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, 11 and 14 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 limitation "the first signal" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 3 or another first signal. If it is referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 3, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar…”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second signal" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 5 or another first signal. If it is referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 5, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar …”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first signal" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 5-6 or another first signal. If it is referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 5-6, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar…”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second signal" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 8-9 or another first signal. If it is referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 8-9, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar …”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 2 or another first signal. If it is referring to the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar in line 2, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the first signal indicative of the temperature of the bus bar…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 4 or another first signal. If it is referring to the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar in line 4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the second signal indicative of the voltage of the bus bar …”.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 11.
Claims 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a method comprising: receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature of a bus bar from a first measuring system of an apparatus; receiving a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar from a second measuring system of the apparatus; and determining, using a determination unit, an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining, an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining, an electrical parameter of a bus bar can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a determination unit
The determination unit (which par.11 of the specification discloses as a processor) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (determining, an electrical parameter of the bus bar). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature of a bus bar from a first measuring system of an apparatus; receiving a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar from a second measuring system of the apparatus
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature of a bus bar from a first measuring system of an apparatus; receiving a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar from a second measuring system of the apparatus”:
US 9395396 B2 “Shunt resistance type current sensor” (Kageyama; Emi et al.) teaches “receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature of a bus bar from a first measuring system of an apparatus; receiving a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar from a second measuring system of the apparatus” see col.5 ln 16-37.
US 20130200700 A1 “BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY SYSTEM, ELECTRIC VEHICLE, MOVABLE BODY, POWER STORAGE DEVICE, POWER SUPPLY DEVICE, AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT” (Ohkura; Kazumi et al.) teaches “receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature of a bus bar from a first measuring system of an apparatus; receiving a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar from a second measuring system of the apparatus” see par.85.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, an electrical parameter of the bus bar in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform determination of an electrical parameter of the bus bar. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, an electrical parameter of the bus bar in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein determining the electrical parameter comprises determining an electrical resistance of the bus bar based on the first signal and data indicative of a correlation of the temperature of the bus bar to the electrical resistance of the bus bar.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 15, which depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the electrical parameter of the bus bar is determined based on the second signal and the determined electrical resistance of the bus bar.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: providing the first signal and the second signal to the determination unit using an interface system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 depends on claim 17, which depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: amplifying the second signal using an amplifier of the interface system.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by COOK; Martin (US Application # US 20180335456 A1; hereinafter Cook).
Regarding claim 1, Cook teaches
An apparatus (abstract teaches system) comprising:
a first measuring system for attachment to a bus bar (par.29-30 teaches a branch current monitor attachment to a bus bar), the first measuring system being configured to provide a first signal indicative (par.37 teaches temperature sensors, which inherently provide signals) of a temperature of the bus bar (par.37 “The temperature sensor 700 may provide an output 710, either digital or analog, that indicates the temperature in the vicinity of the current sensors.” Fig.1 and par.25 teaches current module 24 include current sensor which further comprises a temperature; all of which is connected to bus bar 23);
a second measuring system for attachment to the bus bar (fig.1 shows voltage module 26 attached to bus bar 23), the second measuring system being configured to provide a second signal (par.24 teaches measuring system inherently providing signals) indicative of a voltage of the bus bar (par.24 and fig.1 teach voltage module 26(which includes a measuring system for voltage) connected to bus bar 23); and
an interface system (par.23 and fig.1 teaches a communication interface 34) configured to provide the first signal and the second signal to a determination unit (fig.1 shows communications interface 34 configured to provide signals to data processing unit 30) for determining an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal (par.25 teaches determining characterization data “the data processing unit queries the current sensor memory to obtain characterization data including error correction factors and relevant specifications that are used by the data processing unit in determining the monitor's output.”).
Regarding claim 14, Cook teaches
A method (par.23 teaches a method) comprising:
receiving a first signal indicative of a temperature (par.37 teaches temperature sensors, which inherently provide signals) of a bus bar from a first measuring system (par.29-30 teaches a branch current monitor attachment to a bus bar; fig.1 and par.25 teach current sensor memory 56 comprising current transducers 54) of an apparatus (fig.1 #20);
receiving (fig.1 shows Data processing unit 30 receiving signals indicative of voltage) a second signal indicative of a voltage of the bus bar (par.24 and fig.1 teach voltage module 26(which includes a measuring system for voltage) connected to bus bar 23) from a second measuring system of the apparatus (fig.1 shows voltage module 26 attached to bus bar 23); and
determining, using a determination unit (par.23 “The data processing unit 30), an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal (par.23 “The data processing unit 30 reads and stores data received periodically from the voltage module and the current module, and uses that data to calculate the current, voltage, power and other electrical parameters that are the meter's output.”).
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.
Claim(s) 9-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Ohkura; Kazumi et al. (US Application # US 20130200700 A1; hereinafter Ohkura).
Regarding claim 9,
Cook teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the interface system comprises an amplifier configured to amplify the second signal.
Ohkura does teach wherein the interface system comprises an amplifier configured to amplify the second signal (par.87 teaches an amplification circuit for amplifying signals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cook to include the teachings of Ohkura; which would provide a battery module with a simple configuration of detection circuit and amplification circuit as disclosed by Ohkura(par.158-176).
Regarding claim 10,
Cook teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises the determination unit, the determination unit comprising data indicative of a correlation of the temperature of the bus bar to an electrical resistance of the bus bar, the determination unit being configured to determine the electrical resistance of the bus bar based on the first signal and the data, and the determination unit being configured to determine the electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the second signal and the determined electrical resistance of the bus bar.
Ohkura does teach wherein the apparatus comprises the determination unit, the determination unit comprising data indicative of a correlation of the temperature of the bus bar to an electrical resistance of the bus bar (par.150 teaches “PTC element 60 has a resistance temperature characteristic in which its resistance value rapidly increases when a temperature exceeds a certain value.”), the determination unit being configured to determine the electrical resistance of the bus bar based on the first signal and the data (par.157 “The resistance value of the shunt resistor RS may be previously calculated based on the length and the cross section area of a current path, and the calculated value may be stored in the memory in the battery ECU 101”), and the determination unit being configured to determine the electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the second signal and the determined electrical resistance of the bus bar (par.192 “the battery ECU 101 calculates a charged capacity of each of the battery cells 10 based on a voltage value of the battery cell 10, like in the one example of the configuration of the detection circuit 20 illustrated in FIG. 13. A value Is of a current flowing through the voltage/current bus bar 40y is calculated based on the voltage value Vs between both ends of the shunt resistor RS and a shunt resistance value Rs.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cook to include the teachings of Ohkura; which would provide a battery module capable of detecting a current through a shunt resistor, which can be easily set to its optimum value. As a result, a current flowing through the battery module can be detected in a simple configuration disclosed by Ohkura(par.25).
Regarding claim 11, Cook teaches
a bus bar (par.24 teaches bus bar #23); and
an apparatus (current monitor #20) comprising
a first measuring system for attachment to the bus bar (par.29-30 teaches a branch current monitor attachment to a bus bar), the first measuring system being configured to provide a first signal indicative (par.37 teaches temperature sensors, which inherently provide signals) of a temperature of the bus bar (par.37 “The temperature sensor 700 may provide an output 710, either digital or analog, that indicates the temperature in the vicinity of the current sensors.” Fig.1 and par.25 teaches current module 24 include current sensor which further comprises a temperature; all of which is connected to bus bar 23);
a second measuring system for attachment to the bus bar (fig.1 shows voltage module 26 attached to bus bar 23), the second measuring system being configured to provide a second signal (par.24 teaches measuring system inherently providing signals) indicative of a voltage of the bus bar (par.24 and fig.1 teach voltage module 26(which includes a measuring system for voltage) connected to bus bar 23); and
an interface system (par.23 teaches communications interface 34) configured to provide the first signal and the second signal to a determination unit (par.23 teaches “a communications interface 34 for transmission to another data processing system, such as a building management computer, for remote display or use in automating or managing facility functions”) for determining an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal (par.23 “The data processing unit 30 reads and stores data received periodically from the voltage module and the current module, and uses that data to calculate the current, voltage, power and other electrical parameters that are the meter's output.”) and the interface system being electrically connected to the bus bar via the second measuring system (fig.1 and par.24 teaches communications interface 34 connected to bus bars 23A-C via voltage sensor in voltage sensor memory 46).
Cook fails to teach the first measuring system being attached to the bus bar.
