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 without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the particle additive percent”, which lacks antecedent basis, instead of “a particle additive percent”.
Claim 12 recites “the fusible element”, which lacks antecedent basis, instead of “the fusible link” as in parent claim 10.
Claim 14 recites “The fuse of claim 9” instead of “The fuse of claim 10”, for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate 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 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) 1-4, 7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20050141164 A1) in view of NPL (“Top Surface Metallurgy of Multilayered Ceramic Modules”; NN75012281).
As to claim 1, Bender discloses: A circuit protection device (Fig. 5-10), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (par. 0077; corresponding to layer 24 in Fig. 5, and/or layers 22, 26, 28); and
a fusible element 20, 30 attached to the ceramic substrate.
Bender also discloses:
that the fusible element may be formed by a screen printing process (par. 0091) and may be formed of other materials including nickel (par. 0040) in order to provide desired performance characteristics (par. 0041).
Bender does not explicitly disclose:
the fusible element comprising a paste including a plurality of nickel particles.
However, NPL discloses:
a circuit pattern comprising a paste including a plurality of nickel particles (“The metal paste may contain for example….gold coated nickel particles”; see description);
in order to provide a suitable pattern that can be applied by screen printing (see description).
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 Bender as suggested by NPL, e.g., providing:
the fusible element comprising a paste including a plurality of nickel particles;
in order to provide a suitable fusible element pattern that can be applied by screen printing, and/or in order to provide desired performance characteristics.
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).
As to claim 10, Bender discloses: A fuse (Fig. 5-10), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (par. 0077; corresponding to layer 24 in Fig. 5, and/or layers 22, 26, 28); and
a fusible link 20, 30 attached to the ceramic substrate.
Bender also discloses:
that the fusible link may be formed by a screen printing process (par. 0091) and may be formed of other materials including nickel (par. 0040) in order to provide desired performance characteristics (par. 0041).
Bender does not explicitly disclose:
the fusible link comprising a paste including a plurality of gold-coated nickel particles or a gold paste including coated or uncoated nickel particles, wherein the coating is gold, silver, or graphite.
However, NPL discloses:
a circuit pattern comprising a paste including a plurality of gold-coated nickel particles (“The metal paste may contain for example….gold coated nickel particles”; see description) or a gold paste (metal paste containing gold coated nickel particles) including coated (gold coated nickel particles) or uncoated nickel particles, wherein the coating is gold (gold coated nickel particles, silver, or graphite;
in order to provide a suitable pattern that can be applied by screen printing (see description).
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 Bender as suggested by NPL, e.g., providing:
the fusible link comprising a paste including a plurality of gold-coated nickel particles or a gold paste including coated or uncoated nickel particles, wherein the coating is gold, silver, or graphite;
in order to provide a suitable fusible link pattern that can be applied by screen printing, and/or in order to provide desired performance characteristics.
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).
As to claim 2, Bender in view of NPL discloses:
wherein the paste is a gold paste (metal paste containing gold coated nickel particles; NPL), and wherein the nickel particles are coated (gold coated) or uncoated nickel particles, and wherein the coating is gold (gold coated nickel particles, silver, or graphite.
As to claims 3 and 11, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose (in the current embodiment):
wherein the ceramic substrate is a green tape substrate.
However, NPL further discloses:
wherein the ceramic substrate is a green tape substrate (green sheet; description);
in order to provide a low firing ceramic body with very low shrinkage.
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by NPL, e.g., providing:
wherein the ceramic substrate is a green tape substrate;
in order to provide a low firing ceramic body with very low shrinkage.
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).
As to claims 4 and 11, Bender in view of NPL discloses:
wherein the ceramic substrate is a rigid ceramic substrate (par. 0077; Bender; ceramic is considered a rigid material, at least after firing; see also ceramic green sheet in NPL; description).
As to claims 7 and 12, Bender in view of NPL discloses:
further comprising a set of vias 36, 46, 38, 48 (Fig. 5; Bender, corresponding to solder bumps 12 in Fig. 1, Fig. 3; see also par. 0069, 0075-0076; additionally, see description of NPL), wherein the fusible element extends between the set of vias (Fig. 5; Bender).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20050141164 A1) in view of NPL (“Top Surface Metallurgy of Multilayered Ceramic Modules”; NN75012281) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landa (US 20190174634 A1).
As to claim 5, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the paste further comprises a glass frit as additive.
However, Landa discloses:
wherein the conductor composition further comprises a glass frit as additive (par. 0045);
in order to adhere the conductor to the substrate (par. 0045).
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Landa, e.g., providing:
wherein the paste further comprises a glass frit as additive;
in order to incorporate the fusible element with the ceramic body layer(s).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20050141164 A1) in view of NPL (“Top Surface Metallurgy of Multilayered Ceramic Modules”; NN75012281) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozbroj (US 20200352026 A1).
As to claim 6, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the paste further comprises coated silver particles or uncoated silver particles.
However, Bender discloses that the fusible link may be formed of other materials including silver (par. 0040) in order to provide desired performance characteristics (par. 0041).
Rozbroj suggests:
wherein the conductive paste further comprises coated silver particles or uncoated silver particles (conductive paste includes combinations of gold, nickel, and silver; par. 0033);
in order to provide a conductive paste that includes a variety of suitable materials (par. 0033).
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Rozbroj, e.g., providing:
wherein the paste further comprises coated silver particles or uncoated silver particles;
in order to provide a conductive paste that includes a variety of suitable materials, and/or in order to provide desired performance characteristics.
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) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20050141164 A1) in view of NPL (“Top Surface Metallurgy of Multilayered Ceramic Modules”; NN75012281) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Li (US 20060066435 A1).
As to claim 8, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fusible element is sintered to a surface of the ceramic.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the fusible element is sintered to a surface of the ceramic (par. 0024);
in order to incorporate the fusible element with the ceramic body layer(s) (par. 0024).
in order to provide a low firing ceramic body with very low shrinkage.
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Li, e.g., providing:
wherein the fusible element is sintered to a surface of the ceramic;
in order to incorporate the fusible element with the ceramic body layer(s).
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 13, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the fusible link and the ceramic substrate are sintered.
However, Li discloses:
wherein the fusible link and the ceramic substrate are sintered (par. 0024);
in order to incorporate the fusible element with the ceramic body layer(s) (par. 0024).
in order to provide a low firing ceramic body with very low shrinkage.
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Li, e.g., providing:
wherein the fusible link and the ceramic substrate are sintered;
in order to incorporate the fusible element with the ceramic body layer(s).
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) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20050141164 A1) in view of NPL (“Top Surface Metallurgy of Multilayered Ceramic Modules”; NN75012281) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Abrams (US 4496475 A).
As to claim 9, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm, and wherein a particle additive percent is between 1-50 percent.
However, Abrams discloses:
wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm (1-100 µm; col. 6, lines 32-51), and wherein a particle additive percent is between 1-50 percent (at least 40%, 50%, 60% by weight conductive material, e.g., silver; remainder non-conductive additive, e.g., glass; see col. 5, line 58 – col. 6, line 16);
in order to not interfere with application of the paste (col. 6, lines 34-35) and in order to provide desired conductivity properties (col. 5, lines 35-40 and 58-65).
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Abrams, e.g., providing:
wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm, and wherein a particle additive percent is between 1-50 percent;
in order to not interfere with application of the paste and in order to provide desired conductivity properties.
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., the size of the particles for effecting the desired consistency of paste, percent additive for effecting the desired conductivity/electrical properties) 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 14, Bender in view of NPL does not explicitly disclose:
The fuse of claim 10, wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm.
However, Abrams discloses:
wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm (1-100 µm; col. 6, lines 32-51);
in order to not interfere with application of the paste (col. 6, lines 34-35).
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 Bender and NPL as further suggested by Abrams, e.g., providing:
wherein a particle size of the paste is between 2-50 µm;
in order to not interfere with application of the paste.
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., the size of the particles for effecting the desired consistency of paste) 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wiryana (US 20090167480 A1), Jollenbeck (US 6384708 B1), and Montgomery (US 6034589 A) disclose conventional fuse arrangements.
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) 272-3740. 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 2835