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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of “said junction has a convex profile, as viewed in any section plane passing through the center of the transition area” as now cited in claim 1.
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, 5, 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebens (2014/0017923) in view of Raad et al. (2011/0250774).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Siebens discloses a connector for a high voltage cable, comprising a metal conductor (106) comprising a first elongated conductor element (108) having a first end, a second end, and an intermediate section between the first and second ends and a second elongated conductor element having a first end, a second end and an intermediate section between the first end and the second end; wherein the second end of the first elongated conductor element is connected to the second end of the second elongated conductor element; an insulating layer (130); and a semiconductive layer (128), wherein the insulating layer is mounted onto the second end and the intermediate section of the first elongated conductor element, the insulating layer is mounted onto the second end and the intermediate section of the second elongated conductor element; wherein the insulating layer is provided at a first insulator distance from the first end of the first elongated conductor element; wherein the insulating layer is provided a second insulator distance from the first end of the second elongated conductor element; wherein the semiconductive layer is provided outside of the insulating layer; wherein the semiconductive layer is provided at a first semiconductor distance from the first end of the first elongated conductor element; wherein the semiconductive layer is provided at a second semiconductor distance from the first end of the second elongated conductor element; wherein the first insulator distance is shorter than the first semiconductor distance, and wherein the insulating layer is a one-single insulating body; and wherein a junction of adjacent edges of the first elongated conductor element and the second elongated conductor element is located in a transition area (see the above annotated Figure) (re-claim 1).
Siebens does not disclose the junction having a convex profile, as viewed in any section plane passing through the center of the transition area (re-claim 1).
Raad et al. discloses a connector comprising first and second conductor elements (53, 54, Figs 1 and 3), wherein a junction of adjacent edges of the conductor elements is located in a transition area (55) and the junction has a convex profile, as viewed in any section plane passing through the center of the transition area (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the transition area of Siebens to have a convex profile as taught by Raad et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting connector since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Siebens, as modified, also discloses that the metal conductor comprises a third elongated conductor element having a first end, a second end and an intermediate section between the first end and the second end; wherein the second end of the third elongated conductor element is connected to the second ends of the first and second elongated conductor elements; wherein the insulating layer is mounted onto the second end and the intermediate section of the third elongated conductor element; wherein the insulating layer is provided at a third insulator distance from the first end of the third elongated conductor element; wherein the semiconductive layer is provided at a third semiconductor distance from the first end of the third elongated conductor element (re-claim 5); the first, second, and third elongated conductor elements form a y-shaped structure (re-claim 7); the intermediation sections of the first and second elongated conductor elements are located in a first plane, wherein the first end of the third elongated conductor element is located in a plane different from the first plane (re-claim 8); and the connector is a joining element for joining at least two cable sections (re-claim 15).
It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, moulded, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Siebens is completely silent regarding the transition area of the connector in general. Raad discloses a connector where two conductor elements meet in the boundary region. These elements meet in such a way that concave indentations/dimples form at the periphery of the boundary region where the conductor elements meet.
PNG
media_image2.png
343
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
313
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner would disagree. Siebens does teach a connector where two conductor elements meet in a boundary region or a transition area, see the first annotated Figure above. Raad does teach a connector where two conductor elements meet in the boundary region, and these elements meet in such a way that concave profile forms at the periphery of the boundary region where the conductor elements meet, the second and third annotated Figures above.
Applicant argues that Raad teaches the concave profile entailing smaller effective radius of the junction leading to undesirable concentration of electric fields and heat from eddy currents; while the instant application deals with a better distribution of the electric field strength within the connector by providing a rounded surface when different elements meet. Here, Raad is completely silent regarding suggesting convex rounding to mitigate electric field peaks/improve electric field uniformity. Therefore, the proposed modification cannot be considered as a design choice obvious, and the Office Action (OA) has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner would disagree. The OA does not rely only on the design choice obvious to reject the claim. Feature of the transition area having a concave profile is taught by Raad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the transition area of Siebens to have such configuration to meet the specific design. Moreover, it has been held that the examiner's burden of establishing prima facie obviousness is satisfied by a showing of structural similarity between the claims and prior art; it does not require a showing of some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the structurally similar subject matter will have the same or a similar utility as that discovered by the applicant. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ 2d 1897.
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