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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)- 1, 3, 4, 7, 16, 24 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US20030226234) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0056896 A1).
Regarding Claim-1, 16, 24, Katayama discloses - An electrical lead-through (annotated Fig.-3, Item- 20, Feedthrough) comprising a main body (Fig.-3, Item-26) having a through-opening (annotated Fig.-3), wherein an wire harness (annotated Fig.-3) is arranged in the through-opening (annotated Fig.-3) and is fixed in the through-opening by at least one insulator (annotated Fig.-3, Holding portion), wherein the insulator (Fig-3, Item-22, annotated Fig.-3) closes the through-opening (annotated Fig.-3), and seals with respect to the conductor (annotated Fig.-3) and a wall of the through-opening characterized in that insulator (Fig.-3, Item-22) has at least one a holding portion (shown in annotated Fig.-3 below) which seals with respect to the at least one electrical conductor (annotated Fig.-3) and holds same, and the insulator (Fig.-3, Item-22) has at least one leakage path extension (annotated Fig.-3), Sealing Member which surrounds, at a distance, a part of the electrical conductor (annotated Fig.-3) projecting beyond the holding portion (shown in annotated Fig.-3 below), wherein the at least one leakage path extension (annotated Fig.-3 below, Item-25, Sealing Member) is formed in one piece with the at least one holding portion (shown in annotated Fig.-3 below), or is connected in an integrally bonded manner, in particular by glass soldering or adhesive bonding, to the at least one holding portion (shown in annotated Fig.-3 below), and the main body (Fig.-3, Item- 26) at least partially surrounds the at least one leakage path extension (annotated Fig.-3 below, Sealing Member), wherein the main body (Fig.-3, Item-26) contacts the leakage path extension (shown in annotated Fig.-3 below).
Katayama - does not specifically disclose an electrical conductor in the through hole or the electrical conductor is made of metal/ Aluminum. However, Okamoto – discloses that the electrical conductor (Fig.-1, Item-11) made of metal/ Aluminum (Paragraph [0026]) in a wiring harness (Fig. 1, Item: 12-15) that passes through a through hole (Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed Katayama’s electrical conductor made of metal/ aluminum in a wiring harness that passes through a through hole as shown by Okamoto, this is commonly done to pass current through the wiring harness.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-3, Katayama discloses -that the electrical lead-through (Fig.-3, Item-20) is characterized in that wherein the main body (Fig.-3, Item-26) completely surrounds the at least one leakage path extension (annotated Fig.-3), wherein the main body (Fig.-3, Item-26) is flush with the at least one leakage path extension (Fig.-3 annotated) or projects beyond the at least one leakage path extension (annotated Fig.-1, Item-25).
All the limitations in claim-3 were disclosed by Katayama in this art of reference.
Regarding Claim-4, Katayama - discloses -that the electrical lead-through (annotated Fig.-3, Item-20) as first end and/or a second end of the electrical conductor (annotated Fig.-3) are surrounded by one or more leakage path extensions (as shown in annotated Fig.-3).
All the limitations in claim-4 were disclosed by Katayama in this art.
Regarding Claim-7, Katayama – discloses that the material of the leakage path extension or insulator materials used, is selected an inorganic material or from an organic material (Katayama- did not specify any specific materials, however the material of the leakage path extension or insulator materials has to be either inorganic or organic materials, thus this limitation is inherently met). Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US20030226234) and in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0056896 A1)- as detailed in claim rejection 1, 3, 4, and further in view of Fritz (20220392656 A1).
Regarding Claim-5, Katayama does not disclose that the electrical lead-through includes at least two insulators which are separated from each other by a cavity and/or at least one a separating element and both seal with respect to the same electrical conductor
Fritz (US 20220392656) discloses that the electrical lead-through (Fig.-1, Item- 1) includes at least two insulators (Fig.-1, Item- 15 and 19) which are separated from each other by a cavity and/or at least one a separating element (Paragraph [0014]) and both seal with respect to the same electrical conductor (Fig.-1, Item- 10 and 19) 18), Refer to the Fig-1 below from this prior reference art. It would have been obvious to use the electrical lead-through includes at least two insulators which are separated from each other by a cavity and/or at least one a separating element and both seal with respect to the same electrical conductor since this is a well known way to pass wires through a wire harness keeping them separated from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
1061
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-6, Katayama does not disclose wherein the at least one through-opening (13) is hermetically sealed by the at least one insulator (20)].
However, Fritz discloses that the- at least one through-opening is hermetically sealed by the at least one insulator (Claim-1 & Claim-16, hermetically enclosed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use - “Hermetically sealed/ enclosure” as disclosed in this reference art for robust (pressure, temperature, radiation) sealing in this type of Electrical Lead-through or, Feed-through devices.
Regarding Claim-9, Katayama does not disclose that the holding portion consists of an inorganic insulation material, wherein the materials for the holding portion and the leakage path extension are the same or different.
However, Fritz discloses that the holding portion consists of an inorganic insulation material (as disclosed in paragraphs [0012- 0014]), wherein the materials for the holding portion and the leakage path extension are the same or different (as disclosed in paragraphs [0012- 0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Build the holding portion consists of an inorganic insulation so that the reactor safety vessel can be limited to a specified value.
Regarding Claim-10, Katayama does not disclose that the material of the holding portion and/or the material of the leakage path extension is selected from a glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic, or in that the material of the leakage path extension comprises glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic.
However, Fritz discloses that the material of the holding portion and/or the material of the leakage path extension is selected from a glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic, or in that the material of the leakage path extension comprises glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic as disclosed in paragraphs [0027- 0029], also disclosed in Claim-12 (Fritz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic, or in that the material of the leakage path extension as these elements are good electrical insulation materials and can be produced straightforwardly by fusing, or hard soldering in the case of ceramic, into the respective seal.
Regarding Claim-12, Katayama does not disclose that the material of the holding portion as glass compact or, ceramic compact.
However, Fritz discloses that the material of the holding portion as glass compact or, ceramic compact as disclosed in paragraphs [0027- 0029]. However, the limitation sintering, is not given patentable weight since this is a method of making which is not germane to the patentability of a device claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass, a glass-ceramic or a ceramic, or in that the material of the leakage path extension as these elements are good electrical insulation materials and can be produced straightforwardly by fusing, or hard soldering in the case of ceramic, into the respective seal.
Regarding Claim-15, Katayama does not disclose that the material of the main body is a metal.
However, Fritz discloses that the material of the main body is a metal as mentioned in paragraph [0029] and in Fig.-5, Item-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal for the main body for desired structure and strength of the main body.
Regarding Claim-17, Katayama discloses that these lead-through assembly (see annotated figure above) having a base (annotated fig-above), having one or more through-openings wherein each of said through-openings has an electrical lead-through of Claim-1 (see annotated fig. above).
Claim(s) 21- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US20030226234) and in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0056896 A1)- as detailed in claim rejection 7 and further in view of Johansson (US 20220221660 A1).
Regarding Claim-21, a modified Katayama does not disclose the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of the leakage path extension is a thermoplastic material, However, Johansson as that the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of the leakage path extension is a thermoplastic material disclosed in Paragraph [0089].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to us an electrical lead-through, wherein the material of the leakage path extension is a thermoplastic material as shown by Johansson, with the feed through of a modified Katayama, since as shown by Johansson thermoplastic materials commonly used for its cost, ease in manufacturing and durability.
Also, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 23- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US20030226234) and in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0056896 A1)- as detailed in claim rejection 1, 3, 4, and further in view of Hettler (US 20220393373).
Regarding Claim-23, Katayama does not disclose that the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of main body is steel.
However, Hettler discloses that the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of main body is steel, as disclosed in Paragraph- [0050].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to us an that the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of main body is steel as shown by Hettler, with the feed through of a modified Katayama, since as shown by Hettler that the electrical lead-through, wherein the material of main body is steel is commonly used for its cost, ease in manufacturing and durability.
Also, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice- of using steel. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-24, , Katayama does not disclose that the group consisting of nickel-iron alloys, cobalt-iron alloys, a steel, aluminum, copper or a combination thereof.
However, Okamoto - discloses that the electrical lead-through wherein the electrical conductor metal is selected from the group consisting of nickel-iron alloys, cobalt-iron alloys, a steel, aluminum, copper or a combination thereof as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. Similarly, Fritz- discloses the usage of similar materials as claimed (US 20220392656 A1- Fritz, Claim-1, and Claim-16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper as conductor material/ wire so that it can be obtained by twisting a plurality of metal strands or a single-core wire since copper is a good conductor as well as durable.
Also, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim-2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22 – 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OBAIDUL GANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/OBAIDUL GANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2847 /TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights