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 § 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.
Claims 1-12, 14-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raettig (US 1,477,527) in view of Chevassus-More (US 6,722,926, previously cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Raettig discloses a connecting bridge for the transmission of an electrical current between two electrically conducting components, comprising at least two U-shaped cross-connectors (a, b) composed of electrically conductive metal arranged one nested inside another (Fig. 1); each cross connector including two cross-connector legs.
Chevassus-More teaches cross-connector legs (4, 5) being split into at least two partial legs being spring legs formed as clamping legs (see Fig. 2), the at least two partial legs of each cross-connector leg defining a plug-in slot (intended use, between two 4a/4b, and between two 5) arranged therebetween to form nested cross-connectors having aligned plug-in slots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a plug-in slot, as taught by Chevassus-More, in order to regulate the flexibility of the cross-connector legs.
Regarding claim 2, Raettig discloses the connecting bridge has a holding mechanism (end legs) for mounting in at least one of a clamping and latching manner (intended use).
Regarding claim 3, Raettig discloses [the] holding mechanisms terminally arranged on each cross-connector (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Raettig discloses the holding mechanism of each cross-connector having an equivalent shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors arranged concentrically to one another(Fig. 1) .
Regarding claim 6, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors mechanically connected to one another (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors configured to be plugged onto a busbar in a plug-on direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors configured to be plugged into a receiving opening of a busbar (intended use).
Regarding claim 9, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors arranged flush with one another perpendicular to the plug-on direction (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 10, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors arranged flush with one another in a width of the cross-connectors (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 11, Raettig discloses the U-shape of a first outer cross-connector defining a free space, a second inner cross-connector being arranged within the free space (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors having different lengths, the outer cross-connector having a greater length than the inner cross-connector (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Raettig discloses the plug-in slots of several cross-connectors arranged on top of one another have an equivalent length (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Chevassus-More teaches a length of the plug-in slots extending over at least 50% of a length of the cross-connector legs (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Raettig discloses the plug-in slots of cross-connectors arranged in a nested manner have an equivalent shape and are arranged flush on top of one another (Figs. 1 and 1a).
Regarding claim 17, Raettig discloses each of the cross-connectors having a base plate (middle bottom) between the cross-connector legs and wherein the cross-connectors are arranged in a nested manner at least at the base plate.
Regarding claim 18, Raettig discloses each of the cross-connector legs having beveled ends (top).
Regarding claim 19, Raettig discloses the plug-in slots having a recess and adjoining projection (down pointing end), the recess and projection providing a contact region to an electrically conducting component (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Raettig discloses at least one of the cross-connectors having a contact region arranged adjacent with a contact region of corresponding cross-connector (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Raettig discloses the contact region occupying at least 60% of a surface of the cross-connectors (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors composed of a conductive sheet metal (Fig. 1). To the extent that Raettig does not disclose the specifics of the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a material with at least one or more of: a modulus of elasticity of at least 130GPa; a tensile strength Rm of at least 420MPa; and a yield strength Rp0.2 of less than 380MPa, as the preferred material, in order to provide the desired flexibility and connectivity, and 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 design preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 25, Raettig discloses the cross-connectors composed of a conductive sheet metal. To the extent that Raettig does not disclose the specifics of the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a copper alloy, as the preferred material, in order to provide the desired flexibility and connectivity, and 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 design preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 26, Raettig discloses an arrangement comprising a connecting bridge (Fig. 1) according to claim 1 and at least one busbar (counter contact) connected mechanically and electrically with the connecting bridge, by one of being plugged onto the busbar or plugged in a receiving opening of the busbar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument regarding the plug-in slot, please note a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Chevassus-More teaches partial legs of each cross-connector leg defining a plug-in slot (between two 4a/4b, and between two 5) arranged therebetween to form nested cross-connectors having aligned plug-in slots capable of having an element plug into them.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833