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 Objections
Claim 34 objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 34 line 4, the word “40°Cto” should read --40°C to--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4, 7, 9-13, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adachi et al. (2013/0196545).
With regard to claim 1, Adachi teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “A flat-belt type connecting mechanism 1, comprising a male-end connecting mechanism 10 and a female-end connecting mechanism 11, wherein the male-end connecting mechanism 10 comprises a busbar 4, a flat terminal 9, and a male-end housing 14 connected to the busbar 4 and the flat terminal 9; the female-end connecting mechanism 11 comprises a double-busbar (as shown in figure 2), a clamping terminal 33, and a female-end housing 21 connected to the double-busbar and the clamping terminal 33; and the male-end connecting mechanism 10 and the female-end connecting mechanism 11 are electrically connected to each other through the clamping terminal 33 and the flat terminal 9, and the male-end housing 14 and the female-end housing 21 are connected to each other, to form the flat-belt type connecting mechanism 1”.
With regard to claim 2, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “wherein the busbar 4 or the double-busbar has a cross-section with an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 120:1”.
With regard to claim 4, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12 and taught in paragraph 40: “wherein there are at least two busbars 4, which are stacked from top (upper-left in figure 2) to bottom (lower-right in figure 2); and the male-end housing 14 is integrally injection-molded (paragraph 40 teaches the male-end housing being made of resin) between at least parts of the busbars and/or at least parts of the flat terminals 9, and/or is integrally injection-molded at outer peripheries of at least parts of the busbars and/or at least parts of the flat terminals, to form an insulating structure; or there are at least two double-busbars, which are stacked from top to bottom; and the female-end housing is integrally injection-molded between at least parts of the double-busbars and/or at least parts of the clamping terminals, and/or is integrally injection-molded at outer peripheries of at least parts of the double-busbars and/or at least parts of the clamping terminals, to form an insulating structure”.
With regard to claim 7, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12 and taught in paragraph 40: “wherein there are at least two busbars 4, which are stacked from top (upper-left in figure 2) to bottom (lower-right in figure 2); and each busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core, and a vertical distance between two first flat wire cores of the busbars 4 is less than or equal to 27 cm; or there are at least two double-busbars, which are stacked from top to bottom; and each double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, and a vertical distance between two second flat wire cores is less than or equal to 27 cm”.
With regard to claim 9, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12 and taught in paragraph 40: “wherein there are at least two busbars 4, which are stacked from top (upper-left in figure 2) to bottom (lower-right in figure 2); and each busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core, and an overlapping degree of two first flat wire cores in a stacking direction (upper-left to lower-right in figure 2) is 40% to 100%; or there are at least two double-busbars, which are stacked from top to bottom and each double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, and an overlapping degree between two second flat wire cores in a stacking direction is 40% to 100%”.
With regard to claim 10, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12 and taught in paragraph 40: “wherein the busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core, a front end of which is connected to the flat terminal 9, and the male-end housing 14 wraps at least part of the flat terminal 9; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, a front end of which is connected to the clamping terminal, and the female-end housing wraps at least part of the clamping terminal”.
With regard to claim 11, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “wherein the busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core which forms an integral structure with the flat terminal 9; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core which forms an integral structure with the clamping terminal”.
With regard to claim 12, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “wherein at least part of the flat terminal protrudes from the male-end housing, or the male-end housing 14 has an accommodating cavity (interior of 14 in figure 5) and at least part of the flat terminal 9 protrudes from a bottom surface 18a of the accommodating cavity without exceeding the male-end housing 14; or at least part of the clamping terminal protrudes from an outer wall of the female- end housing, or the female-end housing is provided with an open boss and at least part of the clamping terminal is disposed in the open boss”.
With regard to claim 13, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “wherein the busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core, and a first bent portion (shown below) with an angle of 0° to 180° is included between the first flat wire core and the flat terminal 9 or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, and a second bent portion with an angle of 0° to 1800 is included between a front end of the second flat wire core and the clamping terminal”.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 56, Adachi teaches: “…the flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figure 1-12: “An electric energy transmission device 1, comprising”.
With regard to claim 57, Adachi teaches: “…the flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12 and taught in paragraph 1: “A motor vehicle (taught in paragraph 1), comprising”.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Dawson et al. (12,381,338).
With regard to claim 5, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi also teaches, as shown in figures 1-12: “wherein the busbar 4 comprises a first flat wire core”.
Adachi does not teach: “and a first outer insulating layer which is partially peeled off to expose the first flat wire core; and an end of the first outer insulating layer is inside or abutted against the male-end housing; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, and a second outer insulating layer which is partially peeled off to expose the second flat wire core; and an end of the second outer insulating layer is inside or abutted against the female-end housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Dawson teaches, as shown in figures 3-11: “and a first outer insulating layer 594 which is partially peeled off to expose the first flat wire core (where 800 is positioned in figure 6); and an end of the first outer insulating layer 594 is inside or abutted against the male-end housing 220; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, and a second outer insulating layer which is partially peeled off to expose the second flat wire core; and an end of the second outer insulating layer is inside or abutted against the female-end housing”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Dawson with the invention of Adachi in order to isolate the current flowing through the busbar (Dawson, column 8 lines 54-67).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Saito (JP2010073449A).
With regard to claim 14, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein at least part of the flat terminal is provided with a first transition layer; or at least part of a surface of the clamping terminal is provided with a second transition layer”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Saito teaches: “wherein at least part of the flat terminal 1 is provided with a first transition layer 4; or at least part of a surface of the clamping terminal is provided with a second transition layer”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Saito with the invention of Adachi in order to resist corrosion (Saito, translation page 5 line 5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Biernath (5,741,148).
With regard to claim 17, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein an end of the flat terminal is provided with a chamfer, or a front end of the clamping terminal is provided with an open groove, and a width of the groove on an open side thereof is greater than a width of the groove on a closed side thereof”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Biernath teaches, as shown in figures 1 and 3: “wherein an end (right end of 34 in figure 1) of the flat terminal 34 and 32 is provided with a chamfer, or a front end of the clamping terminal is provided with an open groove, and a width of the groove on an open side thereof is greater than a width of the groove on a closed side thereof”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Biernath with the invention of Adachi in order to facilitate insertion of the mating contact (Biernath, column 10 lines 1-4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Inudo (JP2020047539A).
With regard to claim 18, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the male-end connecting mechanism comprises an interlocking connector, at least part of which is integrally injection-molded with the male-end housing, and the female-end connecting mechanism comprises ahigh-voltage interlocking structure, which is electrically connected to the interlocking connector to form a loop”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Inudo teaches, as shown in figures 1-4 and taught on page 3 lines 8-40: “wherein the male-end connecting mechanism 1 comprises an interlocking connector 13, at least part of which is integrally injection-molded with the male-end housing 10, and the female-end connecting mechanism 2 comprises a high-voltage interlocking structure 23, which is electrically connected to the interlocking connector 13 to form a loop”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Inudo with the invention of Adachi in order to detect the connection of the male and female connectors (Inudo, Abstract).
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of ‘8665 (JPH0328665U).
With regard to claim 34, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the clamping terminal is sleeved by a clip, which is made of a memory alloy; and a transition temperature of the memory alloy is in a range of 40°Cto 70°C; when a temperature of the clip is lower than the transition temperature, the clip is in an expanded state, and when the temperature of the clip is higher than the transition temperature, the clip is in a clamped state”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘8665 teaches, as shown in figures 1-3 and taught in claim 1 of the translation: “wherein the clamping terminal 2 is sleeved by a clip 3, which is made of a memory alloy… when a temperature of the clip 3 is lower than the transition temperature, the clip 3 is in an expanded state, and when the temperature of the clip 3 is higher than the transition temperature, the clip is in a clamped state”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of ‘8665 with the invention of Adachi in order to ensure that connection is made only when the temperature is in the correct range (‘8665, claim 1 of the translation).
‘8665 does not specifically teach: “and a transition temperature of the memory alloy is in a range of 40°Cto 70°C”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the range of the transition temperature to be between 40°C and 70°C in order to prevent mating connection at a high temperature. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 36, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the clamping terminal is sleeved by a clip, which comprises a sidewall and an elastic element fixed thereon, and the elastic element is connected to the clamping terminal; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, which comprises two flat conductors overlapped with and connected to each other”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘8665 teaches, as shown in figures 1-3: “wherein the clamping terminal 2 is sleeved by a clip 4, which comprises a sidewall 4b and an elastic element 4a fixed thereon, and the elastic element 4a is connected to the clamping terminal 2; or the double-busbar comprises a second flat wire core, which comprises two flat conductors overlapped with and connected to each other”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of ‘8665 with the invention of Adachi in order to provide support to the terminal (‘8665, claim 1 of the translation).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Manavbasi (2020/0164756).
With regard to claim 40, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the female-end connecting mechanism and/or the male-end connecting mechanism has a sealing structure; and the sealing structure is secondarily injection-molded on the female-end housing and/or the male-end housing”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Manavbasi teaches, as shown in figures 2-3 and taught in paragraph 26: “wherein the female-end connecting mechanism 14 and/or the male-end connecting mechanism has a sealing structure 86; and the sealing structure 86 is secondarily injection-molded on the female-end housing 46 and/or the male-end housing”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Manavbasi with the invention of Adachi in order to provide liquid- and water-tight sealing (Manavbasi, Abstract).
Claims 42 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (2013/0196545) in view of Kawai et al. (2018/0048090).
With regard to claim 42, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the female-end connecting mechanism comprises at least one temperature measuring structure for measuring a temperature of the double-busbar and/or the clamping terminal; and the at least one temperature measuring structure is attached to the double- busbar and/or the clamping terminal for measuring a temperature of the double-busbar and/or the clamping terminal; or there are at least two double-busbars, and the temperature measuring structure is located between the double-busbars for measuring temperatures of the double-busbars”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kawai teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “wherein the female-end connecting mechanism 20 comprises at least one temperature measuring structure 70 for measuring a temperature of the double-busbar and/or the clamping terminal 40; and the at least one temperature measuring structure 70 is attached to the double- busbar and/or the clamping terminal 40 for measuring a temperature of the double-busbar and/or the clamping terminal 40; or there are at least two double-busbars, and the temperature measuring structure is located between the double-busbars for measuring temperatures of the double-busbars”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kawai with the invention of Adachi in order to minimize the effects of external factors (Kawai, paragraph 15).
With regard to claim 45, Adachi teaches: “The flat-belt type connecting mechanism according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Adachi does not teach: “wherein the male-end connecting mechanism comprises at least one temperature measuring structure for measuring a temperature of the busbar and/or the flat terminal; and the at least one temperature measuring structure is attached to the busbar and/or the flat terminal for measuring a temperature of the busbar and/or the flat terminal; or there are at least two busbars, and the temperature measuring structure is located between the busbars for measuring temperatures of the busbars”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Kawai teaches, as shown in figures 1-5: “wherein the… connecting mechanism 20 comprises at least one temperature measuring structure 70 for measuring a temperature of the busbar and/or the flat terminal 40; and the at least one temperature measuring structure 70 is attached to the busbar and/or the flat terminal 40 for measuring a temperature of the busbar and/or the flat terminal 40; or there are at least two busbars, and the temperature measuring structure is located between the busbars for measuring temperatures of the busbars”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Kawai with the invention of Adachi in order to minimize the effects of external factors (Kawai, paragraph 15).
Kawai does not specifically teach the connecting mechanism being the male-end. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the temperature sensor to a male-end connecting mechanism in order to protect the male-end connecting mechanism from external factors. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights