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 . 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.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear to which surface reference character 340c is referring to in FIG. 4 (the surface of 343 in -y direction or the surface of 343 in the +z direction in FIG. 4).
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are 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.
In regards to claim 2, it is unclear if “a second extension direction of the second power supply portion” recited in line 9 is referring to the “second extension direction of the second power supply portion” recited in claim 1 or to another second extension direction of the second power supply portion, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner is taking “a second extension direction of the second power supply portion” to read as “the second extension direction of the second power supply portion”.
In regards to claim 5, the limitation “a fourth orthogonal direction orthogonal to each of the second extension direction and the fourth orthogonal direction” appears contradictory to itself, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
For the purpose of examination and with FIGs. 3 and 4 of Applicant’s originally filed drawings, Examiner is taking “a fourth orthogonal direction orthogonal to each of the second extension direction and the fourth orthogonal direction” to read as “a fourth orthogonal direction orthogonal to the second extension direction”.
Dependent claims not directly named are rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite and unclear claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required. No new matter should be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeno et al. (US 20210050153 and hereinafter Maeno ‘153).
In regards to claim 1, Maeno ‘153 discloses an electric device, comprising: a first power supply portion (500b – FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B; [0023]) having a first conductive section (560 – FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B; [0023]) configured to electrically connect a power source and an electrical component ([0069]) and a second conductive section (550, 570 – FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B; [0023], [0035]) configured to extend from the first conductive section (seen in FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B); a second power supply portion (500a – FIGs. 2A, 3; [0023]) connected to the second conductive section (seen in FIG. 2A); and a capacitor (400 – FIGs. 2A-2B; [0029]) connected to the second power supply portion (seen in FIGs. 2A-2B), wherein the first power supply portion and the second power supply portion extend along the capacitor so as to face each other (seen in FIGs. 2A-2B, 3), and a thermal resistance per unit length in a second extension direction of the second power supply portion (left-right direction in FIGs. 2A-2B, 3) is higher than a thermal resistance per unit length in a first extension direction of the first power supply portion (front-rear direction in FIGs. 2A-2B, 4A-4B) (see [0035] and FIGs. 2A-2B and 3, noting portion 500b is greater in thickness than portion 500a, i.e. the cross-sectional area of similar width portions are greater in 500b and therefore portions of 500b have a lower thermal resistance per unit length; Examiner particularly notes cross-sectional areas of 500a near leftmost opening 511, portions 521 and 531).
In regards to claim 3, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein a second cross-sectional area cut by a plane along a direction perpendicular to the second extension direction of the second power supply portion (plane extending in top, front, bottom, rear directions at, for example part 531 or at left opening 511 as seen in FIG. 3) is smaller than a first cross-sectional area cut by a plane along a direction perpendicular to the first extension direction of the first power supply portion (plane extending in top, bottom, left, right directions near, for example at face of part 550a as seen in FIG. 4A).
In regards to claim 4, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein the second cross-sectional area of the portion of the second power supply portion connected to the capacitor (portion 521 – FIG. 3) is smaller than the second cross-sectional area of the portion between the portion of the second power supply portion connected to the capacitor and the portion of the second power supply portion connected to the first power supply portion (portion 531; or alternatively, portion 530 – FIG. 3) (seen in FIGs. 2A, 3, 4A-4B).
In regards to claim 5, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein the first power supply portion has a first main surface and a second main surface (opposing surfaces of 500b in left-right direction as seen in FIG. 2A) arranged in a first orthogonal direction (left-right direction) perpendicular to the first extension direction (seen in FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B), and a first side surface and a second side surface (opposing surfaces of 500b in top-bottom direction as seen in FIG. 2A) aligned in a second orthogonal direction (top-bottom direction) orthogonal to each of the first extension direction and the first orthogonal direction (seen in FIG. 2A), and the second power supply portion has a third main surface (top surface of 510 in top-bottom direction as seen in FIG. 3) and a fourth main surface (bottom surface of 510 in top-bottom direction as seen in FIG. 3) arranged in a third orthogonal direction (top-bottom direction as seen in FIG. 3) perpendicular to the second extension direction (seen in FIG. 2A), and a third side surface (front surface of 520, 521 in front-rear direction as seen in FIG. 3) and a fourth side surface (rear surface of 520, 521 in front-rear direction as seen in FIG. 3) aligned in a fourth orthogonal direction (front-rear direction) orthogonal to the second extension direction (seen in FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B).
In regards to claim 6, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein the fourth main surface is soldered to the capacitor ([0048]), and a distance between the third main surface and the fourth main surface in the third orthogonal direction is shorter than a distance between the first main surface and the second main surface in the first orthogonal direction (see [0035] and FIGs. 2A, 3, 4A-4B, noting 500b is greater in thickness than portion 500a).
In regards to claim 7, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein the second power supply portion is formed with a notch so as to increase a thermal resistance per unit length (511, or alternatively 543, or alternatively 533, or alternatively, 532, or alternatively 542 as seen in FIG. 3).
In regards to claim 10, Maeno ‘153 further discloses a joint portion (portion of 500a joined to portion of 500b as seen in FIG. 2A; or alternatively, portion of 500b joined to portion of 500a as seen in FIG. 2A) configured to join the first power supply portion and the second power supply portion (FIG. 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno ‘153 in view of Kaida (JP 2013169075 and hereinafter Kaida ‘075; see Applicant submitted translation and original document).
In regards to claim 2, Maeno ‘153 further discloses wherein the first conductive section includes a first conductive connection portion (560 – FIGs. 4A-4B; [0037]) connected to the power source (described in [0069]), a second conductive connection portion (570 – FIGs. 2A, 4A-4B; [0035]), and a connection portion (550 – FIGs. 4A-4B; [0023]) configured to connect the first conductive connection portion and the second conductive connection portion and connect to the second conductive section (seen in FIGs. 2A, 3), and an addition average of a thermal resistance per unit length in a first extension direction of the second conductive section (front-rear direction) and the thermal resistance per unit length in the second extension direction of the second power supply portion is higher than each of the thermal resistance per unit length in the first extension direction of the first conductive connection portion (front-rear direction) and the thermal resistance per unit length in the first extension direction of the second conductive connection portion (see [0035] and FIGs. 2A-2B and 3, noting portion 500b (including first conductive connection portion 560 and second conductive connection portion 570) is greater in thickness than portion 500a; therefore, the thermal resistance per unit length in respective directions of each of portions 560 and 570 is lower than the addition average of thermal resistance per unit length in respective directions of the second conductive portion and the second power supply portion).
Maeno ‘153 fails to expressly disclose the second conductive connection portion connected to the electrical component.
Kaida ‘075 teaches the second conductive connection portion (54; or alternatively 44 – FIG. 2; [0027]) connected to the electrical component (described in [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Kaida ‘075 with Maeno ‘153 to incorporate the second conductive connection portion connected to the electrical component as taught by Kaida ‘075 in the structure taught by Maeno ‘153, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for connecting the bus bars that are connected to a power supply are also connected to another electronic device such as an in-vehicle air conditioner (Kaida ‘075: [0027]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno ‘153 in view of Sato et al. (US 20110073345 and hereinafter Sato ‘345).
In regards to claim 8, Maeno ‘153 fails to expressly disclose a separate path portion configured to electrically connect the power source and the electrical component via a conductive path different from the first conductive section.
Sato ‘345 teaches a separate path portion (portion 16; or alternatively, portion 19 – FIG. 1; [0047]) configured to electrically connect the power source and the electrical component ([0052], [0021]) via a conductive path different from the first conductive section (section of 15 within width W1 as seen in FIG. 1; [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Sato ‘345 with Maeno ‘153 to incorporate a separate path portion configured to electrically connect the power source and the electrical component via a conductive path different from the first conductive section as taught by Sato ‘345 in the structure taught by Maeno ‘153, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for dividing the current and allow a larger current to flow in the busbar (Sato ‘345: [0059], [0065]).
In regards to claim 9, modified Maeno ‘153 further teaches wherein the separate path portion is integrally connected to the first conductive section (Sato ‘345: [0063], FIG. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno ‘153 in view of Asakura et al. (JP 2013198350 and hereinafter Asakura ‘350; see attached translation).
In regards to claim 11, Maeno ‘153 fails to expressly disclose wherein the electrical component has a reactor connected to the first power supply portion.
Asakura ‘350 teaches wherein the electrical component has a reactor (14 – FIG. 1; [0022]) connected to the first power supply portion (31 – FIG. 2; [0031]) (seen in FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Asakura ‘350 with Maeno ‘153 to incorporate the electrical component has a reactor connected to the first power supply portion as taught by Asakura ‘350 in the structure taught by Maeno ‘153, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for the circuit to act as a filter capacitor (Asakura ‘350: [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210099072 – FIGs. 5-6
US 20200118753 – FIG. 3
US 20200028444 – FIGs. 9-12 and [0105]
US 20110249421 – FIG. 13 and 22
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M DUBUISSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/DANIEL M DUBUISSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848