DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Priority 3
III. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 3
IV. Pertinent Prosecution History 4
V. Claim Status 7
VI. Reissue Requirements 8
VII. Claim Objections 9
VIII. Claim Interpretation 10
A. Lexicographic Definitions 11
B. 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph 11
C. 'Sources' for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 12
(1) Plurality of Ribs 12
IX. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 12
A. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”) and Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”). 13
B. Claims 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”), Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”) and Maeckel et al. (German Publication No. DE 102010010467 A1 - Machine Generated English Translation”) (“MaeckelMGT”). 39
C. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”), Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”) and Maeckel et al. (German Publication No. DE 102010010467 A1 - Machine Generated English Translation”) (“MaeckelMGT”) as applied to claims 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and in further view of Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0328016). 50
X. Response to Arguments 52
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections 52
XI. Conclusion 54
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 . 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.
Priority
Applicant filed the instant reissue application 17/679,926 (“‘926 Reissue Application”) on 24 February 2022 for U.S. Application No. 16/835,869 (“‘869 Application"), filed 31 March 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11.114.266 (“‘266 Patent”), issued 07 September 2021.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that, for examination purposes, the instant ‘926 Reissue Application has an effective U.S. filing date of the ‘869 Application, i.e. 31 March 2020.
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 11 February 2026 has been entered.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘926 Reissue Application on 24 February 2022. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘926 Reissue Application included a preliminary amendment (“Feb 2022 Preliminary Amendment”) to the claims (“Feb 2022 Claim Amendment”), the specification (“Feb 2022 Spec Amendment”), and drawings (“Feb 2022 Drawings Amendment”). The Feb 2022 Claim Amendment includes an amendment: amending original claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 18; and adding new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued a non-Final Office action on 24 April 2024 (“April 2024 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the April 2024 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 1-20 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103(a) and 251. 1
On 24 July 2024, Applicant filed a response to the April 2024 Non-Final Office Action (“July 2024 Applicant Response”). The July 2024 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Specification” (“July 2024 Spec Amendment”), “Amendments to the Drawings” (“July 2024 Drawings Amendment”) and “Amendments to the Claims” (“July 2024 Claim Amendment”) including: currently twice amended2 original claims 1, 8, 10, 13, 17 and 18; once amended3 original claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16; original claims 3, 5, 6, 14 and 15; and canceled4 new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued a Final Office action on 08 August 2024 (“Aug 2024 Final Office Action”). In particular, the Aug 2024 Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b), 112(d), 103(a) and 251.5
On 07 October 2024, Applicant filed a Response to After Final Office Action (“Oct 2024 Applicant Response”). The Oct 2024 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Drawings” (“Oct 2024 Drawings Amendment”), a new Oath/Declaration (“Oct 2024 Declaration”) and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Oct 2024 Claim Amendment”) including: thrice amended6 original claims 1, 8 and 13; twice amended7 original claims 10, 17 and 18; once amended8 original claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16; original claims 3, 6, 14 and 15; and canceled9 new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued an Advisory action on 17 October 2024 (“Oct 2024 Advisory Action”): not entering the proposed Oct 2024 Claim Amendment; acknowledging the Oct 2024 Declaration is sufficient; and acknowledging the Drawings Amendment is sufficient.
On 08 Nov 2024, Applicant filed a Response to Second After Final Office Action (“Nov 2024 Applicant Response”). The Nov 2024 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Drawings” (“Nov 2024 Drawings Amendment”), a new Oath/Declaration (“Nov 2024 Declaration”) and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Nov 2024 Claim Amendment”) including: thrice amended10 original claims 1, 8 and 13; twice amended11 original claims 10, 17 and 18; once amended12 original claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16; original claims 3, 6, 14 and 15; and canceled13 new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued a non-Final Office action on 29 August 2025 (“Aug 2025 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the Aug 2025 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 1-18 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103(a).14
On 05 November 2025, Applicant filed a response to the Aug 2025 Non-Final Office Action (“Nov 2025 Applicant Response”). The July 2024 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Nov 20258 Claim Amendment”) including: four times amended15 original claims 1, 8 and 13; twice amended16 original claims 10, 17 and 18; once amended17 original claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16; original claims 3, 6, 14 and 15; and canceled18 new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued a Final Office action on 11 December 2025 (“Dec2025 Final Office Action”). In particular, the Dec 2025 Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).19
On 11 February 2026, Applicant filed a Response to After Final Office Action (“Feb 2026 Applicant Response”). The Feb 2026 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks” and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Feb 2026 Claim Amendment”) including: five times amended20 original claims 1, 8 and 13; twice amended21 original claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 18; once amended22 original claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 14-16; original claims 3 and 6; and canceled23 new claims 19 and 20.
The Office issued an Advisory action on 20 February 2026 (“Feb 2026 Advisory Action”) not entering the proposed Feb 2026 Claim Amendment.
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘926 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 13 (Original and five times amended)
Claim(s) 7, 9, 10, 17 and 18 (Original and twice amended)
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 14-16 (Original and once amended)
Claim(s) 3 and 6 (Original)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 (New and canceled)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-18 are pending in the instant ‘926 Reissue Application. Claims 1-18 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Reissue Requirements
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘266 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
The Examiner notes that Amendment practice for Reissue Applications is NOT the same as for non-provisional applications. See MPEP §§ 1413 and 1453. Reissue application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173, while non-provisional application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Particularly,
Manner of making amendments under 37 CFR 1.173:
All markings (underlining and bracketing) are made relative to the original patent text, 37 CFR 1.173(g) (and not relative to the prior amendment).
For amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets, and the added matter must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
For amendments to the drawings, any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3).
The Examiner further notes that all amendments to the instant ‘926 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Claim Objections
MPEP § 1453 states,
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions). The failure to submit an explanation will generally result in a notification to applicant that the amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive (see 37 CFR 1.135(c)). Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
(MPEP § 1453; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Applicant has not provided sufficient explanation of support for at least the amendments to claims instantly provided in the Nov 2025 Claim Amendment, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.173(c). (Id.) Specifically, the Examiner find that the Nov 2025 Response did not provide any direction for the Examiner to find support for the claim amendments. In this light, the Examiner finds that appropriate explanation of support in accordance with Rule 1.173(c) – with reference to particular passages and/or figures in the specification, and preferably on a claim-by-claim and limitation-by-limitation basis – is required. (Emphasis added).
In addition, the Feb 2026 Claim Amendment does not comply with 37 CFR 1. 173(b)(2), (d) and is objected to because:
The Examiner finds that the added subject matter in claim 1 present in the Aug 2025 Claim Amendment seems to be indicated by as not underlined. (See Feb 2026 Claim Amendment at claim 1). In reissue applications, for amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets (i.e., single-bracketing; emphasis added), and the added matter must be single-underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d). Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claim requirement of “placed therein” in line 16 of claim 1 is not completely single-underlined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP § 2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV). Following an independent review of the claims in view of the specification herein, Examiners find that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions related to claim terms with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph
A second exception to giving words in the claims their ordinary and customary meaning is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 et seq.
The Examiner finds that because the Examined Claims do not recite “step,” “means” or a claim term used as a substitution for “means” (i.e. a generic placeholder for “means”), the Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181. Because the forty (40) Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that all Examined Claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential).
'Sources' for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)
Plurality of Ribs
The Examiner finds that the ‘266 Patent states,
[i]n an exemplary embodiment, the molded structure 102 is formed with side portions that are initially solid, with triangle cutouts being made on each side to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure. Thus, bottom rib 112 and top rib 114 are formed by triangle cutouts 118a and 118b, with center portion 116 remaining to join the bottom and top ribs (collectively, “triangle cutout(s) 118”). The triangle cutouts 118, which may vary in number and shape, reduce the amount of material used to form the molded structure 102, without diminishing its support capability.
(‘266 Patent at c.3, ll.3-12; emphasis). From this perspective, the Examiner first finds that the “plurality of ribs” can be “side portion that are initially solid.” (Id.) However, when the plurality of ribs are further limited to top and bottom portions being coupled/connected to a center portion, the Examiner finds that the “plurality of ribs” are side portions having “cutouts” therein, “which may vary in number and shape.” (Id.)
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”) and Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Perreault discloses
[1] [a] molded structure24 to support an electrical element, the molded structure comprising:
The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 that receive fusible elements 18. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at c.2, ll.39-47, 58-63).
a first end bell coupled to a first copper terminal;
a second end bell coupled to a second copper terminal;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including end block portions 32 coupled to terminals 16. (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 52-54; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67).
Perreault discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the first and second terminals being copper.
However, a molded structure for a fuse comprising first and second terminals being copper is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Harris, for example, teaches a molded structure comprising end terminal 24, 26, 118, 120 being made from copper. (Harris at ¶¶ 0056, 0060, 0078).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second terminals being made of copper as described in Harris to the molded structure of Perreault.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide first and second terminals being made of copper, since it provides a mechanism to ensure good conduction to the fuse element and provide an easily malleable structure that can be easily formed. (Id. at ¶ 0060). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that effectively directs current and can be easily formed, thereby increasing the versatility of the molded structure.
a plurality of ribs disposed between the first end bell and the second end bell and alongside the electrical element to protect the electrical elements
As set forth above, the Examiner construes the “plurality of ribs” as simply side portions that are initially solid. (See §VIII.C.(1), supra).
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 along the side of the molded block assembly 14. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 36-41; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67; see Figures 1-3).
centers of the plurality of ribs joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein, first remaining portions of the plurality of ribs extending between the solid portion and the first end bell with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the first end bell, and second remaining portions of the plurality of ribs extending between the centers and the second end bell with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the centers to the second end bell;
As set forth above, the Examiner construes the “top and bottom portions being coupled/connected to a center portion” as simply being side portions having cutouts therein, which may vary in number and shape. (See §VIII.C.(1), supra). The Examiner finds the instant claim limitation now specifically requires the cutouts to be triangular spaces that consistently grow wider from the center connected portion.
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 36-41; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67; see Figures 1-3).
Perreault and Harris discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the side portions to have centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5 of Stern (annotated))]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, a structure comprising side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end with a space therebetween growing wider from the solid portion to the end is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Stern, for example, teaches a spring assembly structure 100 comprising two side elastomeric portions 102, 104 having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the first remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the first end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the first end, and the second remaining portions of the side portions extending between the centers and the second end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the centers to the second end. (Stern at Abstract; ¶ 0032; see annotated Figure 5 above). The Examiner further finds that Stern is analogous art in that Stern is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., reduce the amount of material used to form the structure, without diminishing its support capability; see § VIII.C.(1), supra).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the ends with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the ends as described in Stern to the side portions of the molded structure of Perreault and Harris.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells since it provides a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience in the structure. (Stern at ¶ 0032). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that successfully decreases the amount of material required for the structure and allows for elasticity when assembling the components, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Stern to the molded structure of Perreault and Harris would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells, in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience to the molded structure.
a substantially cylindrical shape, wherein the molded structure25 fits into an enclosure body such that the end bells and the plurality of ribs rest against an inner surface of the enclosure; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being in a tubular (i.e., cylindrical) shape that fits into a tubular member 12 such that the end block portions 32 and the spanners 30 rest against the inner surface of the tubular member 12. (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll. 27-34, 48-52; c.2, l.67 – c.3, l.2).
a first aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein26.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 of Perreault (annotated))]
PNG
media_image2.png
1100
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this regard, in examination of annotated Figure 1 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being a solid unitary piece consisting of spanners 30 and end block portions 32 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. the “dotted ellipses” indicated in annotated Figure 1 of Perreault above) defined by the spanners 30 that extend between end block portions 32. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 18 as is indicated by the arrowed-dotted line provided by Perreault in Figure 1. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses terminals 16 being placed into the solid molded block assembly 14 (i.e., held in place in spanner/solid molded block assembly 14) and then welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at c.2, ll.64-67). In this embodiment, and in lieu of causing damage to the fusible elements 18 by manipulating/twisting/compressing the fusible elements 18, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would not be attached to the terminals 16 before welding of the solid molded block assembly 14 to the terminals 16. Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would be placed into contact to the terminals 16, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 36 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 16 are welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at 58-61).
With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[2] characterized in that the first end bell comprises a first slot through which the first copper terminal is secured and the second end bell comprises a second slot through which the second copper terminal is secured, and the first and second copper terminals are press-fit27 into the respective slots.
In this regard, Perreault discloses the end block portions 32 comprising slots 20 through which the copper terminals 16 are secured via various techniques. (Perreault at c.1, ll.52-53; c.2, ll.44-51, 58-67; c.4, ll.47-51).
Moreover, Harris teaches the first end bell (i.e., first/left end of body 12) comprising a first slot 36a, 116 through which the first copper terminal 24 is secured and the second end bell (i.e., second/right end of body 12) comprising a second slot 36b, 114 through which the second copper terminal 26 is secured, and the copper terminals being press-fit into the respective slots. (Harris at ¶¶ 0059, 0078, 0080, 0081, 0083).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the press-fitting of the copper terminals into the respective slots as described in Harris to the molded structure of Perreault, Harris and Stern.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the press-fitting of the copper terminals into the respective slots, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the fuse assembly is firmly held in place. (Id. at ¶ 0059). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that provides an initial slip-free engagement of the slots and copper terminals, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Harris to the molded structure of Perreault, Harris and Stern would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing the press-fitting of the copper terminals into the respective slots in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to ensure the fuse assembly is firmly held in place.
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra)
With respect to the limitations of claim 3, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[3] characterized in that the first end bell is molded28 to the first copper terminal and the second end bell is molded to the second copper terminal.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 16 being welded to the end block portions 32 of the molded block assembly 14 causing the molded block assembly 14 to melt and hold the terminals 16 in place. (Perreault at c.1, ll.52-53; c.2, ll.63-66).
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra)
With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[4] characterized in that the first and second end bells and the plurality of ribs comprise a plastic, ceramic, or melamine material.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 being made of a insulative material, such as thermoplastic, among other things. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, ll.39-42; c.3, ll.3-4, 8-58; claim 3).
With respect to the limitations of claim 5, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[5] characterized in that the plurality of ribs comprise a top rib and a bottom rib wherein the top rib and the bottom rib are coupled at the centers thereof to form the solid portion.
As set forth above, the Examiner construes the “top and bottom portions being coupled/connected to a center portion” as simply being side portions having cutouts therein, which may vary in number and shape. (See § VIII.C.(1), supra). The Examiner finds the instant claim limitation now specifically requires the cutouts to be triangular spaces that consistently grow wider from the center connected portion.
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 36-41; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67; see Figures 1-3).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5 of Stern (annotated))]
PNG
media_image3.png
316
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition,
PNG
media_image1.png
495
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the Examiner finds that Stern, teaches a spring assembly structure 100 comprising two side elastomeric portions 102, 104 having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the first remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the first end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the first end, and the second remaining portions of the side portions extending between the centers and the second end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the centers to the second end. (Stern at Abstract; ¶ 0032; see annotated Figure 5 above). The Examiner further finds that Stern is analogous art in that Stern is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., reduce the amount of material used to form the structure, without diminishing its support capability; see § VIII.C.(1), supra).
