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 .
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 features of “the individual electrical conductors are arranged asymmetrically to one another” as claimed in claim 4; “the individual electrical conductors are held in position by means of fastening” as claimed in claim 5; and “the flexible electrical conductor element comprises a connecting element” as claimed in claim 7 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “a flexible electrical conductor element is arranged in the stripped region in place of the first busbar and the second busbar;” and claim 6 recites “the flexible electrical conductor element is attached to the first conductor rail and to the second conductor rail”. Application’s disclosure does not provide description for such features. Specifically, as described and shown, in the stripped region, the first electrical conductor element 104 is arranged in the stripped region in place of the first busbar 101, and the second electrical conductor element 106 is arranged in the stripped region in place of the second busbar. The first electrical conductor element is NOT arranged in the stripped region in place of both the first and second busbars and NOT attached to the second conductor rail (busbar).
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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 2-9 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 2, line 2, “line element” should be changed to --conductor element--.
In claims 3-5, line 1, “The double conductor” should be changed to --The double busbar--, see claim 1.
Claim 3, line 2, “conductors” should be changed to --lines--.
Claim 4, line 2, “conductors” should be changed to --lines--.
Claim 5, line 2, “conductors” should be changed to --lines--.
Claim 5, line 2, “4claim 2” is unclear.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, “the first conductor rail” and “the second conductor rail” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7, lines 4-5, “the first conductor rail” and “the second conductor rail” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 8, line 4, “the first flexible electrical conductor element” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, lines 2-5, the phrase “a distance…such that an electromagnetic field between the first flexible electrical conductive element and the second flexible electrical conductive element is kept low” renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be interpreted. Moreover, the specification does not provide any definition for such distance.
Claim 9, lines 2-5, “conductive”, all occurrences, should be changed to
--conductor-- for consistency.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falk et al. (2018/0175572).
Due to the 112(a) rejection above, the following rejection is based on features shown Figures 1-3 of the application.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Falk et al. discloses a double busbar comprising a first busbar and a second busbar arranged electrically insulated from each other and arranged one above the other, wherein the first busbar and the second busbar are stripped in a stripped region, wherein a flexible electrical conductor element (21) is arranged in the stripped region in place of the first busbar, wherein a second flexible electrical conductor element (22) is arranged in the stripped region in place of the second busbar, and wherein the first flexible electrical conductor element is arranged to carry electrical current in the double busbar (re-claim 1). Falk et al. also discloses that the flexible electrical conductor element comprises a plurality of individual electrical lines (4) (re-claim 2). It is noted that since the flexible electrical conductor element of Falk et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be adapted to the geometrical dimensions of the double busbar (re-claim 1).
Falk et al. further discloses that the individual lines (4) are arranged symmetrically to one another (re-claim 3); the individual lines are held in position by means of fastening elements (7), so that a shape of the flexible electrical conductor element does not change (re-claim 5); the first flexible electrical conductor element (21) is attached to the first busbar in a materially bonded/locking manner, and the second flexible electrical conductor element (22) is attached to the second busbar in a materially bonded/locking manner ([0032], pressing or welding) (re-claims 6 and 8); and the flexible electrical conductor element further comprises a connecting element (7) configured such that the flexible electrical conductor element is attachable to the first busbar and that the second flexible electrical conductor element is attachable to the second busbar (re-claim 7).
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mruczek (WO 2019/201429).
Again, due to the 112(a) rejection above, the following rejection is based on features shown Figures 1-3 of the application.
Mruczek discloses a double busbar comprising a first busbar (6a1) and a second busbar (6a2) arranged electrically insulated from each other and arranged one above the other, wherein the first busbar and the second busbar are stripped in a stripped region, wherein a flexible electrical conductor element (12) is arranged in the stripped region in place of the first busbar, wherein a second flexible electrical conductor element (12) is arranged in the stripped region in place of the second busbar, and wherein the first flexible electrical conductor element is arranged to carry electrical current in the double busbar (re-claim 1). Mruczek also discloses that the flexible electrical conductor element comprises a plurality of individual electrical lines (12.1-12.4) (re-claim 2). It is noted that since the flexible electrical conductor element of Mruczek comprises structure and material as claimed, it can be adapted to the geometrical dimensions of the double busbar (re-claim 1). Mruczek further discloses that the individual lines (12.1-12.4) are arranged asymmetrically to one another (Fig. 2, the first line from left is smaller than the other three lines) (re-claim 4).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al.
Falk et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a predetermined distance (b, Fig. 3) between the first flexible electrical conductor element (21) and the second flexible electrical conductor element (22). Falk et al. does not disclose the distance being predetermined such that an electromagnetic field between the first flexible electrical conductor element and the second flexible electrical conductor element is kept low. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to choose suitable distance (b) in the double busbar of Falk et al. to meet the end use since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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