DETAILED ACTION
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Per claim 6, “the housing is made of non-conducting material and comprises-further comprising a conducting mesh.”
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.
Correction is required in response to this Office action and corrections may not be held in abeyance. Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.185(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set (or extended) period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the term “base pattern” is indefinite in that it is unknown what exactly defines a “base pattern” and what would or would not be considered to be a “base pattern.” For purposes of analysis, a “base pattern” is considered to be a connection point(s) capable of being used for a specific purpose.
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 anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lincoln et al. US 5073120 (“Lincoln”).
Regarding claim 1, Lincoln discloses a power connection module for electrically coupling together two separate components, the power connection device comprising:
a first and a second submodules (for example, cables 165 can be considered to be submodules, see figure 8 for an example of a cable 165, having two connectors 150 at opposing ends/sides of the cable)
each first and second submodules comprising a plurality of internal connection points (e.g., the terminals 158 of connectors 150, connectable to the bussing connector for example shown in figure 9, including connectors 4 and 180) and a plurality of external connection points (e.g., the terminals at the opposite free end connector 150 of cables 165, connecting to load or power source devices);
an intermediary submodule (e.g., 180 and bussing connectors 4 shown in figure 9) arranged between the first and second submodules, the intermediary submodule comprising a central portion;
a plurality of conductors (185-187, bus bars 22 in connector 4) arranged at the intermediary submodule . . . ,
at least in a cross-section of the intermediary submodule, the plurality of conductors form a predetermined matrix cross-section, the predetermined matrix cross-section comprising rows and columns (labeled R 1-8 and C 1-8 in annotated figure 9 below).
Regarding the limitations regarding that the conductors are “grouped” by their intended use, note that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). MPEP section 2114(I). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP section 2114(II). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 may be appropriate. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art”). MPEP section 2114(IV).
Therefore, regarding the limitation that “the plurality of conductors are grouped in at least a first phase group and a second phase group, wherein the electric phase to be conducted by the conductors in the first phase group is different from the current electric phase to be conducted by the conductors of the second phase group; and . . . wherein the conductors arranged in adjacent rows and/or columns of such matrix cross-section belong to a different phase group” does not distinguish the claimed invention from the device of Lincoln. The conductors of Lincoln are inherently capable of being “grouped” as desired, including grouping by the intention of using different phases in different groups, as a matter choice by the user of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
1114
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2 the matrix cross-section inherently comprises a “base pattern” (labeled BP1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1034
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3 the base pattern is shifted (labeled BP2 above) by one row in adjacent columns of the matrix cross-section.
Per claim 4, the intermediary submodule comprises a housing (e.g., 170, 171).
Per claim 5 the housing is made of conducting material.
Per claim 7, Lincoln discloses an interconnection element configured to enable an angled connection between the plurality of conductors and an external power component. For example, two cables 165 can be considered to be the first and second submodules. A further cable 165 can be considered to be the “interconnection element” configured to enable an angled connection between the plurality of conductors and an external power component.
Per claim 8 the interconnection element 165 comprises further comprising two sides (150) coupled together through a joint (the flexible cable portion including conductors 166).
Per claim 9 the interconnection element comprises further comprising a plurality of coupling holes (160, figure 6).
Per claim 10, Lincoln discloses two or more interconnection modules 165 attachable to any of the eight connection ports (10a-10d) of connectors 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lincoln. Lincoln does not disclose a wind turbine. The examiner takes Official notice that wind turbines were well known in the art. It would have been obvious to use the Lincoln system with various electrical systems, including known wind turbines. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements (the Lincoln power distribution system and wind turbines) by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
