,
pointing to the fact that coverage of the bombing directly replaced
coverage of the scandal in US news cycles. Herbert Foerstel points out
that before the bombing, rather than there being an unusually bloody
conflict, the KLA was not engaged in a widespread war against Yugoslav
forces and the death toll among all concerned (including ethnic
Albanians) skyrocketed following NATO intervention. In a post-war
report released by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, the organization also noted "the pattern of the expulsions and
the vast increase in lootings, killings, rape, kidnappings and pillage
once the NATO air war began on March 24".
US President Clinton, his administration and NATO governments were
accused of inflating the number of Kosovo Albanians killed by state
forces. The conservative media watchdog group Accuracy in Media
charged the alliance with distorting the situation in Kosovo and lying
about the number of civilian deaths in order to justify U.S.
involvement in the conflict.
After the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Chinese
President Jiang Zemin said that the US was using its economic and
military superiority to aggressively expand its influence and
interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Chinese leaders
called the NATO campaign a dangerous precedent of naked aggression, a
new form of colonialism, and an aggressive war groundless in morality
or law. It was seen as part of a plot by the US to destroy Yugoslavia,
expand eastward and control all of Europe.
However, estimates showed that prior to the bombing campaign on 24 March 1999, approximately 1,800 civilians had been killed in the Kosovo war, mostly Albanians but also Serbs and that there had been no evidence of genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Russia has invaded Ukraine (among other things) under the pretence of stopping a genocide which most other countries do not recognize is happening. See for example this question where I also wrote an answer: What exactly does Putin mean by 'genocide' in Ukraine?.
If yes, how do the USA or NATO justify protesting Russian invasion given that they also have a history of human rights violation and civilians deaths?
Last week's episode of Real Time with Bill Maher had an interview with Arizona Congressman Ruben Gallego. Though he doesn't speak on behalf of the US, I think it's relevant for understanding the position taken by most in the West. In the interview he basically answers your question. The Democratic Congressman said (10 minutes into the episode):
Look here's the thing, I get what you're saying, we have had our bad moments, we have not been a perfect country. But that does not excuse us from what is right, right now. And that is backing a democracy that wants to defend itself.
In other words, just because the US (and some allies) made bad decisions then doesn't mean that they aren't right on this issue. To argue that it does is sometimes called out as a logical fallacy known as whataboutism.
I mean what are some main reasons that Russia is being protested and sanctioned this much while the USA wasn't.
This is probably the more interesting part of your question. So you ask about protesting and sanctions. Those are two different things. The 2004 invasion of Iraq was protested also, see the 'opposition to invasion' heading on that war's Wikipedia page.
Sanctions are a different matter entirely. The reason the US and its allies can implement sanctions is because of their political and economic capital. The West has the power to implement meaningful sanctions; that's why they get attention. The Iraq war also saw sanctions, but they were aimed at Saddam Hussain's Iraq.
Some in the US are also sanctioned by other countries, but it's a lot less meaningful. For example, China and Russia have both imposed sanctions on some US politicians in the past.
So why didn't the US get sanctioned for invading Iraq? It's because its allies either went along with it or opposed the move diplomatically rather than punitively. US adversaries didn't have the political capital to impose meaningful sanctions.
What do I mean by political capital? It's that the sanctions should hurt their target more than it hurts yourself. This requires some existing relationship where you have control. For example, the West has control over the SWIFT banking system. Politicians in the West aren't that reliant on US adversaries in any way. The West's reliance on US adversaries is either niche (e.g. Russian gas) or part of a much broader relationship (e.g. trade with China). Sanctions on those relationships would hurt both countries, making them less useful for punishing the other.