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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 10 are pending.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ruttenberg et al. (US 1,724,729; hereinafter Ruttenberg).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruttenberg discloses an electrical contacting element (Fig. 1, electrical contact clip) in the form of a sheet metal clamp (column 1, lines 41 – 42; clip is formed from a strip of substantially thin conducting metal) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a folded basic shape (Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 44 – 45; the two end portions of the strip are bent upwardly about the ends of the base portion 1),
a planar lower clamp part (Fig. 1, item 4) being integrally connected to a planar upper clamp part (Fig. 1, item 2) by a connecting region (Fig. 1, item 1) which is linear when viewed from above and is spring-loaded (column 1, line 43; the strip is of a resilient nature) against the planar upper clamp part (Fig. 1, item 2), and
wherein side lines (Fig. 1, upper portion of item 5) of the planar upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts opposite the connecting region (Fig. 1, item 1) being designed such that both when a lower side (Fig. 1, interpreted as the side of the lower clamp 4) of the sheet metal clamp is viewed from above and when an upper side (Fig. 1, interpreted as the side of the upper clamp 2) of the sheet metal clamp (column 1, lines 41 – 42; clip is formed from a strip of substantially thin conducting metal) is viewed from above, one of the upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts is partially covered (Fig. 1, by portion 5) by the other one of the upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower clamp parts (Fig. 1, item 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Ruttenberg discloses the contacting element according to claim 1, wherein the lower clamp part (Fig. 1, item 4) and the upper clamp part (Fig. 1, item 2) have identical outer contours and emerge from each other by mirroring (Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 44 – 45; the two end portions of the strip are bent upwardly about the ends of the base portion 1).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Paganelli et al. (US 2014/0300367 A1; hereinafter Paganelli), and further in view of Schoenbeck et al. (US 2017/0290717 A1; hereinafter Schoenbeck).
Regarding Claim 5, Ruttenberg discloses the contacting element according to claim 1. But Ruttenberg does not specifically teach wherein it is made of sheet steel having a wall thickness of 50 µm to 200 µm as the material.
However Paganelli suggests wherein it is made of sheet steel having a wall thickness of 50 µm to 200 µm as the material (para [0033]; spacing between the connections of the modules is given by the thickness of the cells and the thickness can vary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ruttenberg in view of Paganelli because depending on the construction of the fuel cell, and depending on the temperature and on the clamping pressure of the assembly, the thickness can vary, and, over the whole stack, can lead to a total variation preventing the installation of a measurement device of predetermined size and additionally, the particular shape of the modules avoids the installation of wired connections between the modules of the device, thus simplifying its installation and preventing any untimely disconnection at this level (Paganelli, para [0033]).
But Ruttenberg and Paganelli do not specifically teach a preloading force acts therein which utilizes the tensile strength of the material to a maximum of 50% to 99%.
However, Schoenbeck suggests a preloading force acts therein which utilizes the tensile strength of the material to a maximum of 50% to 99% (para [0033]; according to the corresponding preloading of the strips of the elastic film, the elastic laminate can be stretched, for example, up to a stretching limit of stretching by between 30% and 300%, in particular, between 50% and 250% and results that the stability and tensile strength of the elastic laminate existing when the stretching limit is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Ruttenberg and Paganelli in view of Schoenbeck because it results in the advantage that the stability and tensile strength of the elastic laminate existing when the stretching limit is reached (Schoenbeck, para [0033]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Grohsgal (US 2,309,311; hereinafter Grohsgal).
Regarding Claim 6, Ruttenberg discloses the contacting element according to claim 1, the planar upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts. But Ruttenberg does not specifically teach wherein at least one tongue acting in the sense of a barb is formed on at least one of the planar upper and lower clamp parts.
However, Grohsgal suggests wherein at least one tongue (Fig. 3 and 4; item 7) acting in the sense of a barb is formed on at least one of the upper and lower clamp parts (Fig. 3, right and left portions of item 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
238
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ruttenberg in view of Grohsgal because an object of the invention is to provide a simple and inexpensive device of this character in the form of a clip of new and novel construction to ensure an electrical connection, secured in applied position (column 1, lines 8 – 20).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Smith et al. (US 3,793,607; hereinafter Smith).
Regarding Claim 7, Ruttenberg discloses the contacting element according to claim 1. But Ruttenberg does not specifically teach wherein the connecting region, which appears linear when the planar upper and lower clamp parts are viewed from above, is formed from individual, spaced-apart connecting sections.
However, Smith wherein the connecting region, which appears linear when the planar upper (Fig. 2, item 22) and lower clamp (Fig. 2, item 21) parts are viewed from above (Fig. 6, connection of item 21 and 22 seems to be linear), is formed from individual, spaced-apart connecting sections (Fig. 2, see opening 23 providing individual, spaced apart connecting sections).
PNG
media_image3.png
370
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
182
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ruttenberg in view of Smith in order to permit connection of the contact (column 2, lines 28 – 31).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Smith, and further in view of Richter (US 5,934,949; hereinafter Richter).
Regarding Claim 8, Ruttenberg and Smith disclose the contacting element according to claim 7, Smith also suggests a section (Fig. 2, item 23) two connecting sections (Fig. 2, see opening 23 providing individual, spaced apart connecting sections).
But Ruttenberg and Smith do not specifically teach wherein on the section which lies between, there is provided a tab for connection to a cable, which is formed on one of the planar upper and lower clamp parts.
However, Richter suggests there is provided a tab for connection to a cable, which is formed on one of the planar upper and lower clamp parts (column 4, lines 36 – 43; clamp body also includes an elongated end for making an electrical connection and can make an electrical connection to a wire or other types of conventional electrical connectors; the mechanical connection can be of any type such as welding a wire to the elongated end or using a press-fit, rivet, crimp, or other fastening arrangement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Ruttenberg and Smith in view of Richter in order to provide a terminal assembly having a self-retaining clamp plate which provides an improved mechanical and electrical connection (column 1, lines 59 – 61).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Rock et al. (US 2010/0261081 A1; hereinafter Rock).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruttenberg discloses a contacting element (Fig. 1, electrical contact clip) and the contacting element (Fig. 1, electrical contact clip) comprising:
a folded basic shape (Fig. 1 and column 1, lines 44 – 45; the two end portions of the strip are bent upwardly about the ends of the base portion 1),
a planar lower clamp part (Fig. 1, item 4) being integrally connected to a planar upper clamp part (Fig. 1, item 2) by a connecting region (Fig. 1, item 1) which is linear when viewed from above and is spring-loaded (column 1, line 43; the strip is of a resilient nature) against the planar upper clamp part (Fig. 1, item 2), and
wherein side lines (Fig. 1, upper portion of item 5) of the planar upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts opposite the connecting region (Fig. 1, item 1) being designed such that both when a lower side (Fig. 1, interpreted as the side of the lower clamp 4) of the sheet metal clamp is viewed from above and when an upper side (Fig. 1, interpreted as the side of the upper clamp 2) of the sheet metal clamp is viewed from above, one of the upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts is partially covered (Fig. 1, by portion 5) by the other one of the upper (Fig. 1, item 2) and lower (Fig. 1, item 4) clamp parts.
But Ruttenberg does not specifically teach a measuring assembly for voltage measurement in a fuel cell system, comprising at least one bipolar plate and attached thereto.
However, Rock suggests a measuring assembly for voltage measurement in a fuel cell system (para [0002]; system and method for processing the electric signals from a plurality of fuel cells), comprising at least one bipolar plate and attached thereto (para [0009]; the bipolar plates have a plate contactor for providing the electrical contact to either the compressible connector or the circuit board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ruttenberg in view of Rock because the system allows for the processing of the electric signals of every cell using fewer electrical components, thereby reducing the amount of space required and the costs associated therewith (Rock, para [0009]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruttenberg in view of Rock, and further in view of Paganelli.
Regarding Claim 10, Ruttenberg and Rock disclose the measuring assembly according to claim 9. But Ruttenberg and Rock do not specifically teach wherein the contacting element has a wall thickness which is at least 25% and at most 200% of the wall thickness of the bipolar plate.
However Paganelli suggests wherein the contacting element has a wall thickness which is at least 25% and at most 200% of the wall thickness of the bipolar plate (para [0033]; spacing between the connections of the modules is given by the thickness of the cells and the thickness can vary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Ruttenberg and Rock in view of Paganelli because depending on the construction of the fuel cell, and depending on the temperature and on the clamping pressure of the assembly, the thickness can vary, and, over the whole stack, can lead to a total variation preventing the installation of a measurement device of predetermined size and additionally, the particular shape of the modules avoids the installation of wired connections between the modules of the device, thus simplifying its installation and preventing any untimely disconnection at this level (Paganelli, para [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach claimed limitation: “wherein the side lines of the upper and lower clamp parts opposite the linear connecting region each have a first section running to be parallel to the linear connecting region and an adjoining section positioned to be oblique to the connecting region” in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the claims is allowable as its further limit claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beyer (US 2,338,485) suggests a method of making a clamp-terminal for electrical apparatus, which method comprises steps of forming a fiat blank of sheet metal, making two parallel slits in the blank, folding the blank with the fold thus produced substantially parallel to and between the lines defined by the slits to make a generally U-shaped clamp member having a flat and substantially unstressed portion between the slits and bowed and folded portions between the lines defined by the slits and on either side of the flat portion, and welding a terminal member of metal to the said flat portion of the clamp member (see claim 1).
Occhipinti (US 3,853,389) teaches a main portion is stamped to form fingers or tangs in the openings (see column 3, lines 2 – 3).
Hollingsworth (US 5,282,761) discloses a toggle clamp connector formed of a single folded piece of material and adapted for electrically connecting the conductors of at least two wires (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 2/7/2026