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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I, Fig. 2, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “access point”, the “lid”, the “hinge”, the “retainer mechanism”, the “snap-fit feature”, and the “open fuse indicator”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 15, 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The aforementioned claims recite limitations: the “lid that is connected to a hinge” (claims 3 and 15), the “retainer mechanism” (claims 6 and 18), and the “open fuse indicator” (claims 8 and 20).
The specification does not provide an adequate support for the aforementioned limitations. After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the Inventor/Applicant, no existence of the working examples (as per the current record), and that there is low predictability of the claimed functions in the relevant arts), the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973), and In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
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 12 and 13, 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 12 recites the limitation “particular direction” and claim 13 recites the limitations “front of the main housing”. These limitations render the claims indefinite, since they are relative terms which depend on the general orientation of the claimed apparatus. Any “direction” can be a “particular” one and any side of the main housing can be a “front” thereof.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 17-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by KR 1996-0002143 to Hong Soon-Chang (hereafter “Hong”).
Regarding claim 1 Hong discloses (Figs. 1-5 and English translation of record) a cover (1) for a fuse holder assembly (7, 901) that is configured for one or more working fuses (6) connected in an electrical circuitry (via (8)), the cover comprising: a cover housing (4) comprising one or more slots (3) configured to house one or more spare fuses (601), wherein the one or more spare fuses (601) are disconnected from the electrical circuitry (Fig. 4); and a mounting mechanism (5, 8, 9, 702) that is coupled to the cover housing (4), wherein the mounting mechanism (5) is configured to secure the cover housing (4) to the fuse holder assembly (7, 901).
Regarding claim 10, Hong discloses (Figs. 1-5) a fuse holder assembly (7, 901), comprising: a main housing (7) configured to house one or more working fuses (6) connected in an electrical circuitry (via (8)); and a cover (1) for the main housing (7), the cover comprising: a cover housing (4) comprising one or more slots (3) configured to house one or more spare fuses (601), wherein the one or more spare fuses (601) are disconnected from the electrical circuitry (Fig. 4); and a mounting mechanism (5, 8, 9, 702) that is coupled to the cover housing (4), wherein the mounting mechanism (5) is configured to secure the cover housing (4) to the main housing (7).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Hong discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) that at least a portion of the cover housing (4) is configured with an access point to the one or more slots (3).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 17, and 18, as best understood, Hong discloses a panel (formed by portions (301, 302) and not-numbered portion between them) that separates the one or more spare fuses (601) from the one or more working fuses (6), wherein said panel (301, 302) serves as a retainer mechanism configured to secure the one or more spare fuses (601) in the one or more slots (3) (p. 3, par. 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, as best understood, Hong discloses that the mounting mechanism (5, 8, 9, 702) comprises a snap-fit feature (formed by fuse clips (8)).
Regarding claim 9, Hong discloses that the one or more slots (3) are configured with a dimension to fit a fuse (601) of a particular size or shape (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 11-13, as best understood, Hong discloses (Figs. 3 and 4) that a major axis of the cover housing (4) is parallel to a major axis of the main housing (7), wherein the cover housing (4) is positioned in a particular direction relative to the main housing (7), wherein the cover housing (4) is positioned in front of the main housing (7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 8, 16, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of US 2, 783, 331 to Sundt.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 16, and 20, Hong does not disclose that at least a portion of the cover is transparent and an open fuse indicator that indicates whether one or more of the working fuses are opened.
Sundt discloses (Figs. 1-5) a fuse holder (10) comprising: a transparent cover (12) (col. 2, ll. 2-5; col. 3, ll. 35-37) and an open fuse indicator (42) that indicates whether one or more of the working fuses (48) are opened.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Hong according to the teaching of Sundt, so the combination would have at least a portion of the cover that is transparent and an open fuse indicator that indicates whether one or more of the working fuses are opened, in order to predictably provide fuse status indication to a user/maintenance personnel. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3 and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of US 4,178,061 to Ahroni.
Regarding claims 3 and 15 Hong does not disclose the access point to the one or more slots is covered by a lid that is connected to a hinge.
Ahroni discloses a fuse holder (10) having a fuse compartment covered by a lid (22) that is connected to a hinge (80, 82).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Hong according to the teaching of Ahroni, so the combination would have the access point to the one or more slots that is covered by a lid that is connected to a hinge, in order to predictably provide protection to fuses from the environment and improve safety. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various fuse holders with provisions to accommodate spare fuses. Furter, the US 988891, 2074921, 6144284, 5701118, 50002505, and 4475283 teach fuse status indicating arrangements.
Furthermore, the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the following references which could have been also used for statutory rejection of the at least independent claims 1 and 10: US 3813626 (Fig. 4 and 5), US 2007/0141923 (Figs. 2, 3, 5), UK 2153163 (Figs. 3 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835