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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, Claims 11-22 in the reply filed on September 3, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Newly submitted claims 18 and 23-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Specifically, amended claim 18 and newly submitted claims 23-27 deal with the apparatus for forming the busbar, which is classified in class 264/500+, which was also incorporated in the initial Restriction/Election of the Group I, being divided into Species I & II. The applicant elected claims drawn to Group II, claim 11. Claims 12-22 were allowed because they further limited the elected Group II. However, now the incorporation of the apparatus into amended claim 18 now also disqualifies claim 18 also.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, Group I, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18 and 23-27 are hereby withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The requirement is proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 11-12, 14-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markel (Pat Num 6,005,193) in view of Bradley (GB Pat Num 1,152,704). Markel discloses a double busbar (Figs 1-3) that has superior current distribution and flexibility (Col 6, lines 55-57), while minimizing skin effect and current bunching, thereby promoting improved performance of the cable (Col 6, lines 45-47). Specifically, with respect to claim 11, Markel discloses a double busbar (10, Fig 3) comprising two separate electrically insulated flat conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) arranged one above another (Fig 3), each flat conductor (12, 22 & 24, 34) being substantially flat in cross section and extending parallel to the other (Col 5, lines 33-40, Fig 3), wherein the flat conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) are connected by a single common gasket (36) surrounding both flat conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) to the double busbar (10, Col 5, lines 24-29). With respect to claim 12, Markel discloses that the two separate insulated conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) are substantially identical flat conductors (Fig 3). With respect to claim 14, Markel discloses that each flat conductor (12 & 24) is arranged in a sheath (22 & 34, respectively) comprising electrically insulating plastic (i.e. resin material, Col 5, lines 4-7 & 24-29, respectively). With respect to claim 15, Markel discloses that the sheath (22 & 34) is arranged around and onto the flat conductors (12 & 24, Col 5, lines 4-7 & 24-29, respectively).
While Markel discloses that the flat insulated conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) are surrounded by a single common gasket (36), Markel doesn’t necessarily disclose the gasket being molded, wherein the gasket is formed by a sealing material which flows around the flat conductors in a closed mold cavity and solidifies while adhering to insulation of the flat conductors (claim 11), nor the sheath being molded (claim 15), nor the busbar further comprising a sealing material forming the gasket (claim 16), nor the sealing material being at least one of provided and processed in a liquid or paste like state (claim 17), nor a materially bonded and/or form fit connection being formed between the sealing material and the insulating sheath of the flat conductors (claim 19), nor the conductors being wrapped with an adhesive tape at least in the region of the gasket (claim 22).
Bradley teaches a double busbar (Figs 1-3) that prevents or reduces leakage between the conductors and the case resin (Page 1, lines 45-47). Specifically, with respect to claim 11, Bradley teaches a double busbar (Figs 1-3) comprising two separate electrically insulated flat conductors (1-4) arranged one above another (3 over 1 and 4 over 2), wherein the flat conductors (1-4) are connected by a gasket (6) molded to the double busbar (Page 1, lines 78-80), wherein the gasket (6) is formed by a sealing material (7-11) which flows around the flat conductors (1-4) in a closed mold cavity and solidifies while adhering to the insulation (i.e. not shown deformable layer) of the flat conductors (1-4, Page 2, lines 11-17 & 29-37). With respect to claim 15, Bradley teaches that the sheath (6) is arranged molded onto the flat conductors (1-4, Page 2, lines 12-14). With respect to claim 16, Bradley teaches that the double busbar (Figs 1-3) further comprises a sealing material (7-11) comprising a plastic material (Page 2, lines 1-10). With respect to claim 17, Bradley teaches that the sealing material (7-11) may be provided/processed in a liquid or paste-like state (Page 2, lines 1-17). With respect to claim 19, Bradley teaches that the double busbar (Figs 1-3) further comprises at last a materially bonded and/or form fit connection is formed between the sealing material (7-11) and the flat conductors (1-4, Page 1, lines 56-70). With respect to claim 22, Bradley teaches that the flat conductors (1-4) may be wrapped at least in the region of the seal (not shown deformable layer may be applied as a tape, Page 2, lines 29-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of Markel to comprise the gasket being molded configuration as taught by Bradley because Bradley teaches that such a configuration provides a double busbar (Figs 1-3) that prevents or reduces leakage between the conductors and the case resin (Page 1, lines 45-47).
Claim(s) 13 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markel (Pat Num 6,005,193) in view of Bradley (GB Pat Num 1,152,704), as applied to claim 11 above (herein referred to as modified Markel), further in view of Higashira et al (Pub Num 2021/0084768, herein referred to as Higashira). Modified Markel discloses a double busbar (Figs 1-3) that has superior current distribution and flexibility (Col 6, lines 55-57), while minimizing skin effect and current bunching, thereby promoting improved performance of the cable (Col 6, lines 45-47). Specifically, with respect to claim 13, modified Markel discloses a double busbar (10, Fig 3) comprising two separate electrically insulated flat conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) arranged one above another (Fig 3), each flat conductor (12, 22 & 24, 34) being substantially flat in cross section and extending parallel to the other (Col 5, lines 33-40, Fig 3).
However, modified Markel doesn’t specifically disclose that each flat conductor comprises a metallic material or aluminum material (claim 13), nor the double busbar further comprising a sheath that has been pretreated to improved adhesion of the sealing material (claim 20), nor the sheath comprises a surface layer and pretreatment comprises at least one mechanical and/or chemical roughening and/or removal of the surface layer (claim 21).
Higashira teaches a method of coating a plurality of conductors (Figs 1-9), wherein the coating method ensures suppression of delamination (Paragraph 25). Specifically, with respect to claim 13, Higashira teaches a method of coating a plurality of conductors (16 & 17), which are stacked upon each other (Figs 2A-2C), wherein the plurality of conductors (16 & 17) may be formed of aluminum (Paragraph 65). With respect to claims 20-21, Higashira teaches a method wherein the plurality of stacked conductors (16 & 17) comprise a sheath (LB1), that has been pretreated to improved adhesion of the sealing material (18 & 19) to the conductors (16 & 17, Paragraph 69), wherein the sheath (LB1) comprises a surface layer (12 & 13) that may be pretreated by at least one mechanical and/or chemical roughening (Paragraph 67).
With respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the plurality of conductors of modified Markel to comprise the conductors being made of metallic material such as aluminum as taught by Higashira because Higashira since aluminum is known and commonly utilized as a conductor in the art of cables because of its superior ability to transmit current and its reduced weight when compared to other known conductors such as copper.
With respect to claims 20-21, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the double busbars of modified Markel to comprise the method of coating the conductors configuration as taught by Higashira because Higashira teaches that such a method provides a method of coating a plurality of conductors (Figs 1-9), wherein the coating method ensures suppression of delamination (Paragraph 25) and since it has been held that the presence of process limitations in product claims, in which the product doesn’t otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product.
Claim(s) 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markel (Pat Num 6,005,193) in view of Bradley (GB Pat Num 1,152,704), as applied to claims 11 & 16 above (herein referred to as modified Markel), further in view of Goudreau (Pub Num 2007/0241852). Modified Markel discloses a double busbar (Figs 1-3) that has superior current distribution and flexibility (Col 6, lines 55-57), while minimizing skin effect and current bunching, thereby promoting improved performance of the cable (Col 6, lines 45-47). Specifically, with respect to claims 28-29, modified Markel discloses a double busbar (10, Fig 3) comprising two separate electrically insulated flat conductors (12, 22 & 24, 34) arranged one above another (Fig 3), each flat conductor (12, 22 & 24, 34) being substantially flat in cross section and extending parallel to the other (Col 5, lines 33-40, Fig 3) and being surrounded with a sealing material (36).
However, modified Markel doesn’t specifically disclose sealing material comprising a polyurethane foam formed from a polyol component and an isocyanate component (claim 28), nor the sealing material being elastic in a cured state and having a tough outer skin (claim 29).
Goudreau teaches a transformer comprising a winding in the form of a busbar surrounded by an insulating material that can be applied and cured in a short amount of time (Paragraph 6). Specifically, with respect to claims 28-29, Goudreau teaches a transformer (10) comprising a winding (14), that may be a busbar (Paragraph 16), wherein the winding (14) may be surrounded by a foamed insulating material (60), that may be foam polyurethane formed a polyol component (Paragraph 20) and isocyanate component (Paragraph 21), which inherently is elastic in a cured state and having a tough outer skin (i.e. applicant has stated that foam polyurethane formed by polyol and isocyanate components has the stated characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the busbar of modified Markel to comprise the sealing material to be a foamed polyurethane configuration as taught by Goudreau because Goudreau teaches that such a configuration provides an insulating material that can be applied and cured in a short amount of time (Paragraph 6) and since it has been held to be within 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 choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which discloses various busbars and cables.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights