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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: "a bus bar base that is a flat plate; . . . a male tab shape formed in a direction orthogonal to the bus bar base portion, . . . a reinforcing rib is provided on the bus bar base portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the bus bar base portion” in the claim, and it is not clear whether claim 1 should recite: “the bus bar base a bus bar base portion”.
In order to expedite prosecution, claim 1 is construed as: “the bus bar base
All claims that depend from claim 1 are rejected under 112 because they depend from a rejected parent claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kadota” (US 2024/0145816. Examiner’s note: Kadota initially published as WO2022191231A1) in view of “Kawamura” (US 2015/0163943).
Regarding claim 1, Kadota discloses 1. A bus bar comprising: a bus bar base that is a flat plate (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; the bus bar 710 comprising the first connecting portion 711 that is a flat plate);
and a bus bar terminal connection portion having a male tab shape formed in a direction orthogonal to the bus bar base (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; the raised portion 715 and the relay terminal 811 is a bus bar terminal connection portion having a male tab shape formed in a direction orthogonal to the first connecting portion 711. Examiner’s note: see the 112 rejection above for the construction of this limitation.),
wherein the bus bar terminal connection portion is electrically connected to a relay terminal connection portion of a relay component via a relay terminal fitting (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; the relay terminal 811 is electrically connected to a relay terminal connection portion of a relay 810 via a relay terminal fitting),
a reinforcing rib is provided on the bus bar base (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; the rib protruding from the first connecting portion 711 in Fig. 5 is a reinforcing rib which suppresses suppressing deformation caused by vibration accompanying driving of the relay component transmitted to the bus bar terminal connection portion. Examiner’s note: the limitation: “suppressing deformation caused by vibration accompanying driving of the relay component transmitted to the bus bar terminal connection portion” is construed as having the ability to perform. Kadota’s reinforcing rib has the ability to suppress deformation caused by vibration accompanying driving of the relay component transmitted to the bus bar terminal connection portion. Examiner’s note: see the 112 rejection above for the construction of this limitation.).
Kadota does not disclose the bus bar terminal connection portion extends into the relay terminal connection portion in a direction orthogonal to the bus bar base.
Kawamura discloses the bus bar terminal connection portion extends into the relay terminal connection portion in a direction orthogonal to the bus bar base (Figs. 1 and 4-5, [[0043]-[0045]; the bus bar 6 has the bus bar end 6b which is a bus bar terminal connection portion that extends into the terminal fitting 4 which is a relay terminal connection portion in a direction orthogonal to the bus bar base).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kadota’s bus bar with Kawamura’s terminal connection in order to provide for an electrical connection box having the electronic component assembly that can reduce the housing space in the fitting direction of a bus bar and the terminal fitting, as suggested by Kawamura at [0012].
Regarding claim 3, Kadota in view of “Kawamura discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kadota discloses 3. The bus bar according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing rib is formed in a linear shape extending in the same direction as a plate thickness direction of the bus bar terminal connection portion (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; the reinforcing rib protruding from the first connecting portion 711 in Fig. 5 is formed in a linear shape extending in the same direction as a plate thickness direction of the raised portion 715 and the relay terminal 811).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota in view of Kawamura and “Cheong” (US 2024/0097281).
Regarding claim 2, Kadota in view of Kawamura discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kadota does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Cheong discloses 2. The bus bar according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing rib is formed in a circular shape or a cross shape (Figs. 10-14, [0078], [0082]; the rib 240 in Fig. 13 protrudes from the bus bar 230 and is formed in a cross shape.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kadota’s bus bar, as modified by Kawamura, with Cheong’s rib in order to provide rigidity and to suppress the bus bar from being twisted, as suggested by Cheong at [0078].
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota in view of Kawamura and “Okada” (US 5,593,328).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Kadota in view of Kawamura discloses the claimed invention as applied to respective claims 1 and 3, above.
Kadota discloses the bus bar terminal connection portion is physically and electrically connected to the relay terminal fitting, a flat surface of the bus bar terminal connection portion (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; a flat surface of the relay terminal 811 is physically and electrically connected to a relay terminal fitting, the relay terminal connection portion of a relay 810 has a flat surface).
Kadota does not disclose a spring force of the relay terminal fitting applied.
Okada discloses a spring force of the relay terminal fitting applied (Fig. 2, col. 9, lines 33-43; the terminal fitting 110 applies a spring force).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kadota’s bus bar, as modified by Kawamura, with Okada’s terminal fitting so that the spring force of the terminal fitting can be improved even though the terminal fitting is as thin as 0.2 mm or so, as suggested by Okada at col. 9, lines 41-43.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadota in view of Kawamura, Cheong and Okada.
Regarding claim 5, Kadota in view of Kawamura and Cheong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2, above.
Kadota discloses the bus bar terminal connection portion is physically and electrically connected to the relay terminal fitting, a flat surface of the bus bar terminal connection portion (Figs. 5, 7A, [0052], [0066]-[0068]; a flat surface of the relay terminal 811 is physically and electrically connected to a relay terminal fitting, the relay terminal connection portion of a relay 810 has a flat surface).
Kadota does not disclose a spring force of the relay terminal fitting applied.
Okada discloses a spring force of the relay terminal fitting applied (Fig. 2, col. 9, lines 33-43; the terminal fitting 110 applies a spring force).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kadota’s bus bar, as modified by Kawamura and Cheong, with Okada’s terminal fitting so that the spring force of the terminal fitting can be improved even though the terminal fitting is as thin as 0.2 mm or so, as suggested by Okada at col. 9, lines 41-43.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights