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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1,4-7 and 10-11 are pending.
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are cancelled.
Claims 10-11 are newly added.
Claims 1,4-7 are amended.
Claims 1,4-7 and 10-11 are examined as follow:
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the limitation “…the PTC ceramic material…” in line 7 and 8, should change to “…a PTC ceramic material…”, such that would void possible antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 11 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.
In claim 10, the cited limitation in the newly added claim, “…wherein the main side surface of the PTC element free of the solder and annular shaped contact elements is free of any material…” is indefinite, it is unclear that there is solder on the main side surface of the PTC element or not and unclear what is the annular shaped contact elements is actually contacting, it is unclear how to interpreted the newly added claim when in view of “…disposing a solder between each of the opposed main side surfaces of the PTC ceramic material of the PTC element and a contact surface of a respective one of the annular shaped contact elements such that the solder is the only material disposed between the PTC ceramic material of the PTC element and the annular shaped contact elements and such that the solder is exclusively disposed between the PTC ceramic material of the PTC element and the respective annular shaped contact elements…” in claim 1 which claim 10 depended on. Clarification is required. (Examiner note: claim 10 is the opposite of what cited in claim 1, therefore Examiner can not exactly understand what applicant is trying to express or claim in claim 10, therefore claim 10 only rejected by the 112 rejection without prior art rejection).
In claim 11, the newly cited limitation “…wherein the main side surface of the PTC element free of the solder and annular shaped contact elements is free of any material…” is indefinite, it is unclear that there is solder on the main side surface of the PTC element and unclear what is the annular shaped contact elements is actually contacting, it is unclear how to interpreted the newly added claims when in view of “…wherein the annular shaped contact elements are soldered to the PTC element such that only a solder of a solder connection is provided between a main side surface of a PTC material of the PTC element and a contact surface of the annular shaped contact element, wherein the solder of the solder connection is exclusively disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element and the annular shaped contact element…” in claim 7 which claim 11 depended on. Clarification is required. (Examiner note: it is the opposite of what cited in claim 7, therefore Examiner can not exactly understand what applicant is trying to express or claim in claim 11, therefore claim 11 only rejected by the 112 rejection without prior art rejection).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 10, the cited limitation has failed to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 is citing solder between the PTC element and contact elements (summarized) but then Claim 10 citing no solder or any material at all.
In claim 11, the cited limitation has failed to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is citing solder between the PTC element and contact elements (summarized) but then Claim 11 citing no solder or any material at all.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender et al (US2016/0360573A1 Previously cited) herein set forth as Bohlender, in view of Nikkhoo et al (US2013/0186941A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nikkhoo, and further in view of GEISHECKER (US3955170 previously cited) herein set forth as GEISHECKER.
Regarding claim 1, Bohlender discloses a method for manufacturing a positive temperature coefficient(PTC) heating cell (PTC heating element #2, fig.1) with at least one PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) which are made of an electrically conductive material (Examiner note: contact element is electrically conductive, because the intended invention of the prior is to conduct electricity to generate heat), which are electrically conductively abutted against opposed main side surfaces (refer to the surface between each #6.1 and #4 in fig.1) of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1), and which are connected to the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1), the method comprising:
providing the contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) and the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1); and
disposing a solder (refer as “adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) between each of the opposed main side surfaces (refer to the surface between each #6.1 and #4 in fig.1) of the PTC ceramic material of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and the contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) such that the solder (refer as “adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) is the only material disposed between the PTC ceramic material of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and a contact surface (refer to the surface between each #6.1 and #4 in fig.1) of a respective one of the contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1), and such that the solder (refer as “adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) is exclusively (refer to fig.1, Examiner note: figure show that there is adhesive outside of the connection) disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and the contact element (contact plate #6, fig.1),
PNG
media_image1.png
403
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Bohlender only discloses adhesive the contact elements to the PTC element, Bohlender does not explicitly disclose annular shaped contact elements; the use of induction soldering as adhesive; Wherein a contact surface of each of the contact elements is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element.
In the field of soldering and bonding, Nikkhoo discloses the use of induction soldering as adhesive (refer to abstract: “…an inductive heater designed for use in assembling electronics is disclosed…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender’s method with the use of induction soldering, as taught by Nikkhoo, in order to prevent harm to unshielded adjacent electrical components (refer to abstract: “…A number of methods for shaping a magnetic field are disclosed for the purpose of completing an inductive bonding process without causing harm to unshielded adjacent electrical components…”).
Nikkhoo too does not disclose annular contact elements; a contact surface of each of the contact elements is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element.
In the field of making a PTC electrode component, Geishecker discloses Wherein a contact surface of each of the annular contact elements (#36 and #38, fig.3-5 and refer to the shape of #36 and #38 in fig.3 and 4) is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element (#26, fig.5).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bohlender with Wherein a contact surface of each of the contact elements is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element , as taught by Geishecker, in order to reduce the required manufacturing material, such that would reduce manufacturing cost at the same time.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender et al (US2016/0360573A1 Previously cited) herein set forth as Bohlender, in view of Nikkhoo et al (US2013/0186941A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nikkhoo, further in view of GEISHECKER et al (US3955170 previously cited) herein set forth as GEISHECKER, and further in view of REUL (US2021/0291286A1 previously cited) herein set forth as REUL.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Bohlender, Nikkhoo and GEISHECKER discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Bohlender does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the contact elements is first applied to the PTC element, and inductive heating is then carried out.
In the field of electrical connection of contact elements, REUL discloses wherein at least one of the contact elements (contact element #14, fig. 1) is first applied to the PTC element, and inductive heating (soldering tool #13, fig.1 and refer to Paragraph 0076 cited: “…The soldering tool 13 contains (at least) one induction loop 13I or one induction coil that is supplied with an alternating voltage with adjustable frequency and power by a commercial generator …”) is then carried out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender invention with wherein at least one of the contact elements is first applied to the PTC element, and inductive heating is then carried out, as taught by REUL, in order to provide a more secure connection and reduce damage and detachment (Refer to Page 3 Paragraph 0053 cited: “…his has the particular advantage that although the contact element, the solder deposit adjacent the second solder connection surface, and thus indirectly also the first solder connection surface of the conductor surface are reliably heated, the conductor structure in the vicinity of the first solder connection surface is heated only slightly. Thus, damage to the conductor structure and detachment of the conductor structure from the plate can be reliably avoided. …”), such that would reduce defect, and improved operational life span of the invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender et al (US2016/0360573A1 Previously cited) herein set forth as Bohlender, in view of Nikkhoo et al (US2013/0186941A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nikkhoo, further in view of GEISHECKER et al (US3955170 previously cited) herein set forth as GEISHECKER, further in view of REUL (US2021/0291286A1 previously cited) herein set forth as REUL, and further in view of WANTANABE (US2022/0320811A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WANT.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Bohlender, Nikkhoo and GEISHECKER discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Bohlender does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the contact elements is first inductively heated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto.
In the field of electrical connection of contact elements, REUL further discloses wherein at least one of the contact elements (contact element #14, fig.1) is inductively heated (soldering tool #13, fig.1 and refer to Paragraph 0076 cited: “…The soldering tool 13 contains (at least) one induction loop 13I or one induction coil that is supplied with an alternating voltage with adjustable frequency and power by a commercial generator …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender’s invention with heating the contact element inductively, as taught by REUL, in order to provide a specific heating and also control vicinity of the heating area (refer to Paragraph 0018 cited: “…The method according to the invention has the particular advantage that the contact element and the adjacent solder deposit are heated specifically and the vicinity of the conductor structure around the first solder connection surface is, in contrast, heated only slightly…”), such that would produce lesser defect by reducing over heating unnecessary area, and increase in energy efficiency by only heating necessary area.
However, REUL does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the contact elements is preheated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto.
In the field of soldering component, WANT discloses wherein at least one of the contact elements (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) is first pre-heated, and then the contact element (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) is applied to the PTC element (refer to “the land” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) and soldered thereto (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…it is necessary to preheat the land and the lead at the soldering point to a temperature close to the melting temperature of the solder, in advance of soldering …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender’s method with wherein at least one of the contact elements is preheated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto, as taught by WANT, in order to provide a better adhesion in the soldering (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…In a state in which the land and the lead of the electronic component are not preheated and thus have a low temperature, when the solder melted by the laser beam contacts with the lead or the land in the low-temperature state, the solder immediately solidifies, so that adhesion thereof is lost, leading to soldering fault …”), such that would reduce defect and soldering fault being produce.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Bohlender, Nikkhoo and GEISHECKER discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Bohlender does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the contact elements is first inductively heated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto at a phase boundary between the contact elements and the PTC element during continued inductive heating.
