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 .
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, The terms "external top waif' and an "internal bottom wall" are confusing and leave the reader in doubt about the technical feature to which they refer, rendering claim 1 unclear. The description only discloses that the "interior bottom wall extends outward from the internal side 102 at a 90-degree angle" [paragraph 0016] and that the "connection plate 118 extends away from the internal side 102 and the external side 104 at a 90-degree angle relative to the exterior top wall" [paragraph 0019], which does not explain the terms "external" or "internal".
It shall also be noted that the description refers to elements 108, 110 as both "exterior/external' top wall and "interior/internal' bottom wall, whereas the claims only refer to "internal bottom waif' and "external bottom waif'. This contradicting terminology should also be corrected.
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. 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.
Regarding claim 5, Although it is apparent from Fig.1, Fig.2 and Fig.6 what the applicant means with the expression "diamond shaped' used in claim 5, this definition is unclear since, strictly speaking, diamonds can be shaped in many different ways. This term should be updated with a more precise technical definition
Independent claim 1, dependent claim 5 and their respective dependent claims have been rejected and will be examined as best understood.
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 cavities of at least claim 3, 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "26 " and "36a" have both been used to designate side wall.
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) 1-3, 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groner et al. (hereinafter Groner) (US10236665).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Groner a polycarbonate barrier (20); Figure 1; Column 3, lines 38-41) for isolation of electrical components (55; Figures 5-7), the polycarbonate barrier comprising: a rectangular shield plate (11; Figure 2) comprising: an internal side (Figure 2); an external side (24)(Figure 2); an external top wall (Figure 2); an internal bottom wall (Figure 2); and at least one side wall (26; Figure 2); a connection plate (15; Figure 2) extending upwardly from the external top wall (Figure 7), the connection plate comprising: a left connection piece (Figure 2 – bent side flanges); a right connection piece (Figure 2 – bent side flanges); at least one connection tab (Figure 2: see tabs on the bottom part of the plate); and at least one adapter piece (17) (Figure 2); wherein the adapter piece is removable to accommodate an electrical component (Fig.2: the adapter piece 17 is fixed to the connection plate 15 through screws 19, washers 21 and wingnuts 23, and can therefore be removed to accommodate an electrical component).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
550
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 1, wherein the side wall (24 is a side) defines a plurality of hooks (22).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 1, wherein the side wall defines a plurality of cavities extending from the internal side to the external side (Figure 4);.
PNG
media_image3.png
572
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 2, wherein the hooks are configured to securely fit on a casing of an electrical component. (aforementioned figure 7)
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 1, wherein the electrical component is a power distribution unit (55).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 1, wherein the connection plate further comprises mating points configured to secure the barrier (aforementioned Figure 7).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 10, wherein the mating points are located distally on the left and right connection pieces (aforementioned Figure 7).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gretz (US7304236).
Regarding claim 12, Gretz discloses an electrical component isolation system (314) comprising: a high voltage area (26); a low voltage area (24); and a polycarbonate barrier (Column 10, Lines 30-33), wherein the polycarbonate barrier is configured to provide a physical barrier between the high voltage area and the low voltage area.
Regarding claim 13, Gretz discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the polycarbonate barrier includes at least one adapter piece that can be removed to allow passage of an electrical component from the high voltage area to the low voltage area. (42)
Regarding claim 14, Gretz discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the electrical component is a busbar (26, Figures 22 and 23).
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.
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(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groner et al. (hereinafter Groner) (US10236665) in view of Tremaine et al. (hereinafter Tremaine) (US20160241007).
Regarding claim 4, Groner in view of Tremaine discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim .
Groner does not expressly disclose at least one airflow opening extending through the barrier from the internal side to the external side.
Tremaine discloses at least one airflow opening (54) extending through the barrier from the internal side to the external side.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the airflow opening of Tremaine into the polycarbonate barrier of Groner.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to create airflow for electrical component(s) associates with the polycarbonate barrier.
Regarding claim 5, Groner in view of Tremaine, discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 4
Groner in view of Tremaine does not expressly disclose wherein each airflow opening is diamond shaped with an approximate length of 5mm.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the claimed diamond shape into the polycarbonate barrier.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as changing the shape of an element is obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groner et al. (hereinafter Groner) (US10236665) in view of CN218850159.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Groner discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 1.
Groner does not expressly disclose wherein the connection plate further defines a void between the left connection piece and the right connection piece, wherein the adapter piece, when removed, enlarges the void by a distance extending away from the connector plate.
CN218850159 discloses a void and “may be arranged and designed in a wide variety of different configurations”
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the void of CN218850159 into the housing of Groner.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to accommodate a myriad of electronic devices.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Groner in view of CN218850159 discloses the polycarbonate barrier of claim 7, wherein the said polycarbonate barrier can be configured to accommodate electrical components of varying sizes.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN218850159 in view of Gretz (US7304236).
Regarding claim 15, CN218850159 discloses a method for isolating electrical components within a cabinet (100), the method comprising: providing a polycarbonate barrier (120); attaching the barrier to a housing (111) of the cabinet to separate a high voltage area and a low voltage area (see Examiner’s Note); and adjusting an adapter piece (may be arranged and designed in a wide variety of different configurations) of the barrier to accommodate different sizes of an electrical component.
CN218850159 does not expressly disclose a polycarbonate barrier.
Gretz discloses a polycarbonate barrier (22).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate polycarbonate of Gretz into the barrier of CN218850159.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this polycarbonate material is an insulator.
Examiner’s Note: Referring to fig. 1 and fig. 2 in combination, an embodiment of the present application provides a high-voltage and low-voltage power distribution cabinet 100, which includes a cabinet 111, and a first partition 120, a high-voltage device, and a low-voltage device that are disposed in the cabinet 111, where the first partition 120 partitions a first cabin and a second cabin in the cabinet 111, the high-voltage device is located in the first cabin, and the low-voltage device is located in the second cabinet
Regarding claim 16, CN218850159 in view of Gretz discloses the method of claim 15, wherein adjusting the adapter piece further comprises removing the adapter piece to enlarge a void embedded in the polycarbonate barrier.
Claim interpretation: The examiner interprets the claimed subject matter to disclose the adapter plate creates multiple configurations by removing an adapter piece to allow a myriad of arrangements for a myriad of [related] electrotonic components within voids. CN218850159 discloses “may be arranged and designed in a wide variety of different configurations.” Removing a piece to expose and alter a void only requires ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, CN218850159 in view of Gretz discloses the method of claim 15, wherein attaching the polycarbonate barrier to a housing of the cabinet further comprises using a hook (22) that can engage with the housing.
Regarding claim 18, CN218850159 in view of Gretz discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the electrical component is a single busbar. (CN218850159 – high-voltage device includes the busbar)
Regarding claim 19, CN218850159 in view of Gretz discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the electrical component is a double stacked busbar.
Claim interpretation: The examiner interprets the claimed subject matter to disclose stacking busbar. Stacking busbar only requires ordinary skill in the art as stacking the busbar can be used for space efficiency, improved heat dissipation and reducing the maintenance of the busbar.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN218850159 in view of Gretz (US7304236) as applied to claims 15-19 above, and further in view of Tremaine et al. (hereinafter Tremaine) (US20160241007).
Regarding claim 20, CN218850159 in view of Gretz discloses the method of claim 15.
CN218850159 in view of Gretz does not expressly disclose further including providing an airflow through at least one opening in the polycarbonate barrier to reduce the temperature of the electrical component.
Tremaine discloses at least an airflow through (54) at least one opening in the polycarbonate barrier to reduce the temperature of the electrical component.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the airflow opening of Tremaine into the polycarbonate barrier of Groner in view of Gretz.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to create airflow for electrical component(s) associates with the polycarbonate barrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US8476525.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xanthia C Cunningham whose telephone number is (571)270-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday -Friday 9 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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 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.
/XANTHIA C RELFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
24 January 2026