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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0025] recites: “The receiving compartments are formed from the walls of the spin”, it should read The receiving compartments are formed from the walls of the spine.
Paragraph [0028], recites: “More specifically, each bus bar extends from wall 421 to wall 427”, it should read: More specifically, each bus bar extends from wall 421 to wall 425.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in lines 8-9, recites “one or more guiding structures extending from a surface of the first wall”. It should read: one or more guiding structures extending from a surface of the wall.
Claim 15, in lines 1-2, recites “wherein guiding structures are configured to engage with track indentations of chassis modules.”. It should read: wherein the guiding structures are configured to engage with track indentations of chassis modules, in order to avoid confusion that said guiding structures might different than the ones defined in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-19 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.
Claim 16, in lines 8-9, recites: “the wall including cavities spaced along the length of the wall and at locations relative to holes of the bus bars”. This limitation is confusing because the phrase “at locations relative to holes of the bus bars” it is not clear what “relative to” means (i.e., whether the cavities are aligned with, adjacent to, or offset from the position of the holes); also, it is not clear what degree of correspondence (e.g., one-to-one, periodic, or arbitrary) exists between the cavities and the holes. Thus, the limitation fails to provide clear boundaries as to the positional relationship between the claimed cavities of the wall and the holes of the bus bar. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, and based on the fact that figure 4 of the instant application shows holes 435 are not in a one-to-one correspondence with holes of bus bar 413, the limitation will be read as: the wall including cavities spaced along the length of the wall.
Claims 17-19 are rejected based on their dependency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rose et al. (US 5784250 A, and Rose hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Rose discloses a spine of a chassis, the spine comprising:
receiving compartments (e.g., space occupied by module shown in annotated figure II below) configured to receive chassis modules (annotated figure I), each receiving compartment formed by:
a portion of a panel (200, fig. 1);
a portion of a wall raised from a first edge of the panel and extending along the first edge (annotated figure II below);
portions of two bus bars spaced apart from each other and fixed to the panel (annotated figure II); and
PNG
media_image1.png
1036
1365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more guiding structures (206, fig. 20) extending from a surface of the first wall (fig. 20), the guiding structures configured to (a) engage with chassis modules (“circuit breaker support hooks 206 for mounting and supporting circuit breakers”, Col. 10, ln. 2-3) and (b) prevent the received chassis modules from sliding into an adjacent receiving compartment (206 functional role is to help keep chassis module in place, which according to the shape of 206 shown in figure 20 (vertical and horizontal walls), would be achieved, at least, through contact forces such as friction and/or normal reaction forces).
PNG
media_image2.png
1018
1818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the chassis is an electrical panel (figure 1; “electric load center”, Abstract section).
Regarding Claim 3, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the receiving compartments are for attaching chassis modules across the two bus bars (annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 4, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the receiving compartments are configured for field installation of the chassis modules (“enable a greater number of circuit breakers to be installed within the load center 1”, Col 10, ln. 11-12).
Regarding Claim 5, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the guiding structures are at fixed positions relative to the bus bars (annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 6, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the two bus bars run parallel to each other (annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 7, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein each receiving compartment is additionally formed by a portion of a second wall (wall 2, annotated figure II) raised from a second edge of the panel and extending along the second edge annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 8, Rose discloses the spine of claim 7, wherein each receiving compartment is additionally formed by one or more guiding structures extending from a surface of the second wall facing the first wall (annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 12, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the wall includes cavities spaced along the length of the wall and at locations aligned with the receiving compartments (annotated figure II).
Regarding Claim 13, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1, wherein the guiding structures are tabs (annotated figure II; broadest reasonable interpretation was used as well as definition of tab: “a short projecting device: such as (1) a small flap or loop by which something may be grasped or pulled” (Merrian-Webster dictionary)).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Lalancette et al. (US 9859692 B1, and Lalancette hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 9, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the spine further comprises a neutral bus bar or a ground bus bar fixed to a top surface of the wall.
Lalancette discloses a neutral bus bar or a ground bus bar (420, fig. 19) fixed to a top surface of a wall (wall being structure comprising hooks shown in fig. 19, and having a stepped profile; neutral bar 420 fixed to the top surface of the lowest step portion, fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Lalancette so that the spine further comprises a neutral bus bar or a ground bus bar fixed to a top surface of the wall, in order to reduce the spacing/distance to the neutral bar and provide a compact design. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that, absent disclosure of functional criticality, said modification is equivalent to a matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04, I). Even if a change in design is not considered, having the neutral bar as claimed, would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill as a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e., having the neutral bar of Rose located directly on the top surface of the wall instead of offset). Rearrangement of parts has been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See also MPEP § 2144.04, VI, C).
Claims 10-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Rowe (US 3243663 A, and Rowe hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 10, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose each bus bar includes holes along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on the other bus bar, and a set of aligned holes are configured to receive bolts that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars.
Rowe discloses bus bars (3-5, fig. 2) including holes (21-25, fig. 2) along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on another bus bar (fig. 2), and a set of aligned holes configured to receive bolts (e.g., 26, fig. 2)that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Rowe so that each bus bar includes holes along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on the other bus bar, and a set of aligned holes configured to receive bolts that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars in order to fasten the chassis modules with precise alignment.
Regarding Claim 11, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis modules to the two bus bars.
Rowe discloses bus bars (3-5, fig. 2) contain a hole pattern (21-25, fig. 2) for attachment of a chassis module (6, fig. 1) to the bus bars.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose/Rowe to incorporate the additional teachings of Rowe so that the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis module to the two bus bars, in order to fasten the chassis modules with precise alignment.
Regarding Claim 16 (as best understood), Rose discloses a spine of a chassis, the spine comprising:
a back panel (200, fig. 1);
two bus bars spaced apart from each other and fixed to the back panel (annotated figure II); and
a wall raised from a first edge of the panel and extending along the first edge (annotated figure II), the wall including cavities spaced along the length of the wall (cavities located under guiding structures, annotated figure II).
Rose does not explicitly disclose each bus bar including holes along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on the other bus bar, a set of aligned holes configured to receive bolts that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars.
Rowe discloses bus bars (3-5, fig. 2) including holes (21-25, fig. 2) along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on the other bus bar (fig. 2), a set of aligned holes configured to receive bolts (e.g., 26, fig. 2)that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Rowe so that each bus bar includes holes along a length of the bus bar and aligned with holes on the other bus bar, a set of aligned holes configured to receive bolts that hold a chassis module in physical contact to the bus bars in order to fasten the chassis modules with precise alignment.
Regarding Claim 17 (as best understood), Rose/Rowe discloses the spine of claim 16, further comprising one or more guiding structures (206, fig. 20 of Rose) extending from a surface of the wall (annotated figure II), the guiding structures configured to (a) engage with chassis modules (“circuit breaker support hooks 206 for mounting and supporting circuit breakers”, Col. 10, ln. 2-3 of Rose) and (b) prevent the received chassis modules from sliding into an adjacent receiving compartment (functional role of 206, fig. 20 of Rose is to help keep chassis module in place, which according to the shape of 206 shown in figure 20 (vertical and horizontal walls), would be achieved, at least, through contact forces such as friction and/or normal reaction forces).
Regarding Claim 18 (as best understood), Rose/Rowe discloses the spine of claim 17, wherein the guiding structures are tabs (Rose, fig. 20 and annotated figure II; broadest reasonable interpretation was used as well as definition of tab: “a short projecting device: such as (1) a small flap or loop by which something may be grasped or pulled” (Merrian-Webster dictionary)).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Flegel (US 7449645 B1, and Flegel hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 14, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the guiding structures engage with an outer surface of a chassis module.
PNG
media_image3.png
929
1322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Flegel discloses guiding structures (annotated figure III below) engaging with an outer surface of a chassis module (annotated figure III).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Flegel so that the guiding structures engage with an outer surface of a chassis module, in order to allow quick install/removal of the chassis module.
Regarding Claim 15, Rose discloses the spine of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose guiding structures are configured to engage with track indentations of chassis modules.
Flegel discloses guiding structures (annotated figure III) are configured to engage with track indentations of chassis modules (annotated figure III).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Flegel so that the guiding structures are configured to engage with track indentations of chassis modules, in order to allow secure and easy positioning of the chassis module.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Rowe, further in view of Deboer et al. (US 7692112 B2, and Deboer hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 19 (as best understood), Rose/Rowe discloses the spine of claim 16, further comprising guiding structures (206, fig. 20 of Rose) extending from the wall (annotated figure II), the guiding structures defining receiving compartments for attaching chassis modules across the two bus bars (fig. 1 and annotated figures I and II above), wherein the receiving compartments are configured for field installation of the chassis modules compartments are configured for field installation of the chassis modules (“enable a greater number of circuit breakers to be installed within the load center 1”, Col 10, ln. 11-12 or Rose).
Rose/Rowe does not explicitly disclose for each receiving compartment: the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis module to the two bus bars, and the wall includes an opening to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module.
Rowe further discloses bus bars (3-5, fig. 2) contain a hole pattern (21-25, fig. 2) for attachment of a chassis module (6, fig. 1) to the bus bars.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose/Rowe to incorporate the additional teachings of Rowe so that the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis module to the two bus bars, in order to fasten the chassis modules with precise alignment.
Deboer discloses a wall (18, fig. 2) includes an opening (opening that houses connector 24, fig. 2) to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module (fig. 2; “Connector 24 may include any wire or bus type suitable for facilitating electrical data communication between control module 16 and data rail 18”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose and Rowe to incorporate the teachings of Deboer so that the side wall includes an opening to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module, in order to provide means to control the chassis module (“a control module allows for switching of power from a circuit breaker to a load when desired”, Col. 1, ln. 16-18 of Deboer; “a control module … is coupled to circuit breaker 14 and is configured to selectively route or switch electrical power from circuit breaker 14”, Col. 3, ln. 29-31 of Deboer).
Regarding Claim 20, Rose discloses a spine of a chassis, the spine comprising:
a back panel (200, fig. 1);
a side wall extending from an edge of the back panel (annotated figure II above);
two bus bars that are spaced apart from each other, fixed to the back panel, and run parallel to the side wall (annotated figure II); and
guiding structures (206, fig. 20) extending from the side wall, the guiding structures defining receiving compartments for attaching chassis modules across the two bus bars (fig. 1 and annotated figures I and II above),
wherein the receiving compartments are configured for field installation of the chassis modules (“enable a greater number of circuit breakers to be installed within the load center 1”, Col. 10, ln. 11-12).
Rose does not explicitly disclose for each receiving compartment: the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis module to the two bus bars, and the side wall includes an opening to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module.
Rowe discloses bus bars (3-5, fig. 2) contain a hole pattern (21-25, fig. 2) for attachment of a chassis module (6, fig. 1) to the bus bars.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose to incorporate the teachings of Rowe so that the two bus bars contain a hole pattern for attachment of the chassis module to the two bus bars, in order to fasten the chassis modules with precise alignment.
Deboer discloses a side wall (18, fig. 2) includes an opening (opening that houses connector 24, fig. 2) to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module (fig. 2; “Connector 24 may include any wire or bus type suitable for facilitating electrical data communication between control module 16 and data rail 18”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rose and Rowe to incorporate the teachings of Deboer so that the side wall includes an opening to pass an electrical connection that provides data to the chassis module, in order to provide means to control the chassis module (“a control module allows for switching of power from a circuit breaker to a load when desired”, Col. 1, ln. 16-18 of Deboer; “a control module … is coupled to circuit breaker 14 and is configured to selectively route or switch electrical power from circuit breaker 14”, Col. 3, ln. 29-31 of Deboer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841