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 § 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.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
“the insulating means” in claim 11 lacks proper antecedent basis, as the limitation is not recited in claim 1 of which claim 11 depends. As “insulating means” is recited in multiple different previous claims, it is unclear whether “the insulating means” is directed to one of the previously recited “insulating means” or a different insulating means.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmer et al. (US 2019/0036461, of record and hereinafter “Bohmer”) in view of Carastro et al. (DE 102018219879 A1, of record and hereinafter “Carastro”).
Claim 1: Bohmer discloses a switching cell (2; see Figs.1, 11, and 14, 2 being a “semiconductor module” with switches; see Fig.14 and [0068]) for an automotive vehicle (an intended use of the switching cell, thus holding no patentable weight within the context of the preamble), comprising
at least one power module (2),
a DC link capacitor (4; see [0036]), and
a connecting device (13, Fig.11) between the power module (2) and the DC link capacitor (4; see Figs.1 and 11), the power module having at least one connecting tab of a first polarity and at least one connecting tab of a second polarity (51, where a positive and negative polarity connection tab is provided; see Fig.14), the connecting tabs being in a same connection plane (see Fig.1, which shows 51 on a same connection plane) and being separated by a space (between terminals of 51), the connecting device comprising at least one connecting part (21) in contact with the connecting tab of the first polarity (one of 21 connected to a tab of the first polarity; see Figs.11 and 14) and a covering part (portions of 20 and 19, provided over the space between terminals; see Fig.11) covering at least the space between the connecting tabs (the raised portion of 19, which covers space between terminals in light of Fig.1), the covering part being offset from the connecting part perpendicularly to the connection plane (see Fig.11).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
323
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bohmer does not explicitly disclose “the connecting tabs extending from a face of the power module facing the DC link capacitor”. Carastro discloses a known technique (Figs.1A,1B) of connecting a similar power module (6) and a DC link capacitor (4), where the terminals of the power module extend from a face of the power module (see Figs.1A and 1B) facing the DC link (4). As the use of extending tabs from a power converter in place of the tabs on the surface of the power converter of Bohmer would have the same functionality in providing an electrical and mechanical connection, the results of substituting one connecting tab design for another would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the connecting tabs of Carastro that extend from a face of the power module towards the DC link capacitor as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
686
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: the combination discloses wherein the DC link capacitor has at least one linking tab extending from one of its sides facing the power module, the linking tab being in contact with the connecting tab of the second polarity of the power module (e.g. the bottom part of 13 of Bohmer, which extends from the DC link capacitor 4 to the connecting tab of the second polarity, e.g. the terminal on the right in Fig.1).
Claim 3: the combination discloses wherein the covering part of the connecting device is at a non-zero distance from the linking tab of the DC link capacitor (see Fig.11 of Bohmer, which shows the top connector structure separated from the bottom connector structure; further, the examiner notes that the connectors must be separated to prevent a short circuit).
Claims 7 and 18: Bohmer discloses a plurality of power modules (see Fig.1, where multiple power modules 2 are shown), the connecting device having a shared body (see Fig.11) and a plurality of branches extending from the shared body (Bohmer implies an additional branch for the other power module in Fig.11), each branch being in contact with the connecting tab of the first polarity of a given power module and covering at least the space between the connecting tabs of the given power module (see Figs.1 and 11).
Claims 8, 10, 19, and 20: although Bohmer does not disclose “insulating means … covering at least a part of the covering part of the connecting device” of each respective branch with respect to the embodiment of Fig.11, Bohmer discloses providing an insulating means in Figs.3-4 (15) in order to guarantee a consistent spacing between busbars while imparting rigidity to the structure (see [0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided an insulating means between the busbars of Fig.11, thus covering a least a part of the covering part, in order to have provided a consistent spacing between busbars while imparting additional rigidity to the structure.
Claim 11: the combination discloses wherein the insulating means is an insulation layer, e.g. an insulating paper, coating, etc (layer 15 of Bohmer; see discussion of claim 8 above and [0056]).
Claim 12: the combination discloses wherein the DC link capacitor has at least one positioning pin and the connecting device has at least one positioning hole, the positioning pin and the positioning hole cooperating together (see 10 and 14 of Carastro and 21 of Bohmer).
Claims 13: the combination discloses wherein the connecting device is made out of metal (Bohmer discloses the structure as a busbar, which is implicitly metal; see also pg.9 of Carastro, which discloses providing copper contacts for good electrical contact).
Claim 14: although Bohmer does not explicitly disclose the specific thickness of the connecting device being between 0.3 and 0.9 millimetre, it has previously been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim 15: Bohmer does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting device is welded to at least one of the connecting tabs of the power module. However, Carastro discloses the welding contacts is a well-known alternative means of mechanical and electrical connection in the art. See pg.1, 5th paragraph. As both means provide the same function of mechanical and electrical connection, substituting one for the other would have provided predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have welded the connecting device of Bohmer to the connecting tabs as the substitution of one known element (a screw) for another (a weld) to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, and 16-17 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.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment filed 6/29/2026, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 10 and 20 are withdrawn. However, as “the insulating means” of claim 11 has not been amended and remains lacking in clear antecedent basis, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case, Applicant argues that Bohmer does not disclose “tabs that extend outward from a face of the power module directly facing the DC link capacitor”. The previous rejection maintained in this office action concedes this point (see paragraph 11 of the non-final office action mailed 1/27/2026). However, it is the opinion of the examiner that such a feature is obvious in light of Carastro, which discloses that similar connecting tabs of a power module may extend from a face of the power module, facing DC capacitor 4. See Figs.1A and 1B of Carastro. As the layout of the tabs being on the surface of the power module (Fig.1 of Bohmer) or protruding from the edge of the power module (Figs.1A, 1B of Carastro) would not affect the function and operation of the device, substituting one design for the other would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See paragraph 11 of the non-final office action mailed 1/27/2026 and the discussion above. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the combination of references discloses the “connecting tabs extending from a face of the power module facing the DC link capacitor” as recited in claim 1.
The examiner notes that multiple instances of limitations argued by Applicant are not recited in the claims. For instance, Applicant argues that Bohmer fails to disclose the tabs “facing the DC link capacitor in a flat, parallel layout corridor”. However, the language “flat, parallel layout corridor” is not recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that Bohmer does not disclose “a single tab of a first polarity … positioned between two tabs of a second polarity”. However, this language does not appear in claim 1. While claims 5 and 17 recite similar limitations, the examiner notes that claims 5 and 17 are objected to as allowable over the prior art (see paragraph 22 of the non-final office action mailed 1/27/2026).
Applicant argues that Bohmer does not disclose the recited “linking tab”. Again, the “linking tab” is recited in claim 16, which is objected to as allowable.
Applicant next argues that “the connecting device of the present invention is a single, distinct piece of metal dedicated to only one polarity”. Again, the language “single, distinct piece of metal” does not appear in the claim language. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that “this offset is specifically designed so that the device can safely “hover” over the space and the adjacent opposite-polarity tab”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant next argues, “Bohmer discloses a flat insulating layer 15 to separate busbars, but fails to disclose an insulating means that wraps around to cover the upper side, lower side, and the edge of the covering part”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant next argues, “Bohmer fails to disclose the specific configuration where a capacitor linking tab is physically sandwiched between a second polarity connecting tab and the connecting device”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant next argues, “In Bohmer, there is no face-to-face gap or corridor bridging separate housings…”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant next argues, “in Carastro, there is no separate connecting device and no offset covering part”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant application, “the connecting device” is disclosed by Bohmer in the combination of Bohmer and Carastro.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the examiner that claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-15, and 18-20 remain obvious over Bohmer in view of Carastro, and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights