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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majewski et al. (US 8129641 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Majewski et al. discloses a connector configured to hold a busbar 22 in contact with another conductor in a high current power supply system, especially a battery unit with an electrode of a battery or with a further busbar 22, the connector (figures 10 and 11) comprising
a clamp 20, the clamp 20 having a transition section 27 connecting a first leg 24 arranged at one end of the transition section 27, to a second leg 21 arranged at the opposite end of the transition section 27, the transition section 27 and/or the first leg 24 being elastically deformable, the clamp 20 having a first state, in which a reference part of the first leg 24 is distanced from a reference part of the second leg 21 by a first amount, the clamp 20 having a second state, in which the reference part of the first leg 24 is distanced from the reference part of the second leg 21 by a second amount that is different from the first amount, the transitions section 27 and/or the first leg 24 being further elastically deformed in the second state (fig. 11) than in the first state (fig. 10), the transition section 27 having a width in a width direction that extends at an angle to a line that connects the one end with the opposite end of the transition section 27,
the connector further comprising a spacer 13, the spacer 13 being moveable between a first position (fig. 11) and a second position (fig. 12), the spacer 13 being in contact with a part of the first leg 24 when the clamp 20 is in the second state (fig. 11) and the spacer 13 is in the first position wherein the spacer 13
is designed to be rotated from the first position into the second position;
is designed to be moved linearly from the first position into the second position along a retraction direction, the retraction direction pointing at least partially in the width direction and/or at least partially pointing towards the transition section 27 (see figures 10 and 11);or
is designed to perform a combined rotational and linear movement from the first position into the second position.
(NOTE: the spacer 13 can perform a combined rotational and linear movement motion because it involves both linear (straight-line) motion and rotational motion happening at the same time).
In regard to claim 2, Majewski et al. discloses the second leg 21 is elastically deformable and wherein the second leg 21 is further elastically deformed in the second state than in the first state.
In regard to claim 4, Majewski et al. discloses a connector according to claim 1 and the other conductor (through 25), the busbar 22 being in contact with the other conductor.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation that “the clamp is the electrode of the battery” has not been given a significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majewski et al.
In regard to claim 7, Majewski et al. does not disclose at least a part of the clamp 20 and/or at least a part of the spacer 13 is made from a material that has a lower electrical conductivity than the material that at least a part of the busbar 22 and/or the other conductor is made of, and/or the bending stiffness of at least a part of the clamp 20 is made lower than the bending stiffness of a part of the busbar 22 and/or a part of the other conductor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Majewski et al. by constructing the clamp, the spacer and the busbar of the as-claimed material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 3, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest
a casing (10) with an opening (17) for inserting a part of the busbar (4) into the casing,
a clearance being arranged in the casing between the opening for inserting a part of the busbar into the casing and a busbar abutment surface on the spacer when the clamp is in the second state and the spacer is in the first position.
In regard to claim 5, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest
a part of the busbar is arranged between the reference part of the first leg and the reference part of the second leg.
In regard to claim 8, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest
the steps of bringing a part of the busbar into contact with a busbar abutment surface on the spacer and moving the spacer from the first position towards the second position using the busbar.
In regard to claim 10, the prior art fails to provide, teach or suggest
a battery set comprising at least two battery units and the system according to claim 4.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
Tdt
1/29/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834