In the field of electrical connection of contact elements, REUL discloses wherein at least one of the contact elements (contact element #14, fig.1) is inductively heated (soldering tool #13, fig.1 and refer to Paragraph 0076 cited: “…The soldering tool 13 contains (at least) one induction loop 13I or one induction coil that is supplied with an alternating voltage with adjustable frequency and power by a commercial generator …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender’s method with heating the contact element inductively, as taught by REUL, in order to provide a specific heating and also control vicinity of the heating area (refer to Paragraph 0018 cited: “…The method according to the invention has the particular advantage that the contact element and the adjacent solder deposit are heated specifically and the vicinity of the conductor structure around the first solder connection surface is, in contrast, heated only slightly…”), such that would produce lesser defect by reducing over heating unnecessary area, and increase in energy efficiency by only heating necessary area.
However, REUL does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the contact elements is preheated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto at a phase boundary between the contact elements and the PTC element during continued inductive heating.
In the field of soldering component, WANT discloses wherein at least one of the contact elements (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) is first pre-heated, and then the contact element (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) is applied to the PTC element (refer to “the land” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) and soldered thereto at a phase boundary (refer to Examiner’s assumption in 112b rejection above, and “adhesion” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) between the contact elements (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) and the PTC element (refer to “the lead” cited in Paragraph 0011 below) during continued inductive heating (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…it is necessary to preheat the land and the lead at the soldering point to a temperature close to the melting temperature of the solder, in advance of soldering, In a state in which the land and the lead of the electronic component are not preheated and thus have a low temperature, when the solder melted by the laser beam contacts with the lead or the land in the low-temperature state, the solder immediately solidifies, so that adhesion thereof is lost, leading to soldering fault …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bohlender’s method with wherein at least one of the contact elements is preheated, and then the contact element is applied to the PTC element and soldered thereto, as taught by WANT, in order to provide a better adhesion in the soldering (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…In a state in which the land and the lead of the electronic component are not preheated and thus have a low temperature, when the solder melted by the laser beam contacts with the lead or the land in the low-temperature state, the solder immediately solidifies, so that adhesion thereof is lost, leading to soldering fault …”), such that would reduce defect and soldering fault being produce.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender et al (US2016/0360573A1 Previously cited) herein set forth as Bohlender, in view of GEISHECKER et al (US3955170 previously cited) herein set forth as GEISHECKER.
Regarding claim 7, Bohlender discloses a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heating cell (PTC heating element #2, fig.1) comprising:
at least one PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1); and
contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) which are made of an electrically conductive material (refer to Paragraph 0036 cited: “…which is arranged between two strip conductors 6 formed as contact plates of sheet metal…”) and which are electrically conductively abutted (refer to fig.1) against the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1), wherein the contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) are soldered (refer as “adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) to the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) such that only a solder of a solder connection (refer as “electrically conductive adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) is provided between a PTC material of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and the contact element (#3 and #4, fig.1-4), and wherein the solder of the solder connection (refer as “electrically conductive adhesive” in Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The contact plate is connected for the formation of a PTC heating element to the PTC element 4 by way of an adhesive, preferably an electrically conductive adhesive…”) is exclusively (refer to fig.1, Examiner note: figure show that there is adhesive outside of the connection) disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1) and the contact element (contact plate #6, fig.1),
Wherein a contact surface (refer to the contact surface of #6.1 in fig.1) of each of the contact elements (contact plate #6, fig.1) is sized same than a surface area (refer to the surface area of the whole #4 in fig.1) of the PTC element (PTC element #4, fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bohlender does not explicitly disclose annular shaped contact elements; a contact surface of each of the contact elements is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element.
In the field of making a PTC electrode component, GEISHECKER discloses Wherein a contact surface of each of the annular contact elements (#36 and #38, fig.3-5 and refer to the shape of #36 and #38 in fig.3 and 4) is sized smaller than the respective main side surface of the PTC element (#26, fig.5).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Bohlender’s contact element with GEISHECKER’s contact element, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed on September 11, 2026 has raised new issue of 112 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the argument of reducing size of the contact elements, the applicants argued: “…While Geishecker discloses reducing the size of the contact elements being sized smaller than the main side surface of the PTC element, it does not disclose such a limitation in conjunction with the solder of the solder connection being exclusively disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element. That is, the modification of Bohlender and Nikkhoo based on the teachings of Geishecker would not produce a device in which both the contact element with the contact surface of each of the contact elements being sized smaller than the main side surface of the PTC element and the solder of the solder connection being exclusively disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element. Bohlender teaches applying the electrically conductive adhesive between the contact plates 6 and the PTC element 4, which have the same base area. See Bohlender:
Meanwhile, Geishecker discloses conductive coatings 28, 30 on each side of the PTC element 26. See Geishecker, col. 3, lns. 39-43. While Geishecker illustrates contacts elements 26, 28 having surfaces 40, 42 smaller than the main side surfaces of the PTC element 26, Geishecker discloses the entire main side surface of the PTC element as being covered in the conductive coatings 28, 30 beyond the portion of the PTC element 26 that is in contact with the contact plates 36, 38.
As such, any modification of Bohlender in light of the teachings of Geishecker would possibly result in the contact element being sized smaller than the main side surface of the PTC element, but there is no teaching that would result in the modification reducing the adhesive to only be disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element and the respective contact elements. That is, no combination of the cited prior art discloses both the contact element with the contact surface of each of the contact elements being sized smaller than the main side surface of the PTC element and the solder of the solder connection being exclusively disposed between the PTC material of the PTC element and the respective annular shaped contact elements.…”, Remark Page 7-8/12.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the combination of the prior art of records does not conflict at all, the size reduction of Geishecker does not teach away from the for solder is exclusively dispose between the PTC material of the PTC element and the respective annular shaped contact elements, because Bohlender teaches the solder is to connect the contact element to the PTC element, such that reducing the size of the contact element would also reducing the required solder size, due to the intended purpose of the solder is to connect the contact element to the PTC element, such that such argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the argument of annular shaped and the openings, the applicants argued: “…The Examiner has misidentified the middle portions of the contact elements 36, 38 as being "open". As shown in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 5, the contact elements 36, 38 are not open in the middle but instead are raised to form a two ridge structure having a first ridge in contact with the conductive coatings 28, 30 (forming contact surfaces 40, 42) and a second ridge that is in contact with the top and bottom 12, 14 of the switch 10..…”, and “…Regarding contact plate 36, Geishecker specifically states that "the center portion of contact plate 36 is not only recessed to provide clearance between the central portion of the plate and the coating 28 of the disk but is also provided with a plurality of spring fingers 44 ... [that] react against a wall of casing half 12 and provides desired contact force between the disk 26 and the contact plates 36, 38." Geischecker, col. 3, ln. 65 to col. 4, in. 3. Geishecker further refers to the benefits of "[r]ecessing of the central portion of the contact plates". As such, it is clear that the central portions of the contact plates 36, 38 incorrectly identified by the Examiner as "open" are indeed simply recessed to be at a different elevation as surfaces 42, 48. As such, the contact plates 36, 38 of Geishecker themselves are not annular shaped since material exists at their central portion.…” Remark Page 8-10/12.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the argument responded in the respond on OA mailed on May 11, 2026 uses the terms “…Geishecker’s shape of #36 and #38 are well within boardiest reasonable interpretation that they are annular shape too…”, Examiner argument does not argue that such “openings” are through opening, instead Examiner argued the shapes of the contact plates. Furthermore, “through opening” is also not cited in the rejected claims, such that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). Therefore, such argument is not persuasive.
Regarding to the newly added claims, the applicants argued: “…Applicant submits that none of the cited art teaches a main side surface of a PTC element that is free of the solder and annular shaped contact elements is also free of any material, as called for in new claims 10 and 11. For at least this reason, Applicant contends that new dependent claims 10 and 11 are patentably distinct from the cited prior art.…” Remark Page 10-11/12.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the newly added claim 10 and 11 raised new 112b issue and 112d rejection too. The reason is the cited limitation of “…the main side surface of the PTC element free of the solder and annular shaped contact elements is free of any material…”, is a negative limitation, that mean no solder will be on any of the main side surface of the PTC element, but in claim 1 or 7 already cited there will be solder at least in some portion of the main side surface of the PTC element, and the annular shaped contact elements is free of any material including the solder and the PTC element itself too must be free off, but those materials are cited in the independent claims in claim 1 and 7. The claim scope of the newly added claims are not exactly same as applicant argued in the remark, Further clarification or amendment is required for further examination of these newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU et al (US2016/0035466A1) discloses an electrode component with PTC layer that had circular contact elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is 571-272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 30, 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
