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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4,5-8, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Handa, US Pat. 7,341,679.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Handa teaches an over-current protection device (PPTC; see at least fig. 1 and col. 3, line 45), comprising:
an electrode layer having a top metal layer (4) and a bottom metal layer (5); and
a heat-sensitive layer (thermistor 1) contacting the top metal layer and the bottom metal layer, and being laminated therebetween, wherein the heat-sensitive layer exhibits a positive
temperature coefficient (PTC) characteristic and comprises:
a polymer matrix comprising a first fluoropolymer (PVDF; see col. 7, lines 7-14) and a second fluoropolymer (PTFE), wherein the weight average molecular weight of the second
fluoropolymer ranges from 630000 g/mol to 1100000 g/mol (PTFE up to 10,000,000; and
a conductive filler (col. 8, lines 18-40) dispersed in the polymer matrix, thereby forming an electrically conductive path in the heat-sensitive layer.
Regarding claim 2, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the total volume of the heat-sensitive layer is calculated as 100%, and the first fluoropolymer accounts for 12% to 42% and the second fluoropolymer accounts for 1% to 31% by volume.
That is, the conductive particles make up about 20-45% and the low molecular weight organic compound is 5-50% and the other organic compound making up the rest to equal 100% (Handa teaches more than one organic compound being used; col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 15.).
Regarding claim 4, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the weight average molecular weight of the first fluoropolymer ranges from 250000 g/mol to
490000 g/mol (PVDF commonly ranges between 400,000 to 600,000).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the first fluoropolymer (PVDF flow rate is 1.0 to 35 g/10min) has a first melt flow index, and the second fluoropolymer (PTFE flow rate is about 0.1 to 0.5 g/10min) has a second melt flow index lower than the first melt flow index, wherein a difference between the first melt flow index and the second melt flow index ranges from 0.1 g/10min to 1g/10min; and
wherein the first melt flow index ranges from 0.8 g/10min to 1.4 g/10min, and the second melt flow index ranges from 0.4 g/10min to 0.7 g/10min.
Regarding claim 8, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the polymer matrix further comprises a third fluoropolymer selected from the group consisting of
polytetrafluoroethylene, ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, tetrafluoroethylene-
hexafluoro-propylene copolymer, perfluoroalkoxy modified tetrafluoroethylenes,
poly(chlorotri-fluorotetrafluoroethylene) vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, tetrafluoroethylene-perfluorodioxole copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene-tetrafluoroethylene terpolymer, and any combination thereof (see list in col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 15).
Regarding claim 11, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the conductive filler comprises carbon black and at least one metal compound, and the metal compound is selected from the group consisting of tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, vanadium carbide, zirconium carbide, niobium carbide, tantalum carbide, molybdenum carbide, hafnium carbide, titanium boride, vanadium boride, zirconium boride, niobium boride, molybdenum boride, hafnium boride, zirconium nitride, and any combination thereof (Handa teaches carbon black and ceramic conductive particles, the particles including tungsten and molybdenum; col. 8, lines 18-32).
Regarding claim 16, Handa teaches the over-current protection device of Claim 1, wherein the over-current protection device having an electrical resistivity ranging from 0.03 Ω·cm to 0.04 Ω·cm (Handa meets the claimed resistivity. See discussion for claim 1 above. Further, as shown in the current specification, page 7, proper weight adjustment of the molecular weight to 630,000 to 11,000,000 g/mol allows for stabilizing the electrical resistivity.).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa in ivew of Handa, US Pub. 2002/0145130 (Handa ‘130).
Regarding claim 10, Handa teaches the claimed invention except for the heat-sensitive layer further comprising BaTiO3.
Handa ‘130 teaches a PPTC device having barium titanate (paragraph 0078) for the purpose of controlling resistivity.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Handa with Handa ‘130, since adding in barium titanate to the heat-sensitive layer allows for controlling the resistivity of the over-current protection device of Handa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 12-13, 14-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or suggest the second fluoropolymer being represented by a structural formula of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest the over-current protection device, wherein the third fluoropolymer is polytetrafluoroethylene, wherein the total volume of the heat-sensitive layer is calculated as 100%, and polytetrafluoroethylene accounts for 4% to
6% by volume.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the over-current protection device, wherein the over-current protection device has a resistance change ranging from 0.0007 Ω to 0.0021 Ω when exposed to a thermal shock, wherein:
the over-current protection device has an initial electrical resistance;
the over-current protection device has a first electrical resistance when cooled back to room temperature after the thermal shock from -40°C to 85°C for 300 cycles; and
the resistance change is obtained by subtracting the initial electrical
resistance from the first electrical resistance.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest the over-current protection device, wherein the over-current protection device has a first resistance-jump ratio ranging from 1.43 to 1.55, wherein:
the over-current protection device has an initial electrical resistance;
the over-current protection device has a second electrical resistance when
cooled back to room temperature after being applied at 24V/40A for 3 minutes; and
the first resistance-jump ratio is obtained by dividing the second electrical
resistance by the initial electrical resistance.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest the over-current protection device, wherein the over-current protection device has a second resistance-jump ratio ranging from 2.46 to 2.94, wherein:
the over-current protection device has an initial electrical resistance;
the over-current protection device has a third electrical resistance when
cooled back to room temperature after a cycle life test for 100 cycles; and
the second resistance-jump ratio is obtained by dividing the third
electrical resistance by the initial electrical resistance.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or suggest the over-current protection device, wherein the over-current protection device has a thermal derating ratio of trip current ranging from 0.6 to 0.7, wherein the thermal derating ratio of trip current is defined as a value by dividing a required trip current of the over-current protection device under 85°C by a required
trip current of the over-current protection device under 23°C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights