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
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0079200 by Suzuki in view of US 6,005,301 by Sova et al. (Sova hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an electrified vehicle [see at least Figures 1 and 2, (1)] comprising: a high-voltage component [see at least Figures 1 and 2, (80)] disposed in a front compartment of the vehicle [see at least Figures 1 and 2, (20)]; a high-voltage cable with connector to which a connector [see at least Figure 2, (81); paragraph 0035] connected to the high-voltage component is attached [see at least Figure 2, (85a); paragraph 0036]; wherein: the connector is connected to the high-voltage component so as to protrude from the high-voltage component in a vehicle width direction [see at least Figure 2, (80) to (85a) to (81); paragraph 0036].
Suzuki fails to disclose the details of the high-voltage connection and therefore fails to disclose a cover member that covers the high-voltage cable with connector, and the cover member covers at least a front of the connector and a top of the connector. However, Sova discloses this limitation [see at least Figure 3, (20)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to include a cover member which covers the connector in order to provide physical protection for the connector and connection to the high-voltage component. Thus, reducing/preventing physical damage to the connector/connection and increasing the reliability of the electrical connection.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0079200 by Suzuki in view of US 6,005,301 by Sova et al. (Sova hereinafter) in further view of US 2018/0229668 by Garcia et al. (Garcia hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Sova teaches the electrified vehicle according to claim 1.
Suzuki discloses further comprising a housing [see at least Figures 1 and 3, (85)] that is fixed to the front compartment [see at least Figure 2, (20)] and in which the high-voltage component is mounted, wherein: the connector is connected to the high-voltage component so as to protrude from an end in the vehicle width direction of the housing in the vehicle width direction [see at least Figure 2, (81) to (85a) to (80)].
Sova discloses and the cover member is attached to the housing so as to cover at least the front of the connector and the top of the connector [see at least Figure 3, (20) attached to (12)].
Suzuki discloses that the housing is fixed to the side in the rear of the front compartment [see at least Figures 3-4]. Suzuki in view of Sova fails to teach the housing is fixed to a rear of the front compartment. However, Garcia discloses this limitation [see at least paragraph 0004, “fixed to locations such as the firewall”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to fix the housing to the rear of the front compartment as it is a known mounting place for components of a vehicle that provides a stable base and further it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Sova in further view of Garcia teaches the electrified vehicle according to claim 2.
Sova discloses wherein the cover member covers the high-voltage cable with connector from outside in the vehicle width direction [see at least Figure 3, (20); “from the outside” is considered as the cover member surrounds the electrical connector].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0079200 by Suzuki in view of US 6,005,301 by Sova et al. (Sova hereinafter) in further view of US 2018/0229668 by Garcia et al. (Garcia hereinafter) and US 2018/0001849 by Abe et al. (Abe hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Sova in further view of Garcia teaches the electrified vehicle according to claim 2.
Suzuki in view of Sova in further view of Garcia fails to teaches further comprising a connecting member that connects the connector and the cover member. However, Abe discloses what is considered a cover (shield shell) [see at least Figure 6A, (41)] for which a connector [see at least Figure 6A, (30)] is inserted which has a connecting member [see at least Figure 6A, (38)] and creates a connection between the cover and the connector [see at least paragraph 0074, “The end of the shield shell 41 is formed such that the flange portion 38 of the female connector 30 can come into contact therewith to thereby provide a contact state between them.”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to create an electrical connection between the cover and the connector in order to provide shielding to the high-voltage cable. Thus, providing protection from many aspects of high-voltage such as preventing electrostatic discharge and reducing electromagnetic interference.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0079200 by Suzuki in view of US 6,005,301 by Sova et al. (Sova hereinafter) in further view of US 2018/0229668 by Garcia et al. (Garcia hereinafter), US 2018/0001849 by Abe et al. (Abe hereinafter) and US 2021/0036586 by Schulz et al. (Schulz hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Sova in further view of Garcia and Abe teaches the electrified vehicle according to claim 4.
Sova discloses the cover member is a conductor [see at least column 2, lines 52-55].
Abe discloses a shielded wire of the high-voltage cable with connector [see at least Figure 6A, (23)] and connection to the cover member [see at least paragraph 0074, “The end of the shield shell 41 is formed such that the flange portion 38 of the female connector 30 can come into contact therewith to thereby provide a contact state between them.”].
Suzuki in view of Sova in further view of Garcia and Abe fails to explicitly teach wherein: the housing is made of a metal; and the electrified vehicle includes a conductive member that electrically connects. However, Schulz discloses a metal housing [see at least paragraph 0030, “All parts of the auxiliary unit housing 15 and the further partition wall 20 are made of electrically conductive metal”] which electrically connects to vehicle ground [see at least Figure 2, (54)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to connect the shielding of the high-voltage power cable to vehicle ground by way of the connector, cover and housing in order to provide electrical shielding for the high-voltage system. Thus, providing protection from many aspects of high-voltage such as preventing electrostatic discharge and reducing electromagnetic interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel Barnett whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2849
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849