DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the application on 03/26/2025. 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 § 102
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2,5-10,12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeiger et al, US Patent (US 9,102,285 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zeiger et al discloses a set (Figs 1-3) consisting of a number n of electronic fuses (210) for controlled separation and connection of one or more electronic circuits ik or channels having one of the fuses (210), wherein each fuse (210) has a fuse housing (figure 1 (145)) and a connection base (see Fig 1-2) having connection contacts (135 and 140), wherein these have an input contact (135) and output contacts (140) for each circuit ik or channel k to be switched, which output contacts have, in terms of circuitry, at least one carrier structure (110) having electrical conductors or traces integrated in each fuse (210), and equipped with electronic switching elements (115, 120 and 125) and are each connected, in terms of circuitry, to the input contact (E), and wherein
n € N, where n ≥ 4 (figure 2 (n=4)), and
k E N, where k = 1, 2, 3 to n (figure 1 (k=1)),
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
Regarding claim 2, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1, characterised in that the connection contacts (E, A) are formed as plug contacts, solder contacts, or press-fit contacts with a common mounting direction or extension direction (see Fig 1, 135 and 140 are plug contacts).
Regarding claim 5, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1, characterised in that the input contact (135) has a current carrying capability which corresponds to the sum of the current carrying capabilities of the output contacts or is at least 60-80% thereof (see Fig 1 (current carrying capacity of 135 = current carrying capacity of 140)).
Regarding claim 6, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1 or 2, characterised in that the input contact (135) is geometrically designed in cross-section to be equal to or greater than the sum of the respective cross-sections of the output contacts (see Fig 1 disclosing 135 and 140 are geometrically the same in cross section).
Regarding claim 7, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1, characterised in that several, or all, electronic fuses further have a communication interface (310) possessing a quantity of signal contacts (Figs 1-3) in the region of the plug base or connection base (see Fig 3 disclosing 315:”wireless communication module).
Regarding claim 8, Zeiger et al discloses the set according to claim 1, characterised in that the, or all, switching elements of the electronic fuses are individually adjustable regarding their separation and switching conditions, in particular programmable or adaptable via an integrated communication interface (see Fig 1, 3 disclosing 110,device 310, and wireless communication module 315, also see claims 2 and 9 for switching scheme).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 8, characterised in that the, or all, switching elements of the respective electronic fuses are individually activatable or deactivatable or alterable even in the installed state during operation as intended, irrespective of whether a specific separation or switching condition has occurred in the on-board network (see Fig 1, 3 disclosing 110,device 310, and wireless communication module 315, also see claims 2 and 9 for switching scheme).
Regarding claim 10, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1, characterised in that the separation or switching condition of one, several, or all electronic switching elements constitutes either a current threshold or a voltage threshold, wherein in particular a disconnect condition is provided such that the on-board network voltage remains stable and, in the event of an excessively high voltage drop in a circuit or load circuit, the relevant switching element is switched to its separated position (see Fig 1-3, specifically Fig 3 disclosing the control module 330 in charge of managing switching scheme, also see claims 2 and 9 for switching scheme ON / OFF, and claim 3 and 9 disclosing control when threshold value is exceeded).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiger et al discloses a fuse box (Figs 1-3) having a number of interfaces, in particular connection bases formed for connecting to a selection of electronic fuses (210,230,235,240) selected from the set (Fig 2) of n electronic fuses (210,230,235,240) according to claim 1 (see Fig 2 disclosing a set of electronics components housed in an automotive fuse housing connected to an automobile fuse box including plural fuses).
Regarding claim 13, Zeiger et al discloses the fuse box (Fig 2) according to claim 12, characterised in that the fuse box (Fig 2) is formed to accommodate a mixed equipment with electronic fuses (210,230,235,240) according to claims 1 to 11 as well as further, different fuse types, such as safety fuses 2 and non-electronic fuses (see Figs 1-3, column 3, lines 19-23: “additional fuses […] may be standard fuses”, discloses a mixture of melting fuse and electronic fuse, selecting at least 4 electronic fuses and further melting fuses is the result of an optimization that is withing the scope of the routine practice of a person skilled in the art).
Regarding claim 14, Zeiger et al discloses the fuse box (Fig 2) according to claim 13, characterised in that the fuse box (Fig 2) is further formed with plug bases having contacts to plug pluggable electronic modules and electronic assemblies therein with their mating contacts (see Fig 2 disclosing a set of electronics components housed in an automotive fuse housing connected to an automobile fuse box including plural fuses).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 3,4,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiger et al US Patent (9,102,285 B2) in view of Kutlugil US Patent Application Publication (US 2006/0119178 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1;
Zeiger et al does not clearly discloses characterised in that the connection contacts (135 and 140) are formed as screw-in contacts with an opening provided for screw-fixing to connect these electrically to a circuit ik by means of a screwable connecting means;
However Kutlugil is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses an electronic switching module (see Figs 1-6) and further discloses characterised in that the connection contacts (6) are formed as screw-in contacts with an opening provided for screw-fixing to connect these electrically to a circuit ik by means of a screwable connecting means (see fig 4 disclosing the contact 6 are provided with screw holes; par. [0035]-[0039]);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiger et al with the teaching of Kutlugil by including characterised in that the connection contacts are formed as screw-in contacts with an opening provided for screw-fixing to connect these electrically to a circuit ik by means of a screwable connecting means in order to provide a fixed and stable connection in the fuse that provides removable element in case of maintenance, , also the switching period in the electronic switching module circuit is expressed in microseconds. By virtue of this short period, the module is switched on more rapidly and it operates more efficiently (Kutlugil, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Zeiger et al in view of Kutlugil discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 3, characterised in that the connection contacts provided for screw-fixing are arranged or protrude on opposite sides of the electronic fuses (see Fig 4 disclosing the screw holes of the contacts 6 are provided on opposing sides of the electronic fuses; par. [0035]-[0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiger et al with the teaching of Kutlugil by including characterised in that the connection contacts provided for screw-fixing are arranged or protrude on opposite sides of the electronic fuses in order to provide a fixed and stable connection in the fuse that provides removable element in case of maintenance, also the switching period in the electronic switching module circuit is expressed in microseconds. By virtue of this short period, the module is switched on more rapidly and it operates more efficiently (Kutlugil, par. [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Zeiger et al discloses the set (Figs 1-3) according to claim 1;
Zeiger et al does not clearly discloses characterised in that the set comprises at least one, preferably several, of the electronic fuses as multi-channel fuses with a corresponding quantity of output contacts.
However Kutlugil is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses an electronic switching module (see Figs 1-6) and further discloses characterised in that the set comprises at least one, preferably several, of the electronic fuses as multi-channel fuses with a corresponding quantity of output contacts (see Fig 4 and par. [0035],[0039],[0052] disclosing transistor 3 and contacts 6);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiger et al with the teaching of Kutlugil by including characterised in that the set comprises at least one, preferably several, of the electronic fuses as multi-channel fuses with a corresponding quantity of output contacts in order to provide an electronic switching module in which provides a simple structure, which facilitates its production and operation. It can be installed in the place of the old electromagnetic relays without any modifications and it can also be installed to new devices, without requiring a significant change in the production line (Kutlugil, par. [0065]), also the switching period in the electronic switching module circuit is expressed in microseconds. By virtue of this short period, the module is switched on more rapidly and it operates more efficiently (Kutlugil, par. [0057]).
Examiner Note
7. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. 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. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights