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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted December 6, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 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:
- “for use in relay connection of an electrical wire”. The term “relay connection” is unclear as to if the connection is through a relay, through a connector to the wire, or a branching connection. The claim will be interpreted as “a relay unit configured to electrically connect an electrical wire through a relay.”
-“a heat dissipation part formed by raising a position opposing the relay towards the relay” is unclear and ambiguous. The term “position” is considered to be a location. The examiner is unclear as to what position/surface of the metal housing is being “raised”. The examiner will interpret the claim to mean “a heat dissipation part formed as an inward projection of the metal housing that protrudes toward the relay at a location aligned with the relay in a thickness direction of the metal housing.”
Claim 1 rewritten:
An electrical junction box comprising: a relay unit configured to electrically connect an electrical wire through a relay; and a metal housing enclosing the relay unit, wherein the relay unit has a relay attached to a resin component housed inside the metal housing, and the metal housing has a heat dissipation part formed as an inward projection of the metal housing that protrudes toward the relay at a location aligned with the relay in a thickness direction of the metal housing.
Claim 2 recites:
-“ a distal end of the heat dissipation part”. Distal means far from something, but the claim does not clearly identify the reference point (distal from the housing wall, from the relay or the raised portion.” The examiner will interpret the claim to be “an end surface of the heat dissipation projection facing the relay.”
-“a distal end that receives heat emanating from the relay”. All nearby structures may receive heat to some degree. Receives heat does not clearly define structure. The examiner will interpret the claim to read: “an end surface of the heat dissipation projection facing the relay is planar”
Claim 3 recites:
-“ a busbar attached to the resin component and used as wiring of the resin component.” “Used as wiring of the resin component” is unclear. A resin component itself normally does not have wiring. The busbar may be wiring on, in, or supported by the resin component. The examiner will interpret the claim to mean “a busbar mounted to the resin component and electrically connected to the relay”
-Claim 3 seems to be inconsistent with claim 1 regarding location of heat dissipation part
Claim 1 says the heat dissipation part is at a position opposing the relay.
Claim 3 says it is at a position opposing the busbar connected to the relay.
Is the raised part opposite the relay, opposite the busbar, or both. The examiner will interpret the claim to mean “the heat dissipation projection is positioned to face the busbar at a portion electrically connected to the relay”
Claim 4:
-The examiner suggests the term “housing hole” to be changed to “a through hole” or “opening”
- The examiner suggests the term “externally leading out an electrical wire of a connector…” to be changed to “through which an electrical wire connected to the connector is led out of the metal housing”
- “ a fluid passage part located at a position on a bottom surface of the metal housing lower than the heat dissipation part and serving as a passage for fluid that has infiltrated the metal housing through the housing hole” is unclear. Is the fluid passage on the bottom surface, lower than the heat dissipation part in an installed orientation, lower in elevation, closer to the ground, or lower in the housing thickness direction?
The examiner will interpret the claim to mean:
“a fluid passage part, positioned below the heat dissipation projection, forming a channel extending along a bottom wall of the metal housing to the opening.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borowicz et al. (US 2015/0016077) in view of Baur et al. (US 6,445,568).
In regards to claim 1, Borowicz et al. teaches an electrical junction box (24, 26) comprising: a relay unit (plurality of relays (46), figure 5; relay, paragraph [0014]), configured to electrically connect an electrical wire (14,18) through a relay (46); and a housing (see the figure below) enclosing the relay unit (46, figure 5), wherein the relay unit (46) has a relay (46) attached to a plastic component (50) housed inside the housing (see the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Borowicz et al. does not explicitly teach the resin compartment.
Borowicz et al. does teach that the compartment in which the relays are inserted is made of plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have made the plastic component Borowicz et al. of a resin material since it offers superior dielectric strength, thermal stability, moisture resistance, and mechanical durability — all critical for reliable electrical performance in compact, high-stress environments; it has also been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Borowicz et al. does not teach the metal housing and a heat dissipation part formed as an inward projection of the metal housing that protrudes toward the relay at a location aligned with the relay in a thickness direction of the metal housing.
Baur et al. teaches a housing made partially of metal (inner portion of the housing (3) is covered with a metal coating (12; column 4, lines 38-43). Baur et al. also teaches the housing (3,12) has a heat dissipation part (small protrusions can be provided to direct the flowing water, column 5, lines 4-5) formed as an inward projection of the metal housing (see the figure below; protrusions, column 5, lines 25-27) that protrudes toward the relay (7; relay, column 4, line 17) at a location aligned with the relay (see figure 2) in a thickness direction of the metal housing (3, 12) (see figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the teachings of Borowicz et al. the metal housing and a heat dissipation part formed as an inward projection of the metal housing that protrudes toward the relay at a location aligned with the relay in a thickness direction of the metal housing as taught by Baur et al. since Baur et al. teaches metal surfaces are provided in the housing to preferentially condense moisture from the air in the housing upon cooling, to avoid condensation on the circuit board or the electronic components (abstract) and small protrusions can be provided to direct the flowing water droplets toward and into the drain holes. Due to the mass and reduced surfaces roughness of the metal surfaces, the formed water droplets will easily run off of these surfaces and be channeled into the drain holes (column 5, lines 5-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hara et al. (US 7,723,033) teaches an electrical box with a relay portion, Asano et al. (US 2021/00867101) teaches an electrical junction box with a relay portion and fixation member.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Prosecution Insights