DETAILED ACTION
The following Office action concerns Patent Application Number 17/919,901. Claims 1-14, 16-21 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 7, 9-14, 17 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions or species.
The applicant’s amendment filed January 22, 2026 has been entered.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained in this action and discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the term “spinal phase” is misspelled. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rentrop et al (US 2020/0020467) in view of Mitsumoto et al (US 2014/0353547) and Miura et al (US 2008/0048821).
Rentrop et al teaches a method of making a printed temperature sensor product comprising negative temperature coefficient (NTC) particles in a dielectric matrix (abstract). The product includes a conductive percolation network of the NTC particles in the dielectric matrix (Fig. 1, par. 4, 34). The dielectric matrix is a cross-linked polymer (par. 12). The NTC particles have a spinel phase comprising Mn, Ni and Co (par. 10). The method includes dispersing the NTC particles in a solvent and the matrix material to form an ink (par. 43). The ink is applied to a substrate and the solvent is evaporated and the matrix polymer is cross-linked (cured) at a temperature of less than 250 °C (par. 43). The NTC particles are made by mixing (binary) metal oxide powders such as MnO, Co3O4, and NiO and firing them at 950 °C (par. 44). The method further includes quenching the NTC material and grinding the material to a smaller size (par. 44). The particles have a final size of 10-50 µm (par. 10).
Rentrop et al in view of Miura et al does not teach the size of the raw material precursor particles.
However, Mitsumoto et al teaches a method of making a metal oxide product which includes mixing and pulverizing the raw material powders to a sub-micron size in order to increase uniformity and reactivity (par. 23, 99). Sub-micron is interpreted to mean less than one micron.
Rentrop et al teaches mixing the raw material metal oxide powders but is silent regarding the size of the raw material powders (par. 44). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the raw material powder size of Mitsumoto et al with the method of Rentrop et al in view of Miura et al in order to improve the uniformity and reactivity of the powder.
Rentrop et al in view of Mitsumoto et al does not teach a NiO phase.
However, Miura et al teaches a method of making an NTC thermistor comprising Mn, Ni and Co and further comprising a spinel phase and a NiO phase (par. 11, 43, 82-83). The NTC thermistor provides excellent reliability (par. 10). The observed amount of NiO phase (rocksalt phase) is 0-33.2 area % (Table 2). The amount in weight % can be roughly estimated from the densities of the NiO phase (4.84 g/cm3) and MnO (5.43 g/cm3) representing the overall density to be (33.2%)(4.84/5.43)=29.6 % by weight NiO phase.
The NTC material is formed into a ceramic powder (par. 61). The nickel oxide phase and the spinel phase are both present in the NTC material (par. 80, 81). Since the particles include the nickel oxide phase, the nickel oxide phase must be incorporated into the particles on a scale of the particle size.
The preferred mole ratio of Mn to Ni is 55/45 to 90/10 (par. 45). The mole ratio of Mn to Ni comprises an excess of nickel oxide to form the nickel oxide phase. When cobalt is included, the molar amounts are 0.1-90 % Mn, 0.1-45 % Ni and 0.1-90 % Co (par. 17). A spinel phase containing Mn, Ni and Co is formed (par. 43).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the broad ranges 0.1-90% Mn, 0.1-45% Ni and 0.1-90% Co encompass the claimed spinel composition of Mn3-x-yNix-yMIIIy with cobalt being “M.”
Rentrop et al teaches an NTC material comprising Mn, Ni and Co, but Rentrop et al is silent regarding the relative amounts of each. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by design need to combine the NiO phase and molar amounts of Mn, Ni and Co of Miura et al with the method of Rentrop et al in view of Mitsumoto et al in order to obtain an NTC material having excellent reliability.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Miura et al does not teach NTC powder. However, Miura et al teaches a ceramic powder composed of an negative-characteristic thermistor material (par. 61, 81). A negative-characteristic thermistor material is an NTC material as that term is described in the instant specification.
The applicant further argues that the NTC material is formed only after sintering the powder to form a laminate. This assertion is incorrect. The NTC powder is formed by pulverizing and calcining the raw material powders. The final laminated product is formed by sintering the NTC powder.
The applicant asserts that Miura et al teaches macroscale phase separation. The examiner was unable to find this disclosure in the reference. Please identify the disclosure referring to macroscale phase separation.
The applicant asserts that Miura et al teaches individual particles “made up of only a nickel oxide phase.” The examiner was unable to find this disclosure in the reference. Please identify the disclosure referring to individual particles made up of only a nickel oxide phase.
In addition, Miura et al teaches that the NTC material contains both the nickel oxide phase and the spinel phase depending on the molar ratio of Mn and Ni (par. 80, 81).
The applicant argues that Rentrop et al does not teach heating the precursor materials at 800-1000 °C. However, Rentrop et al teaches firing the precursor materials at 950 °C (par. 44). Firing is heating. The applicant asserts that Rentrop et al requires sintering at 1100 °C. However, Rentrop et al teaches that “in some embodiments” firing is performed at 1100 °C (par. 44). The term “in some embodiments” means that firing at 1100 °C is optional.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Young whose telephone number is (571) 270-5078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./WILLIAM D YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 February 24, 2026