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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 18-24 and 26-49 set forth in the preliminary amendment submitted 2/05/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9-11, filed 2/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 18-44, 46 and 48-49 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dudhwala et al. (Hereinafter, “Dudhwala”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, the rejection of Claim(s) 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudhwala in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 9-10, of the remarks, filed on 2/05/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 18-44, 46 and 48-49 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dudhwala et al. (Hereinafter, “Dudhwala”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, the rejection of Claim(s) 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudhwala in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, that “Dudhwala does not disclose a deformation element in the form of a stack, as specified in base claim 18. Thus, Dudhwala does not anticipate the claimed invention.
Further, for at least the following reasons it would not be technically feasible to modify the line-shunt 266 of Dudhwala, so that it comprises a stack as a deformation element, without destroying the essential characteristics of Dudhwala’ s line-shunt:
1. Dudhwala requires the shunt to be flexible, describing it as a "relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers" (Paragraph [0048]). A stack, by definition, is a rigid, non-flexible compressive structure, and substituting a stack would directly contradict this express requirement.
2. The mechanical deformation mode would be incompatible. Dudhwala’ s shunt must deform by bending to accommodate movement between components (see paragraphs [0047]-[0049]), whereas a stack deforms by axial compression, not by bending (Remarks-Page 9). Converting the shunt into a stack would prevent it from performing the bending-type deflection that Dudhwala relies upon.
3. Electrical performance would be undermined, because Dudhwala depends on the "braided or woven metal fibers" (paragraph [0048]) to provide stable conductivity under flexure and vibration. A stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement, contradicting the teaching that the shunt must "conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible" (paragraph [0048]).
4. The geometry and packaging of Dudhwala would not accommodate a stacked element, because the shunt is positioned as a thin, compliant link that fits within the described connector arrangement (see paragraphs [0045]-[0049]). A stack would require increased thickness, alignment structures, and rigid boundaries, which would be incompatible with the compact, flexible packaging Dudhwala describes. Dudhwala teaches away from the use of rigid conductive structures, repeatedly emphasizing that flexibility is essential. A stack would introduce rigidity, defeating the stated purpose of using a woven or braided shunt.
Accordingly, modifying Dudhwala’ s line-shunt 266 to include a stack-type deformation element would fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the device as taught, making the modification technically incompatible with Dudhwala’ s disclosure. As in the case of In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984), a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed would have lacked reasonable motivation to modify the teachings of Dudhwala in a manner that would have been expected to defeat its fundamental principle and purpose of operation. See, e.g., MPEP 2143.01 ("VI. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF A REFERENCE") and In re Ratti,270 F.2d 810, 813 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
Thus, the claims are not obvious in view of Dudhwala.
Finally, none of the cited references discloses a deformation element formed as a stack. Therefore, the subject matter of the amended main claim is novel and inventive.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the anticipation and obviousness rejections are respectfully requested (Remarks-Page 10)”.
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 9-10 (stated above), filed 2/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 18-44, 46 and 48-49 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dudhwala et al. (Hereinafter, “Dudhwala”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, the rejection of Claim(s) 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudhwala in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Dudhwala does not disclose a deformation element in the form of a stack is not persuasive. Because claim does not recite any structure of stack. From the definition of stack: a large usually conical pile (as of hay, straw, or grain in the sheaf) left standing in the field for storage; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stack. Dudhwala discloses, “The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible; Paragraph [0048] Line 5-8”. Dudhwala discloses the flexible deformation element is made of braided or woven metal fibers; From the definition of stack braided or woven metal fibers can be considered as stack. braided is kind of large woven metal fiber. Braided structures can be considered as a stack of layers due to their interlacing pattern of yarns. The interlacement creates a continuous and cohesive structure, which is similar to the way layers are stacked in a stack; https://www.bing.com/search?q=braided%20can%20be%20considered%20as%20stack%20of%20layer&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=braided%20can%20be%20considered%20as%20stack%20of%20layer&sc=12-43&sk=&cvid=0DE67E3F71C84A708B08641A6BAFD23D. Therefore although Dudhwala does not disclose the “stack” but for the broadest reasonable interpretation Braided structures of Dudhwala can be considered as the form of stack as explained above. Because claim does not recite any structure of stack or how the stack is formed and what elements are in the stack. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that, “Further, for at least the following reasons it would not be technically feasible to modify the line-shunt 266 of Dudhwala, so that it comprises a stack as a deformation element, without destroying the essential characteristics of Dudhwala’ s line-shunt” is not persuasive. Because Dudhwala is not modified here by introducing a reference because for the broadest reasonable interpretation Dudhwala also discloses the form of stack as explained above. Therefore, applicant’s argument, that it would not be technically feasible to modify the line-shunt 266 of Dudhwala is not persuasive because Dudhwala already discloses the limitation and there is no reason to modify Dudhwala reference which might destroy essential characteristics as applicant argues:
1. Applicant’s argument, “A stack, by definition, is a rigid, non-flexible compressive structure, and substituting a stack would directly contradict this express requirement” is not persuasive because applicant also in the claim mentioned that the element is flexible deformation element. Therefore, it contradicts with applicant’s invention. If the claim element is flexible deformation element as the claim recites then how it could be a stack as applicant mentioned that stack, by definition, is a rigid, non-flexible compressive structure, and substituting a stack would directly contradict this express requirement. Therefore, applicant needs to clearly mention what actually the limitation, “a deformation element in the form of a stack” means. Examiner explained above that for the broadest reasonable interpretation Dudhwala also discloses the amended limitation.
2. Applicant’s argument, “a stack deforms by axial compression, not by bending” is not persuasive. Because claim recites, “a deformation element in the form of a stack”. However, claim does not recite that stack deforms by axial compression. If the limitation is not explained in the claim, then the limitation is not considered. Claim only recites that the deformation element in the form of a stack and Dudhwala also discloses the limitation.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., a stack deforms by axial compression) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's argument that a stack deforms by axial compression, not by bending, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements (a stack deforms by axial compression) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Converting the shunt into a stack would prevent it from performing the bending-type deflection that Dudhwala relies upon is not persuasive. Because Dudhwala for the broadest reasonable interpretation already discloses that the shunt can be in the form of stack. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
3. Applicant’s argument, “A stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement, contradicting the teaching that the shunt must "conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible" (paragraph [0048])” is not persuasive. However, claim does not recite that a stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement. If the limitation is not explained in the claim, then the limitation is not considered. Claim only recites that the deformation element in the form of a stack and it does not need that the limitation has all the characteristics of stack as claim does not explicitly recite any use of stack or characteristics of stack and Dudhwala also discloses the limitation.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., A stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's argument that a stack deforms by axial compression, not by bending, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements (A stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
4. Applicant’s argument, “A stack would require increased thickness, alignment structures, and rigid boundaries, which would be incompatible with the compact, flexible packaging Dudhwala describes. Dudhwala teaches away from the use of rigid conductive structures, repeatedly emphasizing that flexibility is essential. A stack would introduce rigidity, defeating the stated purpose of using a woven or braided shunt” is not persuasive. However, claim does not recite the limitation. Claim only recites that hat a stack introduces multiple rigid contact interfaces that do not maintain continuous low-resistance electrical connection during movement. If the limitation is not explained in the claim, then the limitation is not considered. Claim only recites that the deformation element in the form of a stack and examiner explained above that for the broadest reasonable interpretation breaded woven metal fiber can be considered as the form of stack. Claim only recites form of stack and claim does not recite what type of stack and if the stack is doing any special function which might differentiate the present reference from the prior art reference and it does not need that the limitation has all the characteristics of stack as claim does not explicitly recite any use of stack or characteristics of stack and therefore Dudhwala also can be applied to reject the limitation stack as explained above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., A stack would require increased thickness, alignment structures, and rigid boundaries) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's argument that a stack deforms by axial compression, not by bending, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements (A stack would require increased thickness, alignment structures, and rigid boundaries) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Applicant’s argument. “stack-type deformation element” is not persuasive. Because claim does not recite a stack-type deformation. Claim recites a deformation element is in the form of stack that does not mean deformation type is in the form of stack. Claim limitation “deformation element in the form of stack” means that the element can be in the form of stack.
Therefore, applicant’s argument, “Accordingly, modifying Dudhwala’ s line-shunt 266 to include a stack-type deformation element would fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the device as taught, making the modification technically incompatible with Dudhwala’ s disclosure” is not persuasive because Dudhwala for the broadest reasonable interpretation discloses the limitation and it is not needed to modify Dudhwala as Dudhwala already discloses the limitation.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. However, applicant has amended the claim and added the limitation, “wherein the flexible deformation element is in a form of a stack” which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Dudhwala is reapplied to meet at least the amended limitation of claim 18, as set forth below. Therefore Claim(s) 18-24, 26-44, 46 and 48-49 still can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dudhwala et al. (Hereinafter, “Dudhwala”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, Claim(s) 45 and 47 can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudhwala in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1, as set forth below. See the rejection set forth below.
For expedite prosecution Applicant is invited to call to discuss the present rejection also if any further clarification needed and to discuss any possible amendment to overcome the references to make the claims allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 18-24, 26-44, 46 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dudhwala et al. (Hereinafter, “Dudhwala”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor for measuring an electric current (a line conductor extending through the current transformers, a circuit board, and a pair of sensing leads extending between the line conductor and the circuit board. In a first embodiment the line conductor is a relatively rigid line bus bar, and in a second embodiment the line conductor is a relatively flexible line shunt; Abstract), comprising:
a) a first connection part [296] (sensing lead 296 as the first connection part) in Figure 3 (Similar to sensing lead 96 in Figure 1 and therefore the description of the sensing lead is used from Figure 1) comprising at least one of a conductor material and a resistor material for introducing the electric current to be measured into the current measuring resistor (More specifically, the sensing leads 96 are electrically conductively connected with the line bus bar 60 at spaced locations. The resistance of the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96 is known (or is readily ascertainable), such that by detecting the voltage drop along the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96, the current flowing through the line bus bar 60 and thus through the line current path 16 can be determined; Paragraph [0043] Line 1-8);
b) a second connection part [296] (sensing lead 296 as the first connection part) comprising at least one of the conductor material and the resistor material for conducting the electric current to be measured out of the current measuring resistor (More specifically, the sensing leads 96 are electrically conductively connected with the line bus bar 60 at spaced locations. The resistance of the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96 is known (or is readily ascertainable), such that by detecting the voltage drop along the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96, the current flowing through the line bus bar 60 and thus through the line current path 16 can be determined; Paragraph [0043] Line 1-8);
c) a resistor element [266] (line shunt as the resistor element) comprising a resistor material of the resistor element, the resistor element being arranged in a direction of current flow between the first connection part and the second connection part, so that the electric current to be measured flows through the resistor element during a current measurement (By configuring the line shunt 266 to have a slightly resistive character, meaning that it has an electrical resistance at least nominally greater than that of copper alone, the circuit board 300 can readily ascertain the voltage drop between the sensing leads 296 and thus can determine the current flowing through the line shunt 266. The circuit board 300 accordingly can detect the existence of various fault conditions; Paragraph [0050] Line 9-16); and
d) at least one flexible deformation element [266] (line shunt 266 is flexible and therefore is considered as flexible deformation element; Present invention also has the same element 4 as the resistor element and flexible deformation element) (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible. The line shunt 266 extends between the first and second current transformers 290 and 292 and terminates at the line terminal 264; Paragraph [0048] Line 8-11) for enabling a non-destructive and reversible deformation of the current measuring resistor (By configuring the line shunt 266 to have a slightly resistive character, meaning that it has an electrical resistance at least nominally greater than that of copper alone, the circuit board 300 can readily ascertain the voltage drop between the sensing leads 296 and thus can determine the current flowing through the line shunt 266. The circuit board 300 accordingly can detect the existence of various fault conditions; Paragraph [0050] Line 9-16),
the flexible deformation element [266] being arranged between the first connection part and the second connection part in the direction of current flow (As can be seen in FIG. 3, the sensing leads 296 are connected with the line shunt 266 at spaced apart locations and extend therefrom to the circuit board 300; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-3), so that the electric current to be measured flows through the flexible deformation element during the current measurement (The line shunt 266 may be made of many different conductive materials in various combinations, and in one exemplar embodiment may be made of a combination of copper and nickel. Such a copper/nickel combination has a relatively higher resistance than copper alone such that the voltage drop along the line shunt 266 between the sensing leads 296 can be more easily ascertained than if the line shunt 266 were made solely of copper which would have a relatively lower resistance. By configuring the line shunt 266 to have a slightly resistive character, meaning that it has an electrical resistance at least nominally greater than that of copper alone, the circuit board 300 can readily ascertain the voltage drop between the sensing leads 296 and thus can determine the current flowing through the line shunt 266; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-14);
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] is in a form of a stack (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible; Paragraph [0048] Line 5-8; Therefore, the flexible deformation element is in a form of a stack because the flexible deformation element is made of braided or woven metal fibers; From the definition of stack: a large usually conical pile (as of hay, straw, or grain in the sheaf) left standing in the field for storage; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stack ; braided is kind of large woven metal fiber. Braided can be considered as the stack because: Braided structures can be considered as a stack of layers due to their interlacing pattern of yarns. The interlacement creates a continuous and cohesive structure, which is similar to the way layers are stacked in a stack; https://www.bing.com/search?q=braided%20can%20be%20considered%20as%20stack%20of%20layer&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=braided%20can%20be%20considered%20as%20stack%20of%20layer&sc=12-43&sk=&cvid=0DE67E3F71C84A708B08641A6BAFD23D).
Regarding claim 19, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] is formed by the resistor element (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible. The line shunt 266 extends between the first and second current transformers 290 and 292 and terminates at the line terminal 264; Paragraph [0048] Line 8-11; By configuring the line shunt 266 to have a slightly resistive character, meaning that it has an electrical resistance at least nominally greater than that of copper alone, the circuit board 300 can readily ascertain the voltage drop between the sensing leads 296 and thus can determine the current flowing through the line shunt 266; Paragraph [0050] Line 9-14).
Regarding claim 20, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] is elastically deformable (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible. The line shunt 266 extends between the first and second current transformers 290 and 292 and terminates at the line terminal 264; Paragraph [0048] Line 8-11; line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers and therefore elastically deformable).
Regarding claim 21, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element is plastically deformable (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible. The line shunt 266 extends between the first and second current transformers 290 and 292 and terminates at the line terminal 264. The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers; Paragraph [0048] Line 8-13; synonyms of flexible is elastic and Dudhwala discloses that the line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible and therefore deformable).
Regarding claim 22, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible; Paragraph [0048] Line 5-8).
Dudhwala teaches the flexible deformation element however Dudhwala does not teach that the flexible deformation element allows a non-destructive length change of the current measuring resistor of at least 10%.
With respect to the intended use of the flexible deformation element, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
Regarding claim 23, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible; Paragraph [0048] Line 5-8).
Dudhwala teaches the flexible deformation element however Dudhwala does not teach that the flexible deformation element allows a non-destructive bending of the connection parts relative to each other of at least 10°.
With respect to the intended use of the flexible deformation element, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
Regarding claim 24, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] (The line shunt 266 is a relatively flexible metal member made of braided or woven metal fibers that conduct current therethrough yet remain relatively flexible; Paragraph [0048] Line 5-8).
Dudhwala teaches the flexible deformation element however Dudhwala does not teach that the flexible deformation element permits non-destructive rotation of the connection parts relative to one another by at least 10°.
With respect to the intended use of the flexible deformation element, it is to be noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Additionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531) and an “apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
Regarding claim 26, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element [266] is connected to the connection parts [296] via mechanical connection elements in each case in a connecting region (As can be seen in FIG. 3, the sensing leads 296 are connected with the line shunt 266 at spaced apart locations and extend therefrom to the circuit board 300 in a fashion similar to the configuration of the circuit breaker 4; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-8; Figure 3 shows the flexible deformation element [266] is connected to the connection parts [296] via mechanical connection elements in each case in a connecting region).
Regarding claim 27, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the connection parts [296] each enclose, cover or sheathe the mechanical connection elements, so that the connecting region also forms an electrical contact region (Claim 1. A circuit breaker comprising: a set of electrical contacts disconnectably engaged with one another; an operating mechanism structured to responsively disconnect the electrical contacts from one another; a sensor apparatus including a pair of sensing leads, at least a first current transformer, and a sensor; and a line conductor conductively connected with one of the electrical contacts and extending through the at least first current transformer; the sensing leads being electrically connected with the line conductor at spaced apart locations).
Regarding claim 28, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the connection parts [296] are spatially separated from the mechanical connection elements so that the connecting region is separate from the electrical contact region (Figure 3 shows the connection parts [296] are spatially separated from the mechanical connection elements so that the connecting region is separate from the electrical contact region).
Regarding claim 29, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the flexible deformation element is connected to at least one of the connection parts or to at least one of the mechanical connection elements by one of the following connection types: a) a press connection; b) a welded connection; c) a riveted connection; and d) a crimp connection (The bimetal strip 52 includes a fixed end 80 and a free end 84 opposite one another. The fixed end 80 is substantially immovable. The second conductor 48 is connected with the free end 84 of the bimetal strip 52, and the third conductor 56 is connected with the fixed end 80 thereof, with both the second and third conductors 48 and 56 being affixed by soldering, welding, mechanical attachment, or other appropriate connection methodology; Paragraph [0037] Line 1-8).
Regarding claim 30, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor, further comprising:
a) at least one first voltage tap [290] on the first connection part [296] and/or on the resistor element [266]; and
b) at least one second voltage tap [292] on the second connection part [296] and/or on the resistor element [266] (The line shunt 266 extends between the first and second current transformers 290 and 292 and terminates at the line terminal 264; Paragraph [0048] Line 8-10).
Regarding claim 31, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor, wherein:
i) the at least one first voltage tap and the at least one second voltage tap are each formed by pins;
i1) the pins are pressed into bores in the connection parts or the resistor element, welded onto the connection parts or the resistor element or soldered onto the connection parts or the resistor element;
iii) the pins consist of the conductor material of the connection parts or of the resistor material of the resistor element; and
iv) the pins are coated with a coating (1-10The sensor apparatus 28 includes a first current transformer 90, a second current transformer 92, a circuit board 100, and a pair of sensing leads 96 that extend between the line bus bar 60 and the circuit board 100. It is understood, however, that in other embodiments of the circuit breaker 4, the sensor apparatus may not include the second current transformer 92. For reasons that will be set forth more fully below, the circuit board 100 is operatively connected with the operating mechanism 24 as is depicted by a fourth dashed line 104; Paragraph [0039] Line 1-10).
Regarding claim 32, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
further comprising
a) a first current shadow [264] in a form of an incision in the first connection part for influencing the current flow in the first connection part, the first current shadow at least partially surrounding the first voltage tap, and b) a second current shadow [268] in a form of an incision in the second connection part for influencing the current flow in the second connection part, the second current shadow at least partially surrounding the second voltage tap (The line bus bar 60 connects with a line terminal 64 that is at the opposite end of the line current path 16 from the line terminal 32. The line terminal 64 is connectable with a wire that extends to the line side of the electrical load; Paragraph [0034] Line 104; Figure 3 discloses similar current shadow).
Regarding claim 33, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor, further comprising:
wherein the two current shadows [264, 268] in the connection parts have the same shape (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] in the connection parts have the same shape).
.
Regarding claim 34, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor, further comprising:
wherein the two current shadows in the connection parts have the same length along the incision (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] the two current shadows in the connection parts have the same length along the incision).
Regarding claim 35, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the two current shadows in the connection parts are L-shaped, U-shaped, C-shaped, V-shaped, straight or arc- shaped (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] in the connection parts are L-shaped).
Regarding claim 36, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the two current shadows in the connection parts start from an edge of the current-measuring resistor (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] in the connection parts start from an edge of the current-measuring resistor).
Regarding claim 37, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the two current shadows in the connection parts have the same distance or different distances from a lateral edge of the current measuring resistor (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] in the connection parts have the same distance or different distances from a lateral edge of the current measuring resistor).
Regarding claim 38, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein: a) a current shadow in a form of an incision is arranged in the resistor element in order to influence the current flow in the resistor element; b) the current shadow in the resistor element emanates from a lateral edge (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] in the resistor element emanates from a lateral edge), from one or from both sides of the resistor element; and c) the current shadow in the resistor element is arranged centrally between the connection parts.
Regarding claim 39, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the current shadow is arranged in all planes of a stack forming the flexible deformation element [266] (Figure 3 shows the wo current shadows [264, 268] which is connected with flexible deformation element 266 and therefore the current shadow is arranged in all planes of a stack forming the flexible deformation element [266]).
Regarding claim 40, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein a trim cut is introduced into the resistor element and/or into at least one of the connection elements in order to adjust a resistance value (Figure 3 shows a trim cut is introduced into the resistor element and/or into at least one of the connection elements in order to adjust a resistance value as it clips with the flexible element).
Regarding claim 41, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the trim cut is arranged in the resistor element and/or in at least one of the connection elements as follows: a) laterally from an edge from one side; and b) in all planes of the stack forming the flexible deformation element (Figure 3 shows the trim cut is arranged in the resistor element and/or in at least one of the connection elements as follows: a) laterally from an edge from one side; and b) in all planes of a stack forming the flexible deformation element).
Regarding claim 42, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the voltage taps [290, 292] are each formed by contact pads on the connection parts and/or the resistor element (The line and neutral bus bars 60 and 72 additionally include substantially rigid extension conductors 110, 114, 116, and 118 that extend through the central bores 106 in the first and second current transformers 90 and 92 but form the primaries of the first and second current transformers 90 and 92; Paragraph [0041] Line 5-10; Similar elements in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 43, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein the voltage taps are formed by mating contact surfaces which are in contact with the connection parts and/or the resistor element, the mating contact surfaces optionally being located on a printed circuit board [300], a plug, a pin or a stamped grid (As can be seen in FIG. 3, the sensing leads 296 are connected with the line shunt 266 at spaced apart locations and extend therefrom to the circuit board 300 in a fashion similar to the configuration of the circuit breaker 4; paragraph [0049] Line 1-4).
Regarding claim 44, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein: a) the conductor material of the connection parts 1s copper; b) the resistor material of the resistor element is selected from the group consisting of: bl) acopper alloy; b2) a copper-manganese-tin alloy; b3) = CuMni2Nu; b4) CuMn7Snz3; b5) a copper-manganese-nickel alloy; b6) CusgaNigMni2; b7) CuesMnasNit0; b8) acopper-chromium alloy; b9) anickel alloy; b10) NiCr; b11) NiCraAISi; b12) CuNi; and b13) CuNi44; c) the conductor material of the connection parts has a lower specific electrical resistance than the resistor material of the resistor element; d) the resistor material of the resistor element has a specific electrical resistance smaller than 2-107 O-m; e) the resistor material of the resistor element has a specific electrical resistance greater than 2-107 Q-m; and f) the conductor material of the connection parts has a specific electrical resistance which is smaller than 10° Q-m (The line shunt 266 may be made of many different conductive materials in various combinations, and in one exemplar embodiment may be made of a combination of copper and nickel. Such a copper/nickel combination has a relatively higher resistance than copper alone such that the voltage drop along the line shunt 266 between the sensing leads 296 can be more easily ascertained than if the line shunt 266 were made solely of copper which would have a relatively lower resistance. By configuring the line shunt 266 to have a slightly resistive character, meaning that it has an electrical resistance at least nominally greater than that of copper alone, the circuit board 300 can readily ascertain the voltage drop between the sensing leads 296 and thus can determine the current flowing through the line shunt 266. The circuit board 300 accordingly can detect the existence of various fault conditions; Paragraph [0050] Line 1-16).
Regarding claim 46, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor, wherein:
a) the connection parts are coated with a coating; and b) the connection parts are each plate-shaped (The line shunt 266, due to its flexible nature, may additionally include an insulative coating on the outer surface thereof to resist shorting with other components within the circuit breaker 204; Paragraph [0049] Line 4-8).
Regarding claim 48, Dudhwala teaches a measuring arrangement with
a) a current measuring resistor according to claim 18 (Rejection of claim 18), and
b) a contacting partner [300] (circuit board 300) for the current measuring resistor [296+266], wherein at least one of the connection parts [296] of the current measuring resistor is electrically and mechanically connected to the contacting partner [300] (As can be seen in FIG. 3, the sensing leads 296 are connected with the line shunt 266 at spaced apart locations and extend therefrom to the circuit board 300 in a fashion similar to the configuration of the circuit breaker 4; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-4).
