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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Species II in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species II in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koizumi et al (PGPUB 2020/0389005).
Claim 1: Koizumi teaches a conduction system to include a busbar that forms a plurality of conduction paths in a vehicle whereby the pathways are stacked and part of a distribution mechanism [Abstract]. Koizumi teaches at least two conductive layers stacked and having a divergence point where some of the conductive layers are divided and diverge [Fig 2; 0015-0028].
Applicant’s election of species is drawn to the embodiment of Figure 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
304
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koizumi, Figure 2, is relied upon to teach the elected species:
PNG
media_image2.png
860
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Koizumi teaches a divergence point being a parallel connection section at which members electrically connect to each other and have identical voltages [Fig 2; 0015-0028].
Claim 3: Koizumi teaches a number of conductive layers diverged from one another at a parallel connection section and provide a different current to at least one of the members [Fig 2; 0027-0029, 0039-0042].
Claim 4: Koizumi teaches a number of conductive layers diverted to correspond to the desired current needed by the devices D at the distribution destination such that the number of branched busbars accommodate the current [0027]; the specific formula does not limit the scope to overcome the teaching of the prior art as the scale and purpose is the same for the instant claim and prior art.
Claim 5: Koizumi teaches the busbars to have the same length [Fig 2; 0037].
Claim 6: Koizumi teaches the busbars to have holes formed on opposite ends [Fig 2].
Claim 7: Koizumi teaches the conductive layers to be folded and diverted from each other [Fig 2].
Claim 8-9: Koizumi teaches the busbars to be made of copper [0017] and thin and flexible [Fig 2].
Claim 10-11: Koizumi teaches a vehicle comprising the electric conduction system (1) [Fig 2] whereby it is well established in the art that electric vehicles are powered by batteries such as battery modules and battery packs. Additionally, petrol powered vehicles are known to have batteries to operate a plurality of different electronic devices. Prior art recitation of vehicle passing power is well known to have a power source from a battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights