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 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.
Applicant filed amendments on 08/05/2026, in the drawings, applicant requested to replace the drawings on record with drawing pages labeled REPLACEMENT SHEET. However, these Figures are not numbered. If the drawings on record are replaced with these new Figures, then the features specified in the claims are not shown.
Features of “the electrically insulating jacket…formed by two plastic half-shells”; “a hollow-profile electrical insulation”; and “modular clip elements” as respectively claimed in claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 are not shown.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the claimed subject matter of “modular clip elements are made of plastic” as claimed in claim 18. In the remarks, filed on 08/05/2026, applicant states that the “description explains that the fastening elements can be manufactured using an injection molding process and that the fastening elements can be resilient so that the fastening elements adapt to the movement of the individual electrical conductors of the flexible electrical cable element. Since injection-molded fastening elements in the context of this embodiment are plastic parts, the claim is directly supported by these passages.” Examiner would disagree because metal can be used for injection molding as well.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the modular clip elements are made of plastic, but does not provide detailed description of how the electrical current can be carried in the double busbar if the plastic clip elements are attached between the first and second flexible conductor elements and respective first and second busbars.
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 6, 9, 11, and 14-20 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 6, lines 1-2, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
Claim 6, line 3, after “conductor” insert --element--.
Claim 9, 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 11, line 1, “the electrically insulating jacket” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14, lines 1-2, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
Claim 15, line 2, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
Claim 16, lines 1-2, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
Claim 17, line 1, “the fastening elements” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 17, line 2, “the individual electrical lines” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18, lines 1-2, “the modular clip elements” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18, lines 2-3, “the individual electrical lines” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19, lines 1-2, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
Claim 20, line 3, “the flexible electrical conductor element” is unclear to which one since there are “first flexible electrical conductor element” and “second flexible electrical conductor element” cited in claim 1.
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 1-3, 6, 8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falk et al. (2018/0175572).
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 first 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 each 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 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-claim 6); the first and second flexible conductor elements are arranged in the stripped region and are spaced from one another (Figs 1 & 3) (re-claim 8); the double busbar can be configured to carry an electrical current of up to 1500 amps in a high-voltage system of an electrically powered vehicle since it comprises structure and material as claimed (re-claim 13); the first and second busbars can be configured to compensate changes in length and position of the double busbar in three spatial directions since they comprise structure and material as claimed (re-claim 14); the individual electrical lines (4) of the first and second conductor elements are combined to form a bundle (21), each of the lines being insulated ([0024]) and configured to carry the same electrical potential (re-claim 15); the first and second conductor elements can be configured to damp vibration acting on the double busbar since they comprise structure and material as claimed (re-claim 16).
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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al.
Re-claim 9, 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.
Re-claim 19, Flak et al. discloses that the first and second conductor elements (21, 22) being attached to the first busbar and second busbar by welding ([0032]) in the stripped region, but not ultrasonic welding. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach the first and second conductor elements to the first and second busbars of Falk et al. by ultrasonic welding to reduce manufacture cost, no lug required, since using ultrasonic welding to join to metals is well-known in the art.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scharkowski et al. (2023/0207153) in view of Falk et al.
Scharkowski et al. discloses a (first) busbar (2, Fig. 6b) which has a stripped region; and a flexible conductor element (6) is arranged in the stripped region in place of the (first) busbar, wherein the flexible conductor element is arranged to carry electrical current in the (first) busbar (re-claim 1). Scharkowski et al. also discloses that the (first) busbar comprises an electrically insulating jacket (4) formed as plastic profile surrounding the (first) busbar (re-claim 10); and the fastening element (12, Fig. 5) is formed as clip elements into which the individual lines (strands, [0046]) are clipped (re-claim 17).
Scharkowski et al. does not disclose a second busbar being insulated from the first busbar, the first and second busbars being arranged one above the other, a second flexible conductor element being arranged in a stripped region of the second busbar (re-claim 1).
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 first 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.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a second busbar (2, 2) and a second flexible conductor element (6), as disclosed in Fig. 6b of Scharkowski et al., and arrange the first and second busbar one above the other and insulated from each other, as taught by Falk et al. to form a multiple-phase distribution.
Re-claim 11, although not disclosed in Scharkowski et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the insulating jacket of Sharkowski et al. to comprise of half-shells such that the busbar can be covered by the jacket without having the busbar being pulled into the jacket. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 423, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
It is noted that since the modified double busbar of Scharkowski et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, the first and second flexible conductor elements are arranged to carry electrical current in the double busbar; the first and second flexible conductor elements are each adapted to the geometrical dimensions of a respective one of the first and second busbars (re-claim 1); the flexible conductor element is configured to compensate changes in length and position of the double busbar in three spatial directions (re-claim 14); the flexible conductor element can be configured to damp vibrations acting on the double busbar (re-claim 16); the double busbar can be configured to be arranged along curved or angled installation surfaces of a vehicle body by deformation of the flexible conductor element while maintaining electromagnetic compatibility (re-claim 20).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al. in view of Elrod (6653570).
Claim 12 additionally recites at least one of the busbars being inserted into a hollow-profile insulation. Elrod discloses a busbar (flat conductor 12) which is inserted into a hollow-profile insulation (14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to insert one of the busbars of Falk et al. into a hollow-profile insulation taught by Elrod to protect the busbar from the surrounding environment.
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, extrusion, 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al. in view of Maciejewski (5416273).
Claim 18 additionally recites modular clip elements being made of plastic and resilient such that the clip elements adapt to movement of the electrical lines. Maciejewski discloses a clip element (Fig. 1) being made of plastic and resilient. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the clip elements as taught by Maciejewski in the double busbar of Falk et al., such as connecting line 4 to lug 16 and connecting wire portion 10 to lug 7, to improve the flexibility of the double busbar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Falk discloses first and second flexible elements 21, 22 associated with first and second busbars, but does not expressly and unambiguously teach that each flexible element is arranged in a common stripped region such that each one replaces only the corresponding rigid busbar in that region in the manner now claimed.
Examiner would disagree. Falk discloses, see Figs 1 and 2, a gap or stripped region, between each busbar, where flexible conductor element (4) is placed.
Applicant argues that Falk does not describe or illustrate flexible elements that are each geometrically matched to the corresponding rigid busbar in the sense of continuing its cross-sectional geometry in series along the busbar path.
Examiner would disagree. Falk does disclose conductor elements being flexible (see abstract and [0015]). The fact that the conductor elements of Falk are flexible, as disclosed and claimed by the applicant, the conductor elements of Falk can be adapted to the geometrical dimensions of a respective one of the busbars.
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues that the specification does explain the distance as claimed in claim 9. Applicant states that "a distance between the first flexible electrical conductor element and the second flexible electrical conductor element is predetermined such that an electromagnetic field between the first flexible electrical conductor element and the second flexible electrical conductor element is kept low." Again, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be interpreted. If the distance was defined as a spacing between the two flexible conductor elements, such features are disclosed in Falk, see Figs 1-2, distance b. The distance of Falk is modified to meet the specific design of the resulting double busbar that could include a small, predetermined spacing between the first and second conductor elements, as specified by the applicant.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s reliance on In re Aller is misplaced. Here the prior art does not disclose any range of distances selected for electromagnetic-field control between two flexible elements in a double busbar. Examiner would disagree because the prior art, namely Falk, does disclose a predetermined distance b, between the two flexible elements (21, 22). Claim 9 broadly recites “a distance..such that an electromagnetic field between the first and second conductor elements is kept low.” As mentioned in the 112(b) rejection above, such limitations are indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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