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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 12/03/2025 to the non-final Office action of 09/03/2025 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending elected and new claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gap” recited in claim 21 must be shown and reference number(s) provided therefor on the figures and in the specification, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number(s) must be provided for the “gap” recited in claim 21 (see the drawings objection above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a gap along the access door”. There is no support for any “gap(s)” in the specification. The specification does not teach any “gap(s)”. Accordingly, said “gap” constitutes an impermissible new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a gap along the access door”. It’s not clear what said “gap” actually is (i.e., on Fig. 4 it can be either a “gap” in a vertical direction between different “seats”, in a horizontal direction between different “seats”, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-4, 9, 11-13, 19, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 1,788,719 to Horton, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horton in view of US 2,905,791 to Edmunds.
Regarding claim 1, Horton discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 5) an enclosure (1), comprising: a fuse housing (4, 4’) configured to hold a fuse (13), the fuse housing (4, 4’) comprising fuse clips (11, 12) operable to receive terminals of the fuse; an access door (17); and a fuse positioning structure (16, 18) attached to an interior surface of the access door, the fuse positioning structure having a fuse seat (18) that is operable to contact the fuse to cause the terminals of the fuse to be seated in the fuse clips when the fuse is inserted into the fuse housing and the access door is closed (col. 5, ll. 30-38).
Regarding claim 11, Horton discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 5) an enclosure (1) comprising: a fuse housing (4, 4’) configured to hold a fuse (13), the fuse housing comprising fuse clips (11, 12) operable to receive terminals of the fuse; and a movable fuse positioning structure (16, 18) attached to an interior surface of the enclosure or to the fuse housing and configured to move onto and away from the fuse, the movable fuse positioning structure having a fuse seat (18) operable to contact the fuse to cause the terminals of the fuse to be seated in the fuse clips when the fuse is inserted into the fuse housing and the movable fuse positioning structure contacts the fuse (col. 5, ll. 30-38).
Alternatively, Edmunds discloses a fuse positioning structure (25) with rounded fuse seats as can be clearly seen on Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6 for secure vertical and axial positioning of the current limiting fuses ((28, 39, 40), col. 3, ll. 27-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Horton by implementing fuse seats as taught by Edmunds in order to enhance securement of the fuses. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Horton as modified by Edmunds discloses (see Edmunds) that one or more dimensions of the fuse seat are based on a size and a shape of a body of the fuse (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Horton as modified by Edmunds discloses (see Edmunds) that the fuse seat is a first fuse seat; the fuse is a first fuse (28); the fuse positioning structure includes the first fuse seat and a second fuse seat; and one or more dimensions of the fuse positioning structure are based on a size and a shape of the first fuse and a size and a shape of a second fuse (39) (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Horton as modified by Edmunds discloses (see Edmunds) that the fuse positioning structure (25) includes conductive structures (26, 27, 29, 30, 55, 56-61), that are attached to the fuse positioning structure and configured to contact a respective fuse clip (21-25).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Horton discloses (Figs. 1, 2, and 5) wherein: the fuse seat (18) is a first fuse seat; the fuse positioning structure is a first movable fuse positioning structure (16, 18) that is attached to the interior surface of the access door (17) at a first location that causes the first fuse seat to contact an upper region of the fuse (13) when the access door is closed; the enclosure further comprises a second movable fuse positioning structure (16, 18) having a second fuse seat (18), the second fuse positioning structure attached to the interior surface of the access door (17) at a second location that causes the second fuse seat to contact a lower region of the fuse (13) when the access door is closed; the fuse clips comprise a first fuse clip (11) positioned at a top of a fuse slot of the fuse housing (4, 4’) and a second fuse clip (12) positioned at a bottom of the fuse slot; the terminals of the fuse comprise a first terminal and a second terminal (not numbered, but can be clearly seen on Figs. 2 and 5); and when the access door (17) is closed, the first fuse positioning structure is operable to cause the first terminal to be seated in the first fuse clip and the second fuse positioning structure is operable to cause the second terminal to be seated in the second fuse clip (col. 5, ll. 30-38).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Horton discloses (Fig. 2) that the fuse seat (18) is a first fuse seat; and wherein the fuse positioning structure includes a second fuse seat (18) spaced from the first fuse seat by a gap along the (vertical direction of the) access door (17).
Alternatively, Edmunds discloses a fuse positioning structure (25) with rounded fuse seats with gaps therebetween as can be clearly seen on Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6 for secure vertical and axial positioning of the current limiting fuses ((28, 39, 40), col. 3, ll. 27-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Horton by implementing fuse seats as taught by Edmunds, so the modification would have fuse seats that are spaced from each other by gaps along the access door, in order to predictably enhance securement of the fuses. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-8 and 14-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Horton or Horton-Edmunds combination, each taken with US 7, 369, 029 to Ackermann.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 14-19 either Horton or Horton-Edmunds combination do not disclose that the conductive structure is operably connected to a monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprises a voltage monitoring device or a temperature monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprises an output device, wherein the monitoring device comprises a communication device.
Ackerman discloses a monitoring device (Figs. 1-3) for a fuse (110), wherein the monitoring device comprises a voltage monitoring device (120) or a temperature monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprises an output device (252, 254), wherein the monitoring device comprises a communication device (252) for the benefits of remotely monitoring the status of the fuse via remote reader (140) (col. 2, ll. 40-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Horton or Horton-Edmunds combination according to the teachings of Ackermann, so the modification would have: the conductive structure is operably connected to a monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprises a voltage monitoring device or a temperature monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprises an output device, wherein the monitoring device comprises a communication device, in order to predictably provide remote fuse status monitoring functionality (Ackerman, col. 2, ll. 40-56). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, Applicant states: “Claim 1, as amended, requires:”. On the contrary, claim 1 has not been amended.
Secondly, the gist of the arguments is that, allegedly, in Horton “the cross bars 18 do not contact the fuses in Horton. Rather, each cross bar 18 in Horton lies directly against one of the pair of fuse terminal clips when the door 17 is closed. See Horton, page 3, column 1, lines 35-38; and FIG. 2 (reproduced below). Accordingly, each cross bar 18 of Horton is offset from the fuse itself. For at least these reasons, Horton does not anticipate claim 1”.
The aforementioned Applicant’s conclusion is believed to be in error. It appears that Applicant misinterprets teachings of Horton. On the contrary, as can be clearly seen on Fig. 5 of Horton, when the door (17) is closed, said cross bars (18) are pressing against, and directly in contact with, the fuse terminals (which are parts of the fuse). Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s position, each cross bar (18) of Horton is not offset from the fuse itself, but in contact with it.
Accordingly, claim 1 reads on Horton as explained in the body of the rejection above.
Furthermore, regarding the Edmunds reference, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “The Office Action cites Edmund [sic] for a fuse positioning structure 25 with rounded fuse seats. See Office Action, page 5, paragraph 2. However, Applicant notes that none of the independent claims recite "rounded fuse seats." Further, Edmunds does not disclose a fuse positioning structure attached to an interior surface of the access door. First, Edmunds does not appear to have an access door. Rather, in Edmunds, fuses are mounted to a housing 25 that mounts to a breaker housing 20. To the extent the breaker housing 20 is considered an access door, the tulip clip structures 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 do not appear to contact (or even align with) the fuses 28. Instead, the clip structure 21-25 of the breaker housing appear to contact the disconnect contacts 26, 27.”
The aforementioned Applicant’s arguments are completely irrelevant to the outstanding obviousness rejection (i.e., Horton in view of Edmunds). The only teaching that was gleaned from Edmunds for the modification of Horton is the teaching of the fuse seats, not the of the access door or the tulip clip structures that are in contact with fuses. Edmunds discloses a fuse positioning structure (25) with rounded fuse seats as can be clearly seen on Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6 for secure vertical and axial positioning of the current limiting fuses ((28, 39, 40), col. 3, ll. 27-48). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Horton by implementing fuse seats as taught by Edmunds, so the modification would have fuse seats, in order to predictably enhance securement of the fuses, as explained above in the body of the rejection.
In view of the above the rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835