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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 should not be in frame.
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 objections
Claim 1, “the other second connection end portion” in lines 9-10 and “the igniter side” in line 15 lack antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/701,042 in view of Gaudinat (US20160351363). The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is the slit portion. However, Gaudinat teaches a similar electric breaker with an upper housing that comprises a slit portion 9. It would have been obvious to add a slit portion for venting purpose as taught by Gaudinat.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaudinat (US20160351363).
Regarding claim 1, Gaudinat teaches an electric circuit breaker device comprising: a housing 1 serving as an outer shell member and enclosing an accommodating space extending in one direction; an igniter 5 provided in the housing; a projectile 4 disposed in the housing and configured to be projected from one end side of the accommodating space by energy received from the igniter, the projectile being configured to move along an extending direction of the accommodating space; and a conductor piece 2 held by the housing and forming a portion of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including a cutoff portion between one first connection end portion 21 and the other second connection end portion 23, the cutoff portion being cut off by movement of the projectile and being disposed across the accommodating space, wherein a region defined by an inner wall 31 of the housing holding the conductor piece in the accommodating space serves as a holding region, the housing includes a housing body enclosing the holding region, and the housing body includes an upper surface 1b on the igniter side, a lower surface 1a on a destination side of the projectile (paragraphs 68-75), and a slit portion 9 that is a recess provided in at least one of the upper surface or the lower surface (Figs. 1-3 and paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 4, Gaudinat teaches the electric circuit breaker device wherein the housing body includes a conductor piece holding hole, which is a hole through which the conductor piece passes, and the slit portion 9 does not intersect the conductor piece holding hole (annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takehisa (JP2019212612).
Regarding claim 1, Takehisa teaches an electric circuit breaker device comprising: a housing (200, 100) serving as an outer shell member and enclosing an accommodating space extending in one direction; an igniter (power source P) provided in the housing; a projectile 500 disposed in the housing and configured to be projected from one end side of the accommodating space by energy received from the igniter, the projectile being configured to move along an extending direction of the accommodating space; and a conductor piece 400 held by the housing and forming a portion of an electric circuit, the conductor piece including a cutoff portion between one first connection end portion 21 and the other second connection end portion 23, the cutoff portion being cut off by movement of the projectile and being disposed across the accommodating space, wherein a region defined by an inner wall (210, 110) of the housing holding the conductor piece in the accommodating space serves as a holding region, the housing includes a housing body enclosing the holding region, and the housing body includes an upper surface on the igniter side, a lower surface on a destination side of the projectile, and a slit portion ((X3, b3) OR (121, 231) that is a recess provided in at least one of the upper surface or the lower surface (Figs. 1-6, annotated figure below and paragraphs 22-23, 30 of the enclosed translation).
Regarding claim 2, Takehisa teaches the electric circuit breaker device wherein the slit portion (x3, b3) is a through hole extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (annotated figure below and paragraphs 22-23, 30 of the enclosed translation).
Regarding claim 3, Takehisa teaches the electric circuit breaker device wherein the slit portion (121, 231) is longer in a circumferential direction of a circle centered at a position of a center of the holding region than in a radial direction of the circle (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
639
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or show, alone or in combination, the claimed breaker wherein the housing body includes a fastening through hole, which is a hole extending between the upper surface and the lower surface and through which a fastening component passes, and a distance between the slit portion and the holding region is shorter than a distance between the fastening through hole and the holding region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M SAEED whose telephone number is (571)270-7976. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/AHMED M SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833