As set forth above, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the ends with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the ends as described in Stern to the side portions of the molded structure of Perreault and Harris.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells since it provides a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience in the structure. (Stern at ¶ 0032). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that successfully decreases the amount of material required for the structure and allows for elasticity when assembling the components, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Stern to the molded structure of Perreault and Harris would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells, in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience to the molded structure.
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[6] characterized in that the electrical element is a fuse.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 receiving fusible elements 18. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at Abstract; c.1, ll.34-36; c.2, ll.12-14; c.2, l.51 – c.3, l.2; see Figure 1)
With respect to the limitations of claim 7, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[7] further comprising a second aperture or receiving the electrical element placed therein29, wherein the first aperture is disposed on a first surface of the molded structure and the second aperture is disposed on a second surface of the molded structure, wherein the first surface is on an opposite side of the second surface.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 that form first and second apertures on respective first and second surfaces of the molded block assembly 14, which are in return on the opposite sides of each other. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at Figures 1-3).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 of Perreault (annotated))]
PNG
media_image2.png
1100
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As set forth above, in examination of annotated Figure 1 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being a solid unitary piece consisting of spanners 30 and end block portions 32 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. the “dotted ellipses” indicated in annotated Figure 1 of Perreault above) defined by the spanners 30 that extend between end block portions 32. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 18 as is indicated by the arrowed-dotted line provided by Perreault in Figure 1. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses terminals 16 being placed into the solid molded block assembly 14 (i.e., held in place in spanner/solid molded block assembly 14) and then welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at c.2, ll.64-67). In this embodiment, and in lieu of causing damage to the fusible elements 18 by manipulating/twisting/compressing the fusible elements 18, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would not be attached to the terminals 16 before welding of the solid molded block assembly 14 to the terminals 16. Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would be placed into contact to the terminals 16, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 36 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 16 are welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at 58-61).
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, Perreault discloses
[8] [a] sub-structure element support system comprising:
The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a fuse 10 comprising a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 that receive fusible elements 18. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at c.2, ll.39-47, 58-63).
first and second copper terminals; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including end block portions 32 coupled to terminals 16 (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 52-54; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67).
Perreault discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the first and second terminals being copper.
However, a molded structure for a fuse comprising first and second terminals being copper is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Harris, for example, teaches a molded structure comprising end terminal 24, 26, 118, 120 being made from copper. (Harris at ¶¶ 0056, 0060, 0078).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second terminals being made of copper as described in Harris to the molded structure of Perreault.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide first and second terminals being made of copper, since it provides a mechanism to ensure good conduction to the fuse element and provide an easily malleable structure that can be easily formed. (Id. at ¶ 0060). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that effectively directs current and can be easily formed, thereby increasing the versatility of the molded structure.
a molded structure30 comprising:
a first end bell coupled to the first copper terminal;
a second end bell coupled to the second copper terminal;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including end block portions 32 coupled to terminals 16. (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 52-54; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67).
Perreault discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the first and second terminals being copper.
The Examiner finds that Harris, for example, teaches a molded structure comprising end terminal 24, 26, 118, 120 being made from copper. (Harris at ¶¶ 0056, 0060, 0078).
As set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra).
a left bottom rib; a left top rib; a right bottom rib; and a right top rib;
wherein the left bottom rib, the left top rib, the right bottom rib, and the right top rib are joined together to form a center solid portion without any cutouts therein,
wherein the left bottom rib and the left top rib extend between the center solid portion and the first end bell with a triangular space therebetween growing wider from the center solid portion to the first end bell, and
wherein the right bottom rib and the right top rib extend between the center solid portion and the second end bell with a triangular space therebetween growing wider from the center solid portion to the second end bell
As set forth above, the Examiner construes the “top and bottom portions being coupled/connected to a center portion” as simply being side portions having cutouts therein, which may vary in number and shape. (See § VIII.C.(1), supra). The Examiner finds the instant claim limitation now specifically requires the cutouts to be triangular spaces that consistently grow wider from the center connected portion.
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 36-41; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67; see Figures 1-3).
Perreault and Harris discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the side portions to have centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a space therebetween growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5 of Stern (annotated))]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, a structure comprising side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end with a space therebetween growing wider from the solid portion to the end is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Stern, for example, teaches a spring assembly structure 100 comprising two side elastomeric portions 102, 104 having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the first remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the first end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the first end, and the second remaining portions of the side portions extending between the centers and the second end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the centers to the second end. (Stern at Abstract; ¶ 0032; see annotated Figure 5 above). The Examiner further finds that Stern is analogous art in that Stern is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., reduce the amount of material used to form the structure, without diminishing its support capability; see § VIII.C.(1), supra).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the ends with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the ends as described in Stern to the side portions of the molded structure of Perreault and Harris.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells since it provides a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience in the structure. (Stern at ¶ 0032). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that successfully decreases the amount of material required for the structure and allows for elasticity when assembling the components, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Stern to the molded structure of Perreault and Harris would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells, in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience to the molded structure.
a first aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein31.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 of Perreault (annotated))]
PNG
media_image2.png
1100
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this regard, in examination of annotated Figure 1 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being a solid unitary piece consisting of spanners 30 and end block portions 32 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. the “dotted ellipses” indicated in annotated Figure 1 of Perreault above) defined by the spanners 30 that extend between end block portions 32. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 18 as is indicated by the arrowed-dotted line provided by Perreault in Figure 1. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses terminals 16 being placed into the solid molded block assembly 14 (i.e., held in place in spanner/solid molded block assembly 14) and then welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at c.2, ll.64-67). In this embodiment, and in lieu of causing damage to the fusible elements 18 by manipulating/twisting/compressing the fusible elements 18, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would not be attached to the terminals 16 before welding of the solid molded block assembly 14 to the terminals 16. Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would be placed into contact to the terminals 16, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 36 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 16 are welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at 58-61).
an enclosure for receiving the molded structure32, wherein the first and second copper terminals are disposed on either side of the enclosure.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being in a tubular (i.e., cylindrical) shape that fits into a tubular member 12 such that the end block portions 32 and the spanners 30 rest against the inner surface of the tubular member 12. (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll. 27-34, 48-52; c.2, l.67 – c.3, l.2). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 16 being welded to the end block portions 32 of the molded block assembly 14 causing the molded block assembly 14 to melt and hold the terminals 16 in place. (Perreault at c.1, ll.52-53; c.2, ll.63-66).
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra)
With respect to the limitations of claims 9 and 11, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[9] wherein one end of the electrical element is coupled to the first copper terminal and a second end of the electrical element is coupled to the second copper terminal (claim 9); and
[11] wherein the molded structure33 further comprises a second aperture for receiving a second electrical element placed therein34 such that one end of the second electrical element is coupled to the first copper terminal and a second end of the second electrical element is coupled to the second copper terminal (claim 11).
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 that form first and second apertures on respective first and second surfaces of the molded block assembly 14, which are in return on the opposite sides of each other, and receiving fusible elements 18. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at Figures 1-3). Specifically, as set forth above, in examination of annotated Figure 1 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 being a solid unitary piece consisting of spanners 30 and end block portions 32 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. the “dotted ellipses” indicated in annotated Figure 1 of Perreault above) defined by the spanners 30 that extend between end block portions 32. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 18 as is indicated by the arrowed-dotted line provided by Perreault in Figure 1. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 of Perreault (annotated))]terminals 16 being placed into the solid molded block assembly 14 (i.e., held in place in spanner/solid molded block assembly 14) and then welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at c.2, ll.64-67). In this embodiment, and in lieu of causing damage to the fusible elements 18 by manipulating/twisting/compressing the fusible elements 18, the Examiner finds
PNG
media_image2.png
1100
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that the fusible elements 18 would not be attached to the terminals 16 before welding of the solid molded block assembly 14 to the terminals 16. Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would be placed into contact to the terminals 16, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 36 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 16 are welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at 58-61). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 16 being coupled to the fusible elements 18. (Id. at c.1, l.33-36; c.2, ll.47-51, 58-63).
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra).
With respect to the limitations of claim 10, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[10] wherein the first end bell is a predetermined length apart from the second end bell.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at Figures 1-3). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including end block portions 32 coupled to terminals 16 (Id. at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 52-54; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 16 being are welded to the end block portions 32 of the molded block assembly 14 causing the molded block assembly 14 to melt and hold the terminals 16 in place. (Perreault at c.1, ll.52-53; c.2, ll.63-66). Since Perreault discloses end block portions 32 being inherently part of the molded block assembly 14, the Examiner finds that the end block portions 32 of Perreault are a predetermined length apart from each other. (Id.; see Figure 1).
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)(2), supra).
With respect to the limitations of claim 12, Perreault, Harris and Stern teaches and/or renders obvious
[12] wherein the one end of the electrical element is coupled to the first copper terminal and the second end of the electrical element is coupled to the second copper terminal .
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30 and end block portions 32 receiving fusible elements 18. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, l.39 – c.3, l.4; see Figures 1-3; emphasis at Abstract; c.1, ll.34-36; c.2, ll.12-14; c.2, l.51 – c.3, l.2; see Figure 1). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 16 being coupled to the fusible elements 18. (Id. at c.1, l.33-36; c.2, ll.47-51, 58-63).
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.A.(1)-(2), supra).
Claims 13-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”), Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”) and Maeckel et al. (German Publication No. DE 102010010467 A1 - Machine Generated English Translation”) (“MaeckelMGT”).
With respect to the limitations of claim 13, Perreault discloses
[13] [a] molded structure35 to support an electrical element, the molded structure comprising:
The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly including spanners 50 and end block portions 46, 48 that receive fusible elements 54. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, l.59 – c.2, l.8; c.4, ll.5-40; see Figure 4).
an end bell coupled to a first copper terminal, wherein the first copper terminal is to be coupled to one end of the electrical element;
an end portion for supporting a second copper terminal, the second copper terminal to be coupled to a second end of the electrical element; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly including end block portions 46, 48 coupled to terminals 52 (Id. at c.4, ll.5-40; see Figure 4). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 52 being coupled to the fusible elements 54. (Id.)
Perreault discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the first and second terminals being copper.
However, a molded structure for a fuse comprising first and second terminals being copper is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Harris, for example, teaches a molded structure comprising end terminal 24, 26, 118, 120 being made from copper. (Harris at ¶¶ 0056, 0060, 0078).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second terminals being made of copper as described in Harris to the molded structure of Perreault.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide first and second terminals being made of copper, since it provides a mechanism to ensure good conduction to the fuse element and provide an easily malleable structure that can be easily formed. (Id. at ¶ 0060). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that effectively directs current and can be easily formed, thereby increasing the versatility of the molded structure.
bottom ribs coupled between the end bell and the end portion;
top ribs coupled between the end bell and the end portion, the bottom and top ribs to support either side of the electrical element with centers of the top and bottom ribs joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein, first remaining portions of the top and bottom ribs extending between the solid portion and the end bell with a space therebetween growing wider from the center portion to the end bell, and second remaining portions of the top and bottom ribs extending between the solid portion and the end portion with a space therebetween growing wider from the center portion to the end portion; and
As set forth above, the Examiner construes the “top and bottom portions being coupled/connected to a center portion” as simply being side portions having cutouts therein, which may vary in number and shape. (See § VIII.C.(1), supra).
From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly 14 including spanners 30. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-34, 36-41; c.2, ll.39-47, 58-67; see Figures 1-3).
Perreault and Harris discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling for the side portions to have centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a space therebetween growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5 of Stern (annotated))]
PNG
media_image1.png
495
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, a structure comprising side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end with a space therebetween growing wider from the solid portion to the end is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Stern, for example, teaches a spring assembly structure 100 comprising two side elastomeric portions 102, 104 having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the first remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the first end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the first end, and the second remaining portions of the side portions extending between the centers and the second end with a triangular space (i.e., triangular cutouts 114) therebetween consistently growing wider from the centers to the second end. (Stern at Abstract; ¶ 0032; see annotated Figure 5 above). The Examiner further finds that Stern is analogous art in that Stern is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., reduce the amount of material used to form the structure, without diminishing its support capability; see § VIII.C.(1), supra).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the ends with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the ends as described in Stern to the side portions of the molded structure of Perreault and Harris.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells since it provides a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience in the structure. (Stern at ¶ 0032). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that successfully decreases the amount of material required for the structure and allows for elasticity when assembling the components, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Stern to the molded structure of Perreault and Harris would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing side portions having centers being joined together to form a solid portion without any cutouts therein with the remaining portions of the side portions extending between the solid portion and the end bells with a triangular space therebetween consistently growing wider from the solid portion to the end bells, in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to reduce the amount of material of the molded structure and provide resilience to the molded structure.
a first aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein36.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4 of Perreault (annotated))]
PNG
media_image4.png
569
856
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this regard, in examination of annotated Figure 4 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly including spanners 50 and end block portions 46, 48 that receive fusible elements 54 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. see the “dotted ellipse” indicated in annotated Figure 4 of Perreault above showing one aperture with the other on the direct opposite side thereof) defined by the spanners 50 that extend between end block portions 46, 48. (Perreault at c.4, ll.5-40; see Figure 4). From this perspective the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 54. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses terminals 52 being placed into the molded block assembly (i.e., held in place in the molded block assembly) and then the fusible elements 54 are attached to opposite surfaces 70 of the terminals 52. (Id.) Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 54 would be placed into contact to the terminals 52, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 70 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 52 are placed into the molded block assembly. (Id. at c.1, ll.58-61; c.4, ll.26-29).
a detached end bell to be affixed to the second copper terminal.
Perreault, Harris and Stern discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal.
However, a molded structure comprising a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal is known in the art. The Examiner finds that MaeckelMGT, for example, teaches a fusible structure 3 being inserted into tubular housing 2. (MaeckelMGT at ¶ 0023; see Figure 3c). Since the end portion of the fusible structure 3 is not completely flush with the end faces 21, 22 of tubular housing 2, the Examiner find that MaeckelMGT teaches placing a closing ring 82 on the end faces 21, 22 of tubular housing 2. (Id. at ¶ 0025; see Figure 3f).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal in MaeckelMGT to the end block portion 46/tubular member 42 interface of the molded structure of Perreault, Harris and Stern.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the closing elements of the structure are secure. (Id. at ¶ 0025). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that effectively provides a more protected end portion of a fuse element, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
This combination of references also satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below:
(1) A finding that the prior art (Perreault, Harris and Stern) contained a “base” device (a device for supporting a fuse) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal in order to provide a more protected end portion of a fuse element.
(2) A finding that the prior art (MaeckelMGT) contained a "comparable" device (a device for supporting a fuse) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the MaeckelMGT device(s) for supporting a fuse utilizes a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal in order to ensure the closing elements of the structure are secure.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Perreault, Harris and Stern device for supporting a fuse) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Perreault, Harris and Stern indicates that the device can be utilized for supporting an electrical element, such as a fuse, and MaeckelMGT teaches a manner for improving this, the results would be predictable. In other words, the MaeckelMGT successful implementation or providing a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Perreault and Harris, the device for supporting a fuse modified according to MaeckelMGT would be capable of incorporating a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal to carry out the function of ensuring the closing elements of the structure are secure that provides for a more protected end portion of a fuse element, as evidenced by the success in the MaeckelMGT device for supporting a fuse.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing ensuring the closing elements of the structure are secure that provides for a more protected end portion of a fuse element including a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in MaeckelMGT. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art device for supporting a fuse of Perreault, Harris and Stern and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that providing ensuring the closing elements of the structure are secure that provides for a more protected end portion of a fuse element including a detached end bell being affixed to the second copper terminal in Perreault, Harris and Stern would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to supporting a fuse, a new function of providing ensuring the closing elements of the structure are secure that provides for a more protected end portion of a fuse element, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by MaeckelMGT, as set forth above.
Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.B.(1)-(2), supra).
With respect to the limitations of claims 14 and 15, Perreault, Harris, Stern and MaeckelMGT teaches and/or renders obvious
[14] wherein one end of the electrical element is coupled to the first copper terminal and a second end of the electrical element is coupled to the second copper terminal (claim 14); and
[15] further comprising a second aperture for receiving a second electrical element placed therein37, wherein the first aperture is on one side of the molded structure38 and the second aperture is on an opposing side of the molded structure (claim 15).
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses a molded block assembly including spanners 50 and end block portions 46, 48 that form first and second apertures on respective first and second surfaces of the molded block assembly, which are in return on the opposite sides of each other, and receiving fusible elements 54. (Perreault at c.4, ll.5-40; see Figure 4). Specifically, as set forth above, in examination of annotated Figure 4 of Perreault below, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly including spanners 50 and end block portions 46, 48 that receive fusible elements 54 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. see the “dotted ellipse” indicated in annotated Figure 4 of Perreault below showing one aperture with the other on the direct opposite side thereof) defined by the spanners 50 that extend between end block portions 46, 48. (Perreault at c.4, ll.5-40; see Figure 4). From this perspective the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of [AltContent: textbox (Figure 4 of Perreault (annotated))]receiving the fusible elements 54. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
569
856
media_image4.png
Greyscale
terminals 52 being placed into the molded block assembly (i.e., held in place in the molded block assembly) and then the fusible elements 54 are attached to opposite surfaces 70 of the terminals 52. (Id.) Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 54 would be placed into contact to the terminals 52, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 70 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 52 are placed into the molded block assembly. (Id. at c.1, ll.58-61; c.4, ll.26-29). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly including end block portions 46, 48 coupled to terminals 52. (Id.) The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the terminals 52 being coupled to the fusible elements 54. (Id.)
Moreover, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that first and second terminals being copper is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See §§ IX.B.(1)-(2), supra).
With respect to the limitations of claims 17 and 18, Perreault, Harris, Stern and MaeckelMGT teaches and/or renders obvious
[17] wherein the molded structure is made of a non-combustible material (claim 17); and
[18] wherein the non-combustible material is selected from a group consisting of plastic and ceramic (claim 18).
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly including spanners and end block portions 46, 48 being made of a insulative material, such as thermoplastic, among other things. (Perreault at Abstract; c.1, ll.27-54; c.2, ll.39-42; c.3, ll.3-4, 8-58; c.4, ll.5-9; claim 3). The Examiner finds that Perreault discloses the molded block assembly being flame retardant. (Perreault at c.3, ll.40-50).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perreault et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,296,832) (“Perreault”) in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0055497) (“Harris”), Stern et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0025576) (“Stern”) and Maeckel et al. (German Publication No. DE 102010010467 A1 - Machine Generated English Translation”) (“MaeckelMGT”) as applied to claims 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and in further view of Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0328016).
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, and
[16] wherein the detached end bell further comprises a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure.
Perreault, Harris, Stern and MaeckelMGT discloses all the limitations, as previously set forth, except for specifically calling the detached end bell further comprising a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure.
However, a structure having a detached end bell further comprising a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Wang, for example, teaches a protection member 10 having a detachable base end 11 comprising a flanges 114 for fixably coupling the detachable base end 11 to the end portion of the upper lid 12. (Wang at ¶ 0020).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure as described in Wang to the detachable bell of the molded structure of Perreault, Harris, Stern and MaeckelMGT.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure, since it provides a mechanism to ensure the components are connected together. (Id. at ¶ 0020). In other words, such a modification would have provided a molded structure for a fuse element structure that provides an ease of connecting manufactured components together, thereby increasing the efficiency of the molded structure.
Similarly, the Examiner asserts that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement would yield predictable results. That is, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Wang to the molded structure of Perreault, Harris, Stern and MaeckelMGT would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, providing a flange for fixably coupling the detached end bell to the end portion of the molded structure to the detachable bell of the molded structure in Perreault and Harris to provide a mechanism to ensure the components are connected together.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Applicant’s contends that Perreault does teach an aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein. (Feb 2026 Applicant Response at 7-8). Specifically, since Perreault discloses the terminals 16/fusible elements 18 combination being “insert molded” into the spanner/endblock assembly, Applicant contends that Perreault cannot be placed through apertures that do not exist. (Id.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, as set forth above, the claim requirement of “the first/second aperture” and how the respective electrical element is assembled (i.e., “placed therein” – with “therein” being in the molded structure), the limitations merely recite a product by process limitation. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Perreault (annotated above) discloses the molded block assembly 14 being a solid unitary piece consisting of spanners 30 and end block portions 32 which form first and second apertures (i.e.. the “dotted ellipses” indicated in annotated Figure 1 of Perreault above) defined by the spanners 30 that extend between end block portions 32. In this light, the Examiner finds that the first and second apertures would be capable of receiving the fusible elements 18 as is indicated by the arrowed-dotted line provided by Perreault in Figure 1.
To the degree a reviewing body finds that it is not inherent that Perreault teaches “a first aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein,” the Examiner finds that Perreault discloses terminals 16 being placed into the solid molded block assembly 14 (i.e., held in place in spanner/solid molded block assembly 14) and then welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at c.2, ll.64-67). In this embodiment, and in lieu of causing damage to the fusible elements 18 by manipulating/twisting/compressing the fusible elements 18, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would not be attached to the terminals 16 before welding of the solid molded block assembly 14 to the terminals 16. Thus, the Examiner finds that the fusible elements 18 would be placed into contact to the terminals 16, through the formed first and second apertures, and attached to the surfaces 36 by resistance welding or ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Perreault after the terminals 16 are welded to the solid molded block assembly 14. (Id. at 58-61).
Thus, the Examiner concludes and maintains that Perreault sufficiently satisfies the claim requirement of an “an aperture for receiving the electrical element placed therein.”
Conclusion
Applicant is respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicant decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicant to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant is also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicant amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicant is encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicant choose to amend the specification, Applicant is reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicant has any questions on this matter, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the ‘266 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, other reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘266 Patent. Applicant is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the original prosecution of the ‘266 Patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J RALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6227. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. 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.
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees:
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/H.B.P/Hetul PatelSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
SJR
06/01/2026
1 The Examiner notes that all of the Rejected Claims stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and 251.
2 Claims 1, 8, 10, 13, 17 and 18 amended in the instant July 2024 Claim Amendment.
3 Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 amended in the instant July 2024 Claim Amendment; and claims 7 and 12 amended in the Feb 2022 Claim Amendment..
4 New claims 19 and 20 canceled in the instant July 2024 Claim Amendment.
5 The Examiner notes that all of the Rejected Claims stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and 251; and claim 5 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d).
6 Claims 1, 8 and 13 amended in the Oct 2024 Claim Amendment.
7 Claims 10, 13, 17 and 18 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
8 Claim 5 amended in the Oct 2024 Claim Amendment; Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment; and claims 7 and 12 amended in the Feb 2022 Claim Amendment..
9 New claims 19 and 20 canceled in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
10 Claims 1, 8 and 13 amended in the instant Nov 2024 Claim Amendment.
11 Claims 10, 13, 17 and 18 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
12 Claim 5 amended in the instant Nov 2024 Claim Amendment; Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment; and claims 7 and 12 amended in the Feb 2022 Claim Amendment..
13 New claims 19 and 20 canceled in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
14 The Examiner notes that all of the Rejected Claims stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
15 Claims 1, 8 and 13 amended in the instant Nov 2025 Claim Amendment.
16 Claims 10, 13, 17 and 18 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
17 Claim 5 amended in the instant Nov 2024 Claim Amendment; Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment; and claims 7 and 12 amended in the Feb 2022 Claim Amendment..
18 New claims 19 and 20 canceled in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
19 The Examiner notes that all of the Rejected Claims stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
20 Claims 1, 8 and 13 amended in the instant Feb 2026 Claim Amendment.
21 Claims 7 and 9 amended in the instant Feb 2026 Claim Amendment; and claims 10, 13, 17 and 18 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
22 Claims 14 and 15 amended in the instant Feb 2026 Claim Amendment; claim 5 amended in the instant Nov 2024 Claim Amendment; claims 2, 4, 11 and 16 amended in the July 2024 Claim Amendment; and claim 12 amended in the Feb 2022 Claim Amendment..
23 New claims 19 and 20 canceled in the July 2024 Claim Amendment.
24 Regarding the claimed ‘structure’ and how the respective structure is produced (i.e., “molded”), the limitations merely recite a product by process limitation. It is well settled that reciting how a product is made does not further limit the structure of the product itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted.)
25 See footnote 24, supra.
26 Regarding the claimed ‘first/second aperture’ and how the respective electrical element is assembled (i.e., “placed therein” – with “therein” being in the molded structure), the limitations merely recite a product by process limitation. It is well settled that reciting how a product is made does not further limit the structure of the product itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted.)
27 Regarding the claimed ‘securing of copper terminals to the slots’ and how the respective securing structure is produced (i.e., “press-fit”), the limitations merely recite a product by process limitation. It is well settled that reciting how a product is made does not further limit the structure of the product itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted.)
28 Regarding the claimed ‘connection of end bells to copper terminals’ and how the respective connection structure is produced (i.e., “molded”), the limitations merely recite a product by process limitation. It is well settled that reciting how a product is made does not further limit the structure of the product itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted.)
29 See footnote 26, supra.
30 See footnote 24, supra.
31 See footnote 26, supra.
32 See footnote 24, supra.
33 See footnote 24, supra.
34 See footnote 26, supra.
35 See footnote 24, supra.
36 See footnote 26, supra.
37 See footnote 26, supra.
38 See footnote 24, supra.
Prosecution Insights