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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a dielectric housing” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because a “dielectric housing” was positively recited in line 2. As a result it is unclear if line 6 requires a second “dielectric housing”, or if it is referring to the “dielectric housing” that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the disclosure.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitations of “metal contacts” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because “metal contacts” was positively recited in line 2. As a result it is unclear if line 7 requires a second “metal contacts”, or if it is referring to the “metal contacts” that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the disclosure.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "contact group attachment points" in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted to be referring to the “attachment points are a contact group” recited in line 3.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the load current" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the maximum average volume temperature" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a heat-chemical igniter” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because a “heat-chemical igniter” was positively recited in line 10. As a result, it is unclear if line 11 requires a second “heat-chemical igniter”, or if it is referring to the “heat-chemical igniter” that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the disclosure.
Finally regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “while the dielectric housing comprises an open part, which at the same time is a nozzle opening”. The terms “while” and “at the same time” appear to require a temporal element to the recited structure (i.e., while the housing is an “open part” it is also “a nozzle opening”), which implicitly appears to require a structure that can also be a “closed part”. Further, this appears to require that the heat-sensitive element be connected to the heat-chemical igniter only when the dielectric housing comprises an open part.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the triggering temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the outer part" and “the terminal blocks” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Regarding “the terminal blocks”, only a single “terminal block” has been previously recited.
Claims 4-7 all recite the limitation "the contact groups" in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. It is noted that only a single “contact group” has been previously recited.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duda et al. (US 2026/0196435) in view of Koehler et al. (US 2003/0199182) and Botter et al. (US 2016/0278233).
Regarding claim 1, Duda discloses a terminal block (fig. 1b) with an autonomous fire-extinguishing device and heat-chemical triggering (par. 1), made in a housing (10.1/10.2) and comprising metal contacts (2a/2b/3) with wire attachment points (fig. 1a, 1b), wherein the metal contacts with attachment points are a contact group forming a closed electrical circuit (par. 19),
additionally, comprise a module (4/5/6/7/8) with an extinguishing composition (par. 18) located inside the housing (fig. 1b), and a thermal fuse (7) connected to a closed electrical circuit between metal contacts with contact group attachment points (fig. 1a, 1b), made with the possibility of breaking a closed electrical network by exceeding the load current flowing through it or exceeding the maximum average volume temperature (par. 21), as well as a heat-sensitive element (7), while the housing comprises an open part (fig. 1b), which at the same time is a nozzle opening for the exit of extinguishing products (fig. 1b – the housing is a generally open part, which will be capable of performing the recited function).
Duda does not explicitly disclose that the housing is dielectric, or that the module has an aerosol-forming or gas-forming composition, or a heat-chemical igniter connected to the module and the heat-sensitive element is connected to the heat-chemical igniter.
Regarding the first deficiency, Koehler teaches a terminal block (10, fig. 1) made in a dielectric housing (12, see par. 27).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of the terminal block of Duda to be dielectric, as taught by Koehler, since this was known to provide an insulating housing for the electrical connections (Koehler, par. 27).
Regarding the second and third deficiencies, Botter teaches a module (fig. 1; par. 1) with an aerosol-forming or gas-forming composition (par. 37) located inside a housing (1, fig. 1), and a heat-chemical igniter (5) connected to the module (fig. 1), a heat-sensitive element (4) connected to the heat-chemical igniter (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminal block of Duda such that the module has an aerosol-forming or gas-forming composition and a heat-chemical igniter connected to the module and wherein the heat-sensitive element is connected to the heat-chemical igniter, as taught by Botter. Such a module was known to be suited for extinguishing electrical fires without causing additional damage (Botter, par. 23).
Regarding claim 2, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, further characterized by lower triggering temperature of the heat-sensitive element in comparison with the triggering temperature of the heat-chemical igniter (par. 11, 12 – the “threshold value” of the heat-sensitive element “triggers” it to then ignite the heat-chemical igniter).
Regarding claim 3, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, and Koehler further teaches fasteners (34) which are located on the outer part of the housing (fig. 1), allowing the terminal blocks to be connected to each other in groups to connect two or more pairs of wires.
Regarding claim 6, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, and Botter further teaches the contact groups are made in the form of a spring contact capable of independently pressing the input wire to the contact group when inserting the wire into the contact group (par. 30 – “The result of this action is to spring-load or "cock" terminal pins 22”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duda, in view of Koehler and Botter, and further in view of Tim (“Identify Electrical Connectors”).
Regarding claim 4, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, but not further characterized by the contact groups which are made in the form of screw contacts, where the input wire is fixed with a screw or screw and a clamping pad.
Tim teaches a terminal block comprising contacts groups (p. 15, bottom figures) which are made in the form of screw contacts (p. 15, ln. 2), where the input wire is fixed with a screw or screw and a clamping pad (p. 15, ln. 4-5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact groups of Duda in view of Koehler and Botter to be made in the form of screw contacts, where the input wire is fixed with a screw or screw and a clamping pad, as taught by Tim, since these were known to provide a sturdy, modular connector (p. 15, ln. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, but not characterized by the contact groups which are made in the form of non-removable crimping sleeves, where the input wire is fixed in the form of compression by the contact group.
Tim teaches a terminal block comprising contacts groups (p. 15, bottom figures) which are made in the form of non-removable crimping sleeves (“Anderson Powerpole Connectors”, see p. 17), where the input wire is fixed in the form of compression by the contact group (p. 17, ln. 5-7).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact groups of Duda in view of Koehler and Botter to be made in the form of non-removable crimping sleeves, where the input wire is fixed in the form of compression by the contact group, as taught by Tim, since these were known to be capable of transferring substantial electrical loads (p. 17, ln. 4-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duda, in view of Koehler and Botter, and further in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 2002/0052151).
Regarding claim 7, Duda in view of Koehler and Botter discloses the block described regarding claim 1, but not characterized by the contact groups which are made in the form of a movable contact clamp, which can be opened with a lever clamp, and then clamped by returning the lever clamp to its original position, thereby clamping the input wire in the contact group.
Sumiyoshi teaches a terminal block comprising contact groups which are made in the form of a movable contact clamp (10), which can be opened with a lever clamp (34), and then clamped by returning the lever clamp to its original position, thereby clamping the input wire in the contact group (par. 31; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact groups of Duda in view of Koehler and Botter to be made in the form of a movable contact clamp, which can be opened with a lever clamp, and then clamped by returning the lever clamp to its original position, thereby clamping the input wire in the contact group, as taught by Sumiyoshi, since this would provide an electrical connection that is easy and convenient to connect/disconnect and secure and locked when connected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koelewijn et al. (US 2008/0190627), Umehara et al. (US 2012/0285710), Lee et al. (US 2017/0232282), and Rosen (US 4,711,307) all disclose apparatuses having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights