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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 14-16 are 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.
Originally filed specification does not provide written description for the claimed “branch planes”. Specifically, where all branched portions extend in the branch planes that are parallel to the stem plane. No explicit written description is present for the words used in the amendment, the figures are relied upon. In Fig 2, there are two branched portions for element 121 that each have an oblique angle. The end portion of 121 is observed to be in the same parallel plane as feature 122, however the 1st branch portion from the stem portion does not extend in a direction parallel to the stem plane. The figures all depict a 1st branch portion that extends perpendicular to the stem plane and therefore does not meet the claimed recitation of “all branch portions extend in respective branch planes that are parallel to the stem plane.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Arguments presented are based upon the amended claim language which has not been reviewed.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi et al (PGPUB 2020/0389005) and further in view of Kasai (EP 1018783).
Claim 1, 14-16: 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]. Claim features mapped:
PNG
media_image1.png
579
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koizumi does not explicitly write that oblique angles are present as ways to diverge the connectors; this is paralleled by the instant specification being silent to explicitly recite oblique angles.
Kasai teaches an electrical pathway system for use with a busbar spine for use in a vehicle [Abstract]. In order to route the busbar effectively within the system, it is shown to have diverging connectors utilize a 45degree angle and continue in the same plane [Fig 12(B)] whereby their examples within the system are shown to utilize the 45 degree angle [Fig 11, 13(a), 13(c)]. The example of Fig 12b shows a pathway that is diverted with two angled portions that are 45 degree to allow the continuing direction to be in parallel plane as the first extending direction. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to modify the diverging angle of Koizumi to utilize a 45degree turn as taught by Kasai in order to have a lateral shift to allow for efficient connection of electrical features within variable casings [0007-0010].
The prior art teaches a plurality of mechanisms for diverting a busbar to meet the electrical connection needs of a device. Modifying the branching configuration to have branches in the same plane would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon specific needs of a device that needed such configuration. Instant claim is drawn to the busbar and therefore there is no nexus of feature between the busbar and device being presented at this time.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohara et al (PGPUB 2003/0102148) teaches a flat cable strip of lead wires with 45 degree bends [Abstract, Fig 1].
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 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