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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Cancellation
The cancellation of claim 2 has been made of record.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 19980055807 U (herein KR807) in view of JP 2011253739 A (herein JP739).
In reference to claim 1, KR807 teaches a wire connection device (100; fig. 1) for a cooking appliance comprising: a fuse (10, 55; fig. 1, 2) with an outer surface (i.e. the outer surface of 55), a first end (near lead line 16 on the left; fig. 2) that connects to an internal wire of the cooking appliance, and a second end (near lead line 16 on the right; fig. 2) that connects to a power cord of the cooking appliance; sleeve (50; fig. 2) that encapsulates the outer surface of the fuse and the first and second ends of the fuse; and at least two tightening members (left and right 60; fig. 2) that encircle the sleeve located on at least two tightening positions (i.e. where 60 mounts onto 50; fig. 2) near the first end and second end of the fuse, respectively.
However KR807 does not teach a fire-resistant sleeve that encapsulates the outer surface of the fuse and the first and second ends of the fuse.
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. KR807 teaches a fire-resistant sleeve (35. See page 4, lines 32-33 which mention 35 is made of polycarbonate. This material is known to be fire-resistant) that encapsulates the outer surface of the fuse and the first and second ends of the fuse. Using the teachings of the fire-resistant material of JP739 to modify KR807 to arrive at the result of claim 1 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP739 to modify KR807 in order to increase fire-resistance protection around the fuse.
Regarding the limitation for a cooking appliance, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
In reference to claim 6, KR807 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However KR807 does not teach wherein the fire- resistant sleeve may be made of a fire-resistant material.
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. KR807 teaches a fire-resistant sleeve is made of a fire-resistant material (35. See page 4, lines 32-33 which mention 35 is made of polycarbonate. This material is known to be fire-resistant). Using the teachings of the fire-resistant material of JP739 to modify KR807 to arrive at the result of claim 6 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP739 to modify KR807 in order to increase fire-resistance protection around the fuse.
In reference to claim 7, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10, KR807 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However KR807 does not teach:
(Claim 7) wherein the fire- resistant material is a glass fiber;
(Claim 8) wherein the fire- resistant material is a silicone glass fiber;
(Claim 9) wherein the fire- resistant material is a basalt flame-retardant;
(Claim 10) wherein the fire- resistant material is silica.
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. Modifying KR807 to arrive at the results of claim 7, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material to arrive at the results of claim 7, claim 8, claim 9, claim 10. The sleeve still encases and protects the fuse, therefore new results are not produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(Claim 17) remains allowable due to the reasons stated in the Non-Final dated 04/02/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS SLOAN CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/TRAVIS S CHAMBERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights