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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amended claim 1 calls for “the multiple connections comprise bushings of at least three bushing types, and wherein the at least three bushing types comprise at least one of each of an oil-to-oil HV bushing, an oil-to-air HV bushing, and an oil-to SF6 HV bushing.” Claim 5 (and claims 6-10) depends on claim 1 and calls for “each of the multiple connections comprises a connection body comprising a body inner surface…” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (4360849) in view of Ladani et al. (2024/0347234).
Harris et al. (Fig. 1) discloses a high voltage power system (HV system) for changing a voltage of an electric current from a first voltage to a second voltage, wherein the electric current is conducted through at least one of multiple connections, across a transformer casing of a high voltage power transformer (HV transformer) and substantially electrically insulated from the transformer casing, and to the HV transformer, the HV system further comprising: an HV transformer high-voltage side (12); and multiple respective receptacles for the multiple connections, comprising: a high-voltage cable box receptacle (28), wherein the multiple connections comprise bushings (18 and 20) (re-claim 1). Harris et al. also discloses that the multiple respective receptacles comprise a high-voltage top receptacle (20) (re-claim 2); the multiple respective receptacles comprise a high-voltage side receptacle (18) (re-claim 3); the multiple respective receptacles are disposed on the HV transformer high-voltage side (re-claim 11).
Harris et al. does not disclose the bushings comprised of at least three types: oil-to-oil HV bushing, oil-to-air HV bushing, and oil-to-SF6 HV bushing. Ladani et al. discloses a HV system. Ladani et al. discloses that oil-to-oil, oil-to-air, and oil-to-SF6 HV bushings can be used in a HV system depending on the specific use ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use oil-to-oil HV bushing, oil-to-air HV bushing, and oil-to-SF6 HV bushing for the bushings of Harris et al. to meet the specific applications since it is taught by Ladani et al. that oil-to-oil, oil-to-air, and oil-to-SF6 HV bushings can be used in a HV system depending on the specific use.
Claims 14-18 are method counter parts of claims 1-3 and 11.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. in view of Ladani et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kishida (4431859).
Kishida discloses a high voltage power system comprising a high voltage receptacle (or a connection) (Fig. 1) including an SF6 (col. 1, line 59) gas-insulated busduct (not numbered, the duct extends from the seat 4) (re-claim 4); the connection comprising a connection body (2) comprising a body inner surface (re-claim 5); the connection comprising at least one conductor (3) including a conductor outer surface extending along a conductor length (re-claim 6); the at least one conductor being disposed within the connection body, attached to the connection body at an attachment point (top portion of Fig. 1), and extending through opposite ends of the connection body (re-claim 7); the connection further comprising a substantially electrically insulating material (7) (re-claim 8); the substantially electrically insulating material (7) being disposed between the conductor outer surface along the conductor length of the at least one conductor, which is encapsulated within the connection body, and the body inner surface (re-claim 9); and the substantially electrically insulating material being disposed between the at least one conductor and the attachment point (re-claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the connection (bushing) as taught by Kishida for the multiple connections (bushings) of Harris et al. since such connection (bushing) has improved electrical and physical properties (col. 1, lines 21-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 14-18 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that the primary and secondary bushings of Harris are both used as the series of configuration in the HV system, and that there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Harris’ bushings with three different types of bushings as taught by Ladani.
Examiner would disagree. Harris and Ladani are both directed to high voltage power system. Ladani teaches that depending on the specific use, oil-to-oil, oil-to air, and oil-to-SF6 ([0029]) can all be used in high voltage power system.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights