Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending, with claims 14-16 being withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 8 are independent.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180263082 A1 to Richmond et al. (“Richmond”).
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20140030590 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20020177644 A1 to Blok (“Blok”).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20140045058 A1 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of Zhao and further in view of Wang.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of Zhao and further in view of US 20070095678 A1 to West et al. (“West”).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/29/2025.
Specification
The specification uses inconsistent terminology with respect to reference numbers 102 and 104. The specification refers to PPTC body 102 and also PPTC body 104 while also referring to polymer matrix 104 at the top of page 7.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because (1) Items in figures cannot be shaded black, see 37CFR1.84(m) and for example Figures 4, 10, 12, 15 and 18; (2) Reference numerals cannot be cross lines or be in shaded surfaces, 37CFR1.84(p)(3) and for example Figure 10C; and cross-sections must not be shaded and must instead use hatching, see 37CFR1.84(h)(3) and (m) and for example Figure 15A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-4, 6 and 8-13 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 2, it is not definite what is meant by “a carbon filler and/or conductive ceramic component, disposed as a plurality of carbon particles within the polymer matrix, a conductive ceramic component, disposed as a plurality of ceramic particles within the polymer matrix, or a combination thereof.” In particular, it is not definite how to parse the language based on the commas in the recitations of “component, disposed” in lines 2 and 3 of the claims. It is not definite why those commas are there or how they modify the claimed subject matter.
In claims 3 and 11, it is not definite what is meant by “wherein a volume percentage of polymer matrix is between 50~99%.” It is not definite what the term “volume percentage” or the range refer to. It is not definite what volume or what percentage are in reference to. It is not definite what the range of 50~99% is a percent of.
In claims 4 and 12, it is not definite what is meant by “wherein a volume percentage of graphene filler component is between 1%~50 %.” It is not definite what the term “volume percentage” or the range refer to. It is not definite what volume or what percentage are in reference to. It is not definite what the range of 1%~50 % is a percent of.
In claim 6, it is not definite which element(s) or subject matter are referred to by the recitation of “, and having a particle size between 0.1 m to 100 m.” Claim 6 previously recites multiple elements prior to this recitation such that it is not definite which element(s) have the claimed particle size.
Independent claim 8
It is not definite how many PPTC material(s) are claimed in claim 8. Claim 8 initially recites ““a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material” in line 2. However, claim 8 then recites “PPTC material” in line 6 without an article such as ‘the’ or ‘said’ referring back to the previously recited PPTC material such that it is not definite if another and/or separate PPTC material is claimed in line 6. For examination purposes, the recitations of PPTC material are interpreted as referring to the same material.
In addition, it is not definite why there is a comma between the words ‘material’ and ‘arranged in the recitation of “a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material, arranged in a ring shape that defines a heater body” in claim 8. It is not definite what is referred to by “…arranged in a ring shape that defines a heater body”. For examination purposes, this portion of claim 8 is interpreted as a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material arranged in a ring shape that defines a heater body (with no comma) such that the PPTC material is arranged in a ring shape.
Furthermore, it is not definite what the heater body and the PPTC body refer to or how these respective bodies are interrelated and/or distinct. As best understood, the heater body and the PPTC body are part of the same PPTC material refer to substantially the same body based on the claim language and also when read in light of the specification. Claim 8 recites that both the heater body and the PPTC body are defined by PPTC material:
“a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material, arranged in a ring shape that defines a heater body”; and
“PPTC material comprises: a polymer matrix, the polymer matrix defining a PPTC body”.
As best understood, the above recitations of PPTC material refer to the same material and only one body of this PPTC material. Moreover, the specification refers to PPTC body 102 and also PPTC body 104 while also referring to polymer matrix 104. The specification does not use a specific reference number for the term heater body while the specification does disclose “a PPTC body 362 arranged as a circular ring body” which is similar to the recitation of “…arranged in a ring shape that defines a heater body”. For examination purposes, the recitations of heater body and PPTC body are interpreted as referring to the same structural body of the same PPTC material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180263082 A1 to Richmond et al. (“Richmond”).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Richmond discloses:
Regarding independent claim 1: a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material, comprising:
a polymer matrix (e.g., “housing 102 is formed of a thermoplastic material such as polycarbonate (PC), polyamide (nylon), polypropylene (PP)…that is filled with conductive particles such as…graphene particles…” as disclosed in para 18; a matrix is a material in which something is enclosed or embedded and the conductive particles are enclosed or embedded in the material of housing 102 such that the polymer material of housing 102 is a polymer matrix as claimed), the polymer matrix defining a PPTC body (e.g., body of housing 102; para 22 discloses: “using an electrically conductive plastic material to form the housing 102 that has a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) property” and “Electrically conductive plastic materials having a highly crystalline polymer base material, such as polypropylene and nylon, exhibit this PTC property”) (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17-25); and
a graphene filler component (e.g., graphene particles disclosed in para 18), disposed in the polymer matrix, wherein the graphene filler component comprises a plurality of graphene particles aligned along a predetermined plane of the PPTC body (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17-25);
Regarding claim 2, as best understood: the PPTC material of claim 1, further comprising a carbon filler and/or conductive ceramic component, disposed as a plurality of carbon particles within the polymer matrix, a conductive ceramic component, disposed as a plurality of ceramic particles within the polymer matrix, or a combination thereof (e.g., Richmond discloses carbon filler and carbon particles n para 6 and 18; para 6 states “The electrically conductive polymeric material may be a dielectric polymer material filled with conductive particles. The conductive particles may be carbon black particles, graphene particles, fullerene particles, carbon nanotubes, metallic particles, metallic fibers, and/or metal plated fiber particles.”; para 18 states “The housing 102 is formed of a thermoplastic material such as polycarbonate (PC), polyamide (nylon), polypropylene (PP), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polybutylene terephthalate PBT, or a combination of these materials that is filled with conductive particles such as carbon black particles, graphene particles, fullerene particles, carbon nanotubes, metallic particles, metallic fibers, and metal plated fiber particles to provide electrical conductivity to the material.”); and
Regarding claim 5: the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein the polymer matrix comprises polyethylene, polyethylene copolymer, polyester, polyurethane, polyamide, fluorine-based polymer resin, or a polymer blend including fluoropolymers (e.g., para 18 discloses that “housing 102 is formed of a thermoplastic material…polyamide (nylon)).
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.
NOTE: For clarity, it is noted that claim language of subject matter not found in respective references of the combinations herein is indicated by double strikethrough (
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20140030590 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
Richmond discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Richmond does not explicitly disclose the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a volume percentage of polymer matrix is between 50~99% (as recited in claim 3), the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a volume percentage of graphene filler component is between 1% -50 % (as recited in claim 4), or the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a given graphene particle of the plurality of graphene particles comprises n graphene sheets, wherein n=1-100, and having a particle size between 0.1 m to 100 m (as recited in claim 6).
However, Wang discloses:
Regarding claim 3, as best understood: the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a volume percentage of polymer matrix is between 50~99% (e.g., para 53-55 and 68);
Regarding claim 4, as best understood: the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a volume percentage of graphene filler component is between 1% -50 % (e.g., para 53-55 and 68); and
Regarding claim 6, as best understood: the PPTC material of claim 1, wherein a given graphene particle of the plurality of graphene particles comprises n graphene sheets, wherein n=1-100, and having a particle size between 0.1 m to 100 m (e.g., para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Richmond as suggested and taught by Wang in order to provide more consistent and uniform dispersion of graphene sheets and binder and reduction or elimination of undesirable effect of electrolyte oxidation or decomposition due to the presence of water, solvent, or chemical, etc. (Wang: Abstract).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20020177644 A1 to Blok (“Blok”).
Richmond discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Richmond does not explicitly disclose the PPTC material of claim 1, further comprising at least one additive, the at least one additive comprising an antioxidant, dispersion agent, cross-linker, arc suppressant, coupling agent, or polymer processing agent (as recited in claim 7).
However, Blok discloses:
Regarding claim 7: the PPTC material of claim 1, further comprising at least one additive, the at least one additive comprising an antioxidant, dispersion agent, cross-linker, arc suppressant, coupling agent, or polymer processing agent (e.g., para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Richmond as suggested and taught by Blok in order to improve electrical stability (Blok: para 7).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of US 20140045058 A1 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Richmond discloses:
Regarding independent claim 8, as best understood: a resistance heater, comprising:
a polymer positive temperature coefficient (PPTC) material (e.g., para 22 discloses: “using an electrically conductive plastic material to form the housing 102 that has a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) property” and “Electrically conductive plastic materials having a highly crystalline polymer base material, such as polypropylene and nylon, exhibit this PTC property”), arranged in a ring shape (e.g., the ring shape of housing 102 around opening 108) that defines a heater body (e.g., housing 102 is a heating body as disclosed in para 17, which states: “When an electrical current is applied to the housing, the electrical resistance of the conductive plastic material causes heating of the housing that can melt snow and ice or remove frost or condensation (fogging) on the housing”) (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17-25); and
an electrode assembly (e.g., assembly of terminals 106), comprising two or more electrodes (e.g., terminals 106) arranged in contact with the heater body at two or more locations (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17),
wherein PPTC material comprises:
a polymer matrix (e.g., “housing 102 is formed of a thermoplastic material such as polycarbonate (PC), polyamide (nylon), polypropylene (PP)…that is filled with conductive particles such as…graphene particles…” as disclosed in para 18; a matrix is a material in which something is enclosed or embedded and the conductive particles are enclosed or embedded in the material of housing 102 such that the polymer material of housing 102 is a polymer matrix as claimed), the polymer matrix defining a PPTC body (e.g., housing 102) (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17-25); and
a graphene filler component (e.g., graphene particles disclosed in para 18), disposed in the polymer matrix, wherein the graphene filler component
Regarding claim 9, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, the ring shape comprising a circular ring (e.g., circular ring seen in Fig. 1), a rectangular ring, an elliptical ring, an oval ring, or a polygonal ring (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 17-25); and
Regarding claim 10, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, further comprising a carbon filler component, disposed as a plurality of carbon particles within the polymer matrix (e.g., Richmond discloses carbon filler and carbon particles n para 6 and 18; para 6 states “The electrically conductive polymeric material may be a dielectric polymer material filled with conductive particles. The conductive particles may be carbon black particles, graphene particles, fullerene particles, carbon nanotubes, metallic particles, metallic fibers, and/or metal plated fiber particles.”; para 18 states “The housing 102 is formed of a thermoplastic material such as polycarbonate (PC), polyamide (nylon), polypropylene (PP), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polybutylene terephthalate PBT, or a combination of these materials that is filled with conductive particles such as carbon black particles, graphene particles, fullerene particles, carbon nanotubes, metallic particles, metallic fibers, and metal plated fiber particles to provide electrical conductivity to the material.”).
Richmond does not explicitly disclose a plurality of graphene sheets (as recited in claim 8).
However, Zhao discloses:
Regarding independent claim 8, as best understood:
wherein
a polymer matrix (e.g., polymer binder 130, “ion conducting films 230…preferably comprise a polymeric material” as disclosed in para 21), the polymer matrix defining a
a graphene filler component (e.g., graphene platelets 110, graphene sheets 210), disposed in the polymer matrix, wherein the graphene filler component comprises a plurality of graphene sheets (e.g., graphene platelets 110, graphene sheets 210) aligned along a plane of the
PNG
media_image3.png
444
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
328
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, further comprising a carbon filler component (e.g., carbon materials such as graphite, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanospheres disclosed in para 20), disposed as a plurality of carbon particles within the polymer matrix (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 4, 18-21 and 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Richmond as suggested and taught by Zhao in order to provide conducting pathways for electron transfer and mitigate the detrimental effects of volumetric changes, pulverization, and isolation of active species during charge/discharge cycling (Zhao: para 4) as well as to promote electron conduction throughout the electrode and minimize the structural inhomogeneity originating from phase segregation (Zhao: para 36).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of Zhao and further in view of Wang.
Richmond in view of Zhao discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Richmond in view of Zhao does not explicitly disclose the resistance heater of claim 8, wherein a volume percentage of polymer matrix is between 50~99% (as recited in claim 11) or the resistance heater of claim 8, wherein a volume percentage of graphene filler component is between 1% -50 % (as recited in claim 12).
However, Wang discloses:
Regarding claim 11, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, wherein a volume percentage of polymer matrix is between 50~99% (e.g., para 53-55 and 68); and
Regarding claim 12, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, wherein a volume percentage of graphene filler component is between 1% -50 % (e.g., para 53-55 and 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Richmond in view of Zhao as suggested and taught by Wang in order to provide more consistent and uniform dispersion of graphene sheets and binder and reduction or elimination of undesirable effect of electrolyte oxidation or decomposition due to the presence of water, solvent, or chemical, etc. (Wang: Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond in view of Zhao and further in view of US 20070095678 A1 to West et al. (“West”).
Richmond in view of Zhao discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Richmond in view of Zhao does not explicitly disclose the resistance heater of claim 8, further comprising a first lead and a second lead, electrically connected to the electrode assembly, the first lead and second lead extending perpendicularly to the plane of the heater body (as recited in claim 13).
However, West discloses:
Regarding claim 13, as best understood: the resistance heater of claim 8, further comprising a first lead (e.g., a first of external terminals 52 (i.e., end leads) disclosed in para 25) and a second lead (e.g., a second of external terminals 52 (i.e., end leads)), electrically connected to the electrode assembly (e.g., assembly of electrodes 24, terminals 26), the first lead and second lead extending perpendicularly to the plane of the heater body (e.g., body of housing 20 corresponding to the heater body of Richmond, wherein terminals 52 extend perpendicularly relative underside 42 of body 20) (e.g., Fig. 3 and para 25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Richmond in view of Zhao as suggested and taught by West in order to permit interconnecting the leads to a corresponding outlet (West: para 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, EDWARD (NED) LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 November 15, 2025
Prosecution Insights