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 without traverse of Species A; Figures 2, 4-7, and 11; Claims 1-7 and 10-20 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “an electrically conductive material”, and the claim also recites “in particular metal” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-5, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engelhardt (DE 1440838).
Engelhardt discloses a busbar (a) with a wall (3/4) which encloses at least one cavity (2), wherein the busbar has at least one web (7) which projects from the wall at least partially into the at least one cavity, wherein the at least one cavity is at least partially filled with a phase change material (gaseous coolants, [0007]) which is in thermally conductive contact with the at least one web (re-claim 1). Engelhardt also discloses that the at least one web is formed integrally with the wall (re-claim 2); the busbar has a height and a width and the at least one web extends along the height (re-claim 3); the at least one web extends over the entire height (re-claim 4); the wall is made of an electrically conductive material (metal) (re-claim 5); the busbar (1) comprises a main section (middle section), a first connection section (left end section) and a second connection section (right end section), wherein the main section comprises the at least one cavity (re-claim 16), and wherein the first connection section and/or the second connection are formed integrally with the main section (re-claim 20).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt.
Engelhardt does not disclose the busbar (1, conductor rail) comprising copper or aluminum. Engelhardt, in the background, discloses that conductor rail comprising copper or aluminum. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the busbar (1) of Engelhardt to comprise copper or aluminum to meet the specific use of the resulting busbar since copper and aluminum are both known for being used for busbars.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Miura (2019/0207295).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the thickness of the wall being at least 0.2 mm. Miura discloses a busbar (conductor 211a, Fig. 6c) having a width, a height, and a thickness, wherein the thickness is at least 0.2 mm ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the wall of Engelhardt with a thickness of at least 0.2 mm as taught by Miura to meet the specific use of the resulting busbar.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Kupfer et al. (2024/0380139).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the at least one web (7) not being more than 60% of the cross-section area of the busbar (1) (Fig. 2) (re-claim 11). Engelhardt does not disclose the busbar having a height between 1.5 mm and 25 mm, a width between 15 mm and 120 mm, and a cross-section area between 40 mm2 and 350 mm2 (re-claims 10-11). Kupfer et al. discloses a busbar ([0077]) having a height between 1.5 mm and 25 mm, a width between 15 mm and 120 mm, and a cross-section area between 40 mm2 and 350 mm2 ([0077]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the busbar of Engelhardt to have the width, height, and cross-sectional area as taught by Kupfer et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting busbar.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Warren (4023349).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the at least one cavity being filled with the phase change material. Engelhardt does not disclose the volume of the at least one cavity being filled to 30%-70%. Warren (col. 5 lines 45-48) discloses a busbar (stem 34) having at least one cavity therein (hollow space 35), wherein the volume of the at least one cavity is filled to 30%-70%. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to fill the volume of the at least one cavity of Engelhardt between 30%-70% of the phase change material as taught by Warren to meet the specific use of the resulting busbar.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Zhang et al. (2017/0169948).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the phase change material having a paraffin-based organic material and having a phase change temperature between 60°C and 140°C. Zhang et al. discloses a busbar (heat sink 110) including a phase change material ([0033]) which has a phase change temperature between 60°C and 140°C and a paraffin-based organic material ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the phase change material as taught by Zhang et al. for the phase change material of Engelhardt since such material is known in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Arnold (2018/0351227).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the wall of the main section being encased in electrical insulation. Arnold (Fig. 1) discloses a busbar (18) in which a wall of the main section is encased in an elecrtical insulation (14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to encase the wall of the main section (and other sections) of the busbar of Engelhardt with an insulation as taught by Arnold to protect the busbar from surrounding environment.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Koya (2020/0099119).
Engelhardt discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the at least one cavity being sealed airtight; and the first connection section and the second connection being fixed to the main section. Koya discloses a busbar (10, Fig. 1) comprising a main section; a first connection section (18); and a second connection section (18), wherein the first connection section and the second connection are fixed to the main section. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to fix to the busbar main section of Engelhardt with first and second connection sections (18) as taught by Koya to provide termination means for the busbar. It is noted that in the modified busbar of Engelhardt, the at least one cavity (2) is sealed airtight since two ends of the busbar are closed by the first and second connection sections (18) of Koya.
It has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Bailey et al. (10285301).
Claim 19 additionally recites the first and/or second connection section being a cable lug. Bailey et al. discloses a busbar (410) comprising a first connection section (412) which is a cable lug. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a cable lug as taught by Bailey et al. as the first connection section of Engelhardt to provide a connection means for the busbar with another component.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights