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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Makal does not explicitly disclose the flange leg including a leg portion and a flange portion as now required by claim 1. However, as shown below, Makal does disclose flange 72 on the flange leg portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the flange leg comprises an outer cone connection.” However, this is not in the specification. The specification repeatedly states that the cone leg has an “outer cone connection” (see at least paragraphs 0007 and 0012), but is silent as to the flange leg having an outer cone connection.
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.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makal et al. (“Makal”; US 5,393,240).
Regarding claim 1: Makal discloses a medium voltage connector (Fig. 2), comprising:
a flange leg (horizontal leg in Fig. 2); and
a cone leg (vertical leg in Fig. 2);
wherein the flange leg is connected to the cone leg (as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein a central longitudinal axis of the flange leg (at 28) is angled to a central longitudinal axis of the cone leg (at 26, as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the flange leg is configured to be connected to a part of a medium voltage switchgear (8);
wherein the flange leg includes a leg portion (14) extending along the central longitudinal axis of the flange leg and a mounting flange (72, Fig. 3) extending radially outward from the leg portion for securing the flange leg to the switchgear;
wherein the cone leg comprises an outer cone connection (25); and
wherein an outer surface of the flange leg and an outer surface of the cone leg comprise comprises an electroconductive coating (50).
Regarding claim 10: Makal discloses the central longitudinal axis of the flange leg is angled to the central longitudinal axis of the cone leg at an angle of one of: 45 degrees, 50 degrees, 55 degrees, 60 degrees, 65 degrees, 70 degrees, 75 degrees, 80 degrees, 85 degrees, 90 degrees, 95 degrees, 100 degrees, 105 degrees, 110 degrees, 115 degrees, or 120 degrees (in this case 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 11: Makal discloses the connector is an L shaped bushing (14, shown in Fig. 2, abstract).
Regarding claim 13: Makal discloses a length of the flange leg is configured based on a required current rating of the connector (inherent as this is required for operation).
Regarding claim 14: Makal discloses a length of the cone leg is configured based on a required current rating of the connector (inherent as this is required for operation).
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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makal, in view of Sanchez Ruiz et al. (“Sanchez Ruiz”; US 2019/0146006).
Regarding claim 3: Makal discloses the flange leg and the cone leg, but does not explicitly disclose the flange leg comprises one or more field control and/or wherein the cone leg comprises one or more field control electrodes.
However, Sanchez Ruiz discloses one or more field control electrodes (6, 7, Fig. 2, paragraph 0032) and/or wherein the cone leg comprises one or more field control electrodes (6 is located closer to the cone in Fig. 4, paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flange and cone legs of Makal to include the field control electrodes of Sanchez Ruiz in order to order to precisely measure the voltage (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 4: Makal modified by Sanchez Ruiz discloses the one or more field control electrodes, Sanchez Ruiz further discloses the one or more field control electrodes (7) of the flange leg are connected to the electroconductive coating (11) on the outer surface of the flange leg (shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5: Makal modified by Sanchez Ruiz discloses the one or more field control electrodes, Sanchez Ruiz further discloses the one or more field control electrodes of the cone leg (6) are connected to the electroconductive coating (11) on the outer surface of the cone leg (paragraph 0031, the electrode 6 is grounded, inherently connected to an electroconductive coating).
Regarding claim 6: Makal modified by Sanchez Ruiz discloses the one or more field control electrodes, Sanchez Ruiz further discloses the one or more field control electrodes (7) of the flange leg are configured for voltage signal detection (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 7: Makal modified by Sanchez Ruiz discloses the one or more field control electrodes, Sanchez Ruiz further discloses the one or more field control electrodes of the cone leg (6) are configured for voltage signal detection (paragraph 0034: detecting presence/absence of voltage).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makal.
Regarding claim 12: Makal discloses the connector is rated, but does not explicitly disclose the connector is rated for one of: 630A, 1250A, 2000A, or 2500A.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to design the connector to be rated at a specific current in order to ensure system parameters can be met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luzzi (US 2006/0286837) teaches that it is known to have connectors capable of connecting to transformers or switchgears (paragraph 0003).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834