Ohkura does teach
A bus bar system (par.83 “the plurality of bus bars 40”) for use in a vehicle (par.84 teaches electric vehicle) comprising:
for determining an electrical parameter of the bus bar based on the first signal and the second signal (par.157 “The resistance value of the shunt resistor RS may be previously calculated based on the length and the cross-section area of a current path, and the calculated value may be stored in the memory in the battery ECU 101”), the first measuring system being attached to the bus bar (fig.1 shows bus bars attached to detection circuit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cook to include the teachings of Ohkura; which would provide a battery module capable of detecting a current through a shunt resistor, which can be easily set to its optimum value. As a result, a current flowing through the battery module can be detected in a simple configuration disclosed by Ohkura(par.25).
Regarding claim 12, Cook in view of Ohkura teaches the bus bar system of claim 11, Ohkura further teaches wherein at least one of the first measuring system and the second measuring system are attached to a first portion of the bus bar (fig.1 shows detection circuit attached to one portion of bus bars #40), the first portion having a smaller cross section than a second portion of the bus bar (par.179 teaches “The dimensions include the length and the cross section area of the current path. More specifically, the shunt resistance value Rs is limited by the dimensions of the bus bar. The dimensions of the voltage bus bar 40x are limited by a distance between the plus electrode 10a and the minus electrode 10b of the adjacent two battery cells 10.”; the difference in distance/dimensions between positive and negative electrodes implicitly teaches a difference cross section areas of bus bars).
Regarding claim 13, Cook in view of Ohkura teaches the bus bar system of claim 12, Ohkura further teaches wherein the attachment of at least one of the first measuring system and the second measuring system to the bus bar comprising at least one of welding connection and soldering connection (par.124 “In this state, the plus electrode 10a of the battery cell 10 is laser-welded to the region 41a in the voltage bus bar 40x while the minus electrode 10b thereof is laser-welded to the region 41b in the voltage bus bar 40x. Thus, the plurality of battery cells 10 and the plurality of voltage bus bars 40x are fixed to each other.”).
Regarding claim 15, Cook teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein determining the electrical parameter comprises determining an electrical resistance of the bus bar based on the first signal and data indicative of a correlation of the temperature of the bus bar to the electrical resistance of the bus bar.
Ohkura does teach determining the electrical parameter comprises determining an electrical resistance of the bus bar (par.157 “The resistance value of the shunt resistor RS may be previously calculated based on the length and the cross section area of a current path, and the calculated value may be stored in the memory in the battery ECU 101.”) based on the first signal and data indicative of a correlation of the temperature of the bus bar to the electrical resistance of the bus bar (par.150 teaches “PTC element 60 has a resistance temperature characteristic in which its resistance value rapidly increases when a temperature exceeds a certain value.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cook to include the teachings of Ohkura; which would provide a battery module capable of detecting a current through a shunt resistor, which can be easily set to its optimum value. As a result, a current flowing through the battery module can be detected in a simple configuration disclosed by Ohkura(par.25).
Regarding claim 16, Cook in view of Ohkura teaches the method of claim 15, Cook further teaches wherein the electrical parameter of the bus bar is determined based on the second signal and the determined electrical resistance of the bus bar (par.24 “provides periodic timing signals to trigger sampling of the outputs of the voltage transducers by the voltage sampling unit.”).
Regarding claim 17, Cook in view of Ohkura teaches the method of claim 14, Cook further teaches further comprising: providing the first signal and the second signal to the determination unit using an interface system (fig.1 shows data processing unit #30 in communication with communication interface #34, thus signals provided to the interface #34 can be fed back to the data processing unit #30).
Regarding claim 18, Cook in view of Ohkura teaches the method of claim 17, Ohkura further teaches further comprising: amplifying the second signal using an amplifier of the interface system (par.87 teaches an amplification circuit for amplifying signals).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 4,
“… wherein the first measuring system comprises a layer unit for attachment to the bus bar, the layer unit comprising at least two layer elements, at least one of a top layer element and a bottom layer element of the layer elements being electrically conductive, and the first measuring system comprising a measuring unit thermally connectable to the layer unit for measuring the temperature of the bus bar via the layer elements.”
Claims 5-8 would also be allowable due to their dependence on claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 19,
“… wherein the first measuring system comprises a layer unit for attachment to the bus bar, the layer unit comprising at least two layer elements, at least one of a top layer element and a bottom layer element of the layer elements being electrically conductive.”
Claim 20 would also be allowable due to their dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20160329691 A1; YANNIELLO; ROBERT et al. is a bus bar apparatus usable in high-temperature cable termination applications.
US 20090039836 A1; Asada; Tadatoshi is an Apparatus for controlling power generated by on-vehicle generator on the basis of internal status of on-vehicle battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights