DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 2 in the reply filed on 2/04/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the inner core”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the silver-plating solution”, “the silver-plating temperature”, “the reducing solution”, “the thickness”, “the silver-plated layer”, “the silver outer sheath”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitations “the electroplating solution”, the barrel plating equipment”, “the temperature”, “the silver-plating solution”, “the constant current”, “the thickness”, “the silver-plated layer”, “the silver outer sheath”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitations “the excessively used solder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 13 and 14 each recite “a self-fusing unit”, instead of “the self-fusing unit”, which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether they are establishing a self-fusing unit different from the self-fusing unit of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (US 20190157031 A1).
As to claim 1 (as best understood), Su discloses: A self-fusing unit 16 (Fig. 1, 4, 5) for protection device, comprising:
a conductive sheath/core structure 16a, 16b (par. 0028; tin core and silver sheath) with the resistivity in the range of 1.5-40 μΩcm (silver – 1.59 μΩcm and tin - 11.5 μΩcm; sheath, core, or combination each meet the claimed resisitivity), wherein the sheath/core structure is composed of an inner core (tin) and an outer sheath (silver), and the outer sheath is in contact with the surface of the inner core and fully covers it (as in Fig. 4 or Fig. 5 );
both the melting point and the electrical conductivity of the outer sheath (silver) are higher than those of the periphery of the inner core (tin), preventing the outflow of the inner core material due to its swelling and melting (par. 0030).
As to claim 3, Su discloses: wherein the outer sheath is coated on the inner core by one or more processes (“electroplating, vapor deposition, sputtering, attachment or extrusion”; par. 0028) chosen from chemical plating, electroplating, rack plating, barrel plating, evaporation, sputtering, ion plating and calendaring.
As to claim 8, Su discloses: wherein the outer sheath is chosen from silver (par. 0028), copper, gold, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and an alloy of the two or more.
As to claim 13 (as best understood), Su discloses: A self-fusing protection device (as in Fig. 1) with self-fusing unit 16 (as in Fig. 4, 5) of claim 1, which can disconnect automatically when the current exceeds rated current, comprising:
a ceramic substrate 11 (par. 0027) with front conductive electrodes on the surface, including a first electrode 18a and a second electrode 18b;
the self-fusing unit on the ceramic substrate, which is soldered 17 (par. 0032) to connect the first electrode and the second electrode;
a blocking line of insulating medium 20 (housing, must inherently be insulating to avoid short-circuiting between electrodes 18), located outside the connected first electrode and the second electrode (outside the connected/soldered portions, above all portions) of the self-fusing unit, preventing excessively used solder from contacting the self-fusing unit inside the protection device (e.g., provides a housing which will prevent solder from reflow mounting the electrodes on the bottom of the substrate from entering the top side).
As to claim 14 (as best understood), Su discloses: A self-control protection device (as in Fig. 1) with self-fusing unit 16 (as in Fig. 4, 5) of claim 1, comprising:
a ceramic substrate 11 (par. 0027) with front conductive electrodes on the surface, including a first electrode 18a and a second electrode 18b;
a heating element 12 (par. 0026), setting on or inside the ceramic substrate, and an electrode 15 is drawn out from the heating element;
the self-fusing unit on the heating element, which is soldered 17 (par. 0032) to cross-connecting the first electrode, the drawn-out electrode of the heating element and the second electrode (see Fig. 1-2);
a blocking line of insulating medium 20 (housing, must inherently be insulating to avoid short-circuiting between electrodes 18), located outside the connected first electrode and the second electrode (outside the connected/soldered portions, above all portions) of the self-fusing unit, preventing excessively used solder from contacting the self-fusing unit inside the protection device (e.g., provides a housing which will prevent solder from reflow mounting the electrodes on the bottom of the substrate from entering the top side).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 20190157031 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Xu (US 9240300 B2).
As to claim 2, Su discloses: wherein the thickness of the inner core is in the range of 0.06-0.3 mm (0.02-0.3 mm; par. 0029), and the thickness of the outer sheath is in the range of 0.002-0.02 mm (0.002-0.01 mm; par. 0029); the self-fusing unit maintains its appearance during the reflow soldering (par. 0030), but can quickly self-fuses when the temperature is higher than desired (par. 0026) or the power of a heating element under the self-fusing unit is reaches over-temperature (par. 0026).
Su does not explicitly disclose:
but can quickly self-fuses when the temperature is higher than 280° C or the power of a heating element under the self-fusing unit is over 2 W.
However, Xu discloses:
using a 2 W heater (wirewound resistor; col. 4, line 48-47) or 2.2 W heater (col. 3, lines 2-3; col. 7, Table 3) to activate a thermal fuse (thermal fuse);
in order to protect a high-frequency power supply from over-heating (col. 4, line 48-47) and/or;
in order to use an existing technology heater (col. 3, lines 2-3; col. 7, Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Su as suggested by Xu, e.g., providing:
wherein the self-fusing unit can quickly self-fuses when the power of a heating element under the self-fusing unit is over 2 W;
in order to protect a high-frequency power supply from over-heating and/or;
in order to use an existing technology heating element.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., a wattage of the heater at overvoltage/overcurrent for effecting the desired results of applied temperature and fuse melting) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 15, Su discloses: wherein when the heating power of the heating element reaches over-temperature, the self-fusing unit will fuse and disconnect the circuit autonomously (par. 0026).
Su does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the heating power of the heating element exceeds 2W, the self-fusing unit will fuse and disconnect the circuit autonomously.
However, Xu discloses:
using a 2 W heater (wirewound resistor; col. 4, line 48-47) or 2.2 W heater (col. 3, lines 2-3; col. 7, Table 3) to activate a thermal fuse (thermal fuse);
in order to protect a high-frequency power supply from over-heating (col. 4, line 48-47) and/or;
in order to use an existing technology heater (col. 3, lines 2-3; col. 7, Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Su as suggested by Xu, e.g., providing:
wherein when the heating power of the heating element exceeds 2W, the self-fusing unit will fuse and disconnect the circuit autonomously;
in order to protect a high-frequency power supply from over-heating and/or;
in order to use an existing technology heating element.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., a wattage of the heater at overvoltage/overcurrent for effecting the desired results of applied temperature and fuse melting) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 20190157031 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitney (US 8525633 B2).
As to claim 6, Su does not disclose:
wherein the inner core is made of polymer.
However, Whitney discloses:
wherein the inner core 26 (core between terminals 22, 24; Fig. 2) is made of polymer (col. 3, lines 25-38);
and an additional embodiment where a non-conductive material inner core 42 (wax or similar; col. 3, lines 39-53; Fig. 3A, 3B) is coated with a conductive sheath 44;
in order to provide a polymer based fuse with quick and predictable failure at the melting temperature (col. 3, lines 25-38); and/or
in order to provide a meltable core that causes the conductive coating to disperse, eliminating conduction and providing a predictable failure at the melting temperature (col. 3, lines 39-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Su as suggested by Whitney, e.g., providing:
wherein the inner core is made of polymer;
in order to provide a polymer based fuse with quick and predictable failure at the melting temperature; and/or
in order to provide a meltable core that causes the conductive coating to disperse, eliminating conduction and providing a predictable failure at the melting temperature.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 20190157031 A1) in view of Whitney (US 8525633 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ng (US 6375857 B1).
As to claim 7, Su does not disclose:
wherein the polymer is chosen from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyamide, polyether, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and a composite of two or more.
However, Ng discloses:
wherein the polymer is chosen from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyamide (col. 2, line 56 - col. 3, line 1), polyether, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene (misspelled as polysterene; col. 2, line 56 - col. 3, line 1), ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and a composite of two or more;
in order to provide a conductive polymer for fusing capability (col. 2, line 56 - col. 3, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Su and Whitney as suggested by Ng, e.g., providing:
wherein the polymer is chosen from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyamide, polyether, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and a composite of two or more;
in order to provide a conductive polymer for fusing capability.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 9-12, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the apparatus, as well as any structural differences imparted by the process steps, including all of the limitations of their base claims and intervening claims, and at least in part, because they recite the following limitations:
9. The self-fusing unit of claim 1, wherein the surface roughness of the inner core is less than 0.001 mm.
10. A method to prepare the self-fusing unit of claim 1, including following steps: step 1: cut or punch the inner core material into substrate of 2.0*2.0*0.6 mm, place the substrate in a 40° C. 80 v % sulfuric acid aqueous solution for 30 seconds, wash with deionized water, and dry; step 2: immerse the substrate in sensitizer 15 g/L SnCl.sub.2 solution for 200 minutes, wash with deionized water, and dry; step 3: immerse the substrate in catalyst 0.1 g/L PdCl.sub.2 solution for 360 minutes, wash with deionization water, and dry; step 4: immerse the substrate in the silver-plating solution, and control the silver-plating temperature at 30° C., wherein the silver-plating solution is 0.025 g/ml AgNO.sub.3 which is adjusted to pH=9 by 15 mL ammonia; the reducing solution is 0.045 g/mL C.sub.6H.sub.12O.sub.6 solution; detect the thickness of the silver-plated layer until the silver outer sheath of 2-20 μm completely covers the surface of the inner core.
11. A method to prepare the self-fusing unit of claim 1, including following steps: step 1: cut or punch the inner core material into substrate of 2.0*2.0*0.6 mm, place the substrate in a 40° C. 80 v % sulfuric acid aqueous solution for 30 seconds, wash with deionized water, and dry; step 2: immerse the substrate in sensitizer 15 g/L SnCl.sub.2 solution for 200 minutes, wash with deionized water, and dry; step 3: immerse the substrate in catalyst 0.1 g/L PdCl.sub.2 solution for 360 minutes, wash with deionization water, and dry; step 4: immerse the substrate in the electroplating solution in the barrel plating equipment, control the temperature of the silver-plating solution at 30° C., set the constant current to 15 A; detect the thickness of the silver-plated layer in real time until the silver outer sheath of 2-20 μm completely covers the surface of the inner core.
12. A method to prepare the self-fusing unit of claim 1, including following steps: step 1: attach 10 μm silver foils to the upper and lower surfaces of a 0.6 mm inner core, and laminate them by calendering, cut or punch the composite material into 2.0*2.0 substrate, and then place in 40° C. 80 v % sulfuric acid aqueous solution for 30 seconds, washed with deionized water, and dry; step 2: immerse the substrate in sensitizer 15 g/L SnCl.sub.2 solution for 200 minutes, wash with deionized water, and dry; step 3: immerse the substrate in catalyst 0.1 g/L PdCl.sub.2 solution for 360 minutes, wash with deionization water, and dry; step 4: immerse the substrate in the electroplating solution in the barrel plating equipment, control the temperature of the silver-plating solution at 30° C., set the constant current to 15 A; by sticking silver foils on the top and bottom and then barrel plating, the side of the inner core is covered with silver foil; detect the thickness of the silver-plated layer in real time until the silver outer sheath of 2-20 μm completely covers the surface of the inner core.
Salisbury (US 5099218 A), Galla (US 20190214208 A1), and Yoneda (US 20170278663 A1) disclose conventional self-fusing elements with sheath/core structures.
None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, can be reasonably construed as adequately teaching the above combinations of claim limitations.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 270-1985. 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.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights