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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement was submitted.
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 43-54 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors
Claim 43, line 2, replace “separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors” with –a plurality of aluminum electrolytic capacitors--.
Claim 43, line 3, replace “an affiliated bus” with –a bus--.
Claim 43, lines 3-4, replace “an affiliated radiator” with –a radiator--.
Claim 43, line 5, delete “closely”.
Claim 43, line 5, replace “separate” with –the plurality--.
Claim 43, lines 6-7, the limitation “is of any shape, size and structure” appears to be an inherent feature of any heat conductive base component.
Claim 43, line 7, delete “together”.
Claim 43, line 7, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 8, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 9, replace “are aluminum electrolytic capacitor products adopting” with –have one of --.
Claim 43, line 10, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 11, delete “closely”
Claim 43, line 12, insert –plurality—before “electrolytic”.
Claim 43, line 14, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 17, delete “designing”.
Claim 43, line 18, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Regarding claim 43, line 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 43, line 20, the limitation, “the cells of the heat-conducting base” is confusing. Are these the cells the ones already claim in line 11? If so, applicant is required to delete “semi-cells” in line 11.
Claim 43, line 24, the limitation, “to clamp or fix” is confusing. Clamping is a way to “fix” something.
Claim 43, lines 24-25, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Is this the same as the aluminum electrolytic integrated module already claimed?
Claim 43, line 25, the limitation “the housing or the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. The housing is a part of the aluminum electrolytic integrated module.
Claim 43, lines 27-28, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 29, the limitation, “an electrolytes” is confusing.
Claim 43, lines 29-30, the limitation, “an electrolytes with negative charges”. Is applicant referring to anions? If so, the “negative charges” would be inherent to the electrolyte.
Claim 43, line 30, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 30, the limitation, “in the case” is confusing. It is suggest that applicant delete this limitation.
Claim 43, line 30-32, the limitation, “aluminum electrolytic capacitors and the heat-conducting base component form multiple assembly units, corresponding independent air cavities and pressure outlets” is confusing. Are these in addition to the one already claimed?
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the electrolyte with the negative charges" in lines 33-34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43, lines 33-34, the limitation, “an electrolytes with negative charges”. Is applicant referring to anions? If so, the “negative charges” would be inherent to the electrolyte.
Claim 43, line 34, the limitation, “auxiliary structures” is confusing. Does this include the auxiliary structure already claimed?
Claim 43, line 35, the limitation, “a bus terminal board” is confusing. Is this the same thing as the “affiliated bus terminal board”?
Claim 43, line 35, the limitation, “to clamp or fix” is confusing. Clamping is a way to “fix” something.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the integrated bus terminal board " in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43, line 36, the limitation, “other structural components” is confusing .
Claim 43, line 37, delete “electrically connection”
Claim 43, lines 38-39, replace –are electrically conductive copper bars for realizing” with –provides--.
Claim 43, line 40, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, lines 40-41, delete “the connection copper bars and”
Claim 43, line 41 delete “electrical connection”.
Claim 43, line 42 delete “electrical connection”.
Claim 43, line 45, the limitation “the integrated bus terminal board” is confusing is this the same as the bus terminal board?
Claim 43, line 46, delete “electrically conductive”.
Claim 43, lines 46-47, the limitation, “allow positive and negative leads or soldering terminals of the separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors” is confusing. Are these leads in addition to the leads already claimed in lines 9-10? Are the terminals the lead outs?
Claim 43, line 46-47, the limitation, “soldering terminals of the separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors to be welded thereto” is confusing are the terminals both soldered and welded?
Claim 43, line 47, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 43, line 48-49, the limitation, “or other necessary circuit elements” is confusing.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the integrated bus terminal board " in line 51. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43, line 52-53, the limitation, “is made of heat-conducting insulation ceramic, silica gel, or other heat conductive insulation materials” is confusing. “Heat conductive insulation materials covers ceramic and silica gel.
Claim 43, line 53, the limitation, “flake like” is confusing. It is not clear what is meant by “flake-like”.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 53. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43, lines 54-55, the limitation, “a groove shape or other shapes beneficial to the structural design of the integrated module” is confusing. The “shapes beneficial to the structural design” is not clear.
Claim 43, line 44, is the “integrated module” the same as the aluminum electrode capacitor module?
Claim 43, line 57, replace both occurrences of “affiliated radiator” with –radiator--.
Claim 43, line 57, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Is this the same as the aluminum electrolytic integrated module already claimed?
Regarding claim 43, line 59, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 43, line 60, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Is this the same as the aluminum electrolytic integrated module already claimed?
Claim 43, line 61, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Is this the same as the aluminum electrolytic integrated module already claimed?
Claim 43, line 61 delete “affiliated”
Claim 43, line 62, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Is this the same as the aluminum electrolytic integrated module already claimed?
Claim 43, line 62, the limitation, “a radiator” is confusing. Is this in addition to the “affiliated radiator”?
Claim 43, line 63, the limitation, “other devices” is confusing.
Claim 43, line 63, the limitation, “or an auxiliary radiator shared by multiple capacitor integrated modules” is confusing. Are these in addition to the ones already claimed?
Claim 43, line 63, the limitation, “multiple capacitor integrated modules” is confusing. Does this include the one already claimed?
Claim 43, line 64, what is meant by “different special shapes”?
Claim 43, line 68, what is meant by “other specifications”?
Claim 43, lines 69-70, what is meant by “any other materials”?
Claim 43, lines 69-70 the limitation, “a film, epoxy, glass, metal or any other materials” appears to be describing any material. This would be an inherent to the “other temperature sensing devices”.
Claim 43, line 70, the limitation, “packaged in any form” is confusing.
Claim 43, lines 67-73 appears to be claiming any type of temperature sensor which would not further limit “temperature sensor”.
Claim 43, line 73, replace “separate” with –plurality--.
Claim 43, lines 73-74, the limitation, “Y capacitor is a ceramic capacitor, a thin-film capacitor or other capacitors” is confusing. It appears the Y capacitor can be any type of capacitor.
Claim 43, line 77, the limitation, “(connected in series)” is confusing. What is the Y capacitor connected to?
Claim 43, line 78, the limitation, “one Y capacitor” is confusing. Is this in addition to the one already claimed?
Claim 43, line 79, the limitation, “a ground wire” is this a different ground wire that was already claimed?
Claim 43, line 79, the limitation, “multiple Y capacitors” is confusing. Do the Y capacitors include the Y capacitor that is already claimed?
Claim 43, line 80, the limitation, “(groups)” is confusing.
Claim 43, line 82, the limitation, “(group)” is confusing.
Claim 43, line 85, the limitation, “the ground wire of the Y capacitor is a metal wire or a metal conductive bar in any shape” is confusing. A wire would not have a shape of a conductive bar.” It also appears that the conductive bar would inherently have a “shape”.
Claim 44, line 2, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 44, line 3, delete “closely”.
Claim 44, line 4, the limitation “(cells)” is confusing.
Claim 44, line 5, the limitation, “such that the assembly difficult is lowered” is confusing.
Claim 45, line 2, replace “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 45, line 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 45, line 5, delete “(insulating)”.
Claim 48, line 6, delete “electrically conductive”
Claim 48, line 7, delete “adaptively”.
Claim 49, line 2, delete “(strings)”.
Claim 50, line 3, the limitation, “clamp or fix” is confusing. Clamping is a way to “fix” something.
Claim 50, lines 3-4, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Which one is applicant referring to ?
Claim 51, line 2, replace, “separate” with –plurality of--.
Claim 51, line 5-6, delete, “, that is, a suitable PCB is used as the bus terminal board”.
Claim 52, line 2, delete “auxiliary”.
Claim 53, line 2, delete “auxiliary”.
Claim 53, line 3, the limitation, “the capacitor integrated module” is confusing. Which one is applicant referring to?
Claim 54, line 2, delete “auxiliary”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 43 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 44-54 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood, the prior art does not teach or suggest an aluminum electrolytic capacitor integrated module comprising an air cavity and a pressure outlet of an internal pressure release mechanism are defined by the housing and the heat-conducting base component, the internal pressure release mechanism is started in case of a fault of the separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors, and the air cavity protects the aluminum electrolytic capacitor integrated module against short circuits caused by leaking of an electrolytes with negative charges; where the separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors with negative charges; and the separate aluminum electrolytic capacitors and the heat-conducting base component form multiple assembly units, corresponding independent air cavities and pressure outlets are arranged to prevent short circuits between the assembly units caused by upward or downward leaking of the electrolyte with the negative charges (claim 36)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0050468
JP 2010182898 A
KR 20160024817 A
Cited on International Search Report – PCT/CN2021/138356
CN 112038094 A
CN 201215770 Y
CN 205230835 U
CN 109817458 A
CN 102412064 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848