Regarding claim 49, Dudhwala teaches a measuring arrangement,
wherein the contacting partner is a printed circuit board [300], a connector, a pin or a stamped grid (As can be seen in FIG. 3, the sensing leads 296 are connected with the line shunt 266 at spaced apart locations and extend therefrom to the circuit board 300 in a fashion similar to the configuration of the circuit breaker 4; Paragraph [0049] Line 1-4).
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.
Claim(s) 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudhwala in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020171987 A1.
Regarding claim 45, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein: a) the resistor material of the resistor element
Dudhwala discloses the claimed invention except for the resistor material of the resistor element has a temperature coefficient of electrical resistance of less than 50 ppm/K in a temperature range Tl = -20°C to +140°C relative to a reference temperature TRef = 20°C; and b) the resistor material of the resistor element has a temperature coefficient of electrical resistance of less than 60 ppm/K in the temperature range T2 = -40°C to +200°C relative to the reference temperature TRef = 20°C; and/or c) the resistor material of the resistor element has a temperature coefficient of electrical resistance of less than 80 ppm/K in the temperature range T3 = -60°C to +200°C relative to the reference temperature TRef = 20°C.. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an electrical resistance value of at most 10 mQ, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine Skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 47, Dudhwala teaches a current measuring resistor,
wherein: the current measuring resistor has an electrical resistance (More specifically, the sensing leads 96 are electrically conductively connected with the line bus bar 60 at spaced locations. The resistance of the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96 is known (or is readily ascertainable), such that by detecting the voltage drop along the line bus bar 60 between the pair of sensing leads 96, the current flowing through the line bus bar 60 and thus through the line current path 16 can be determined; Paragraph [0043] Line 1-8).
Dudhwala discloses the claimed invention except for the current measuring resistor has an electrical resistance value of at most 10 mQ. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an electrical resistance value of at most 10 mQ, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine Skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fischer (US 20110260720 A1) discloses, “Measuring Probe For Non-destructive Measuring Of The Thickness Of Thin Layers- [0001] The invention relates to a measuring probe for non-destructive measuring of the thickness of thin layers on objects. [0040] A schematic side view of a measuring probe 11 according to the invention is shown in FIG. 1. A further schematic view of the measuring probe 11 is given in FIG. 2. A measuring probe 11 of this type is used for non-destructive measuring of the thickness of thin layers 12, 14 on objects 16. These objects 16 can comprise a level measurement surface, or as shown in the execution example, a curved measurement surface 17. The measuring probe 11 is connected by a connecting line 19 to an evaluation device 20, shown schematically. Alternatively, a cordless data transfer of the detected and recorded measurement values on the measuring probe 11 can be provided on the evaluation device 20. [0041] The measuring probe 11 includes a housing 22, on which a positioning device 23 can either be attached to the housing 22, or is formed as an integral part, depending on the measurement task. In the present execution example, the positioning device 23 is formed as a prism, in order to create a secure positioning on the object 16 with a curved measurement surface 17. Alternatively, other positioning devices can also be provided. For very delicate measurement surfaces 17, the positioning can comprise an additional coating, of plastic or similar, for example. [0042] In the housing 22, a support device 24 is arranged so that it is moveable with at least one degree of freedom, and which accepts a first measuring head 26 and at least a further measuring head 27, spatially separated from each other on the same support device 24. Each of the measuring heads comprise a polar axis 28, 29, which are oriented parallel to each other, and are arranged at a distance from one another. The distance of the polar axes 28, 29 of the measuring heads 26, 27 is, for example, a few millimetres, particularly 3 to 10 mm, whereby in comparison to large scale measurement surfaces 17, punctiform measurement can be taken as the starting point. The first and at least one further measuring head 26, 27 lie on a common line, particularly oriented at right angles to the positioning device 23, so that the measuring heads 26, 27 are oriented along a surface line of the curved measurement surface 17 on the object 16-However Fischer does not disclose at least one flexible deformation element for enabling a non-destructive and reversible deformation of the current measuring resistor, the flexible deformation element being arranged between the first connection part and the second connection part in the direction of current flow, so that the electric current to be measured flows through the flexible deformation element during the current measurement, wherein the flexible deformation element is in a form of a stack.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights