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 I, claims 1 - 12 in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus (US 20190027796), in view of Rentrop (US 20200020467).
Regarding claim 1, Matus discloses a device assembly for surface mount devices (SMD), the device assembly comprising:
Matus discloses each SMD skeleton comprising: a pair of terminals (first and second contacts 102, 104; Fig. 3); and
a plurality of whiskers (digits 120, 122), the plurality of whiskers being disposed orthogonally between the pair of terminals; and
a polymeric positive temperature coefficient (PPTC 150, 155) material disposed over the matrix, wherein the PPTC material couples the terminals to the whiskers (120, 122).
Matus does not explicitly disclose a matrix comprising a plurality of rows, each row comprising a plurality of SMD skeletons.
Rentrop suggests a matrix comprising a plurality of rows (row of sensors 10, Fig. 4B), each row comprising a plurality of SMD skeletons (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 2, Matus, in view of Rentrop, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Rentrop further suggests a backing (substrate 1) upon which the matrix is disposed.
Regarding claim 3, Matus, in view of Rentrop, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Rentrop further suggests the backing is a printed circuit board (the substrate is a printed circuit board; paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 4, Matus, in view of Rentrop, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 2. Rentrop further suggests the backing is a flexible tape (the substrate is flexible; paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 11, Matus, in view of Rentrop, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Matus further discloses each SMD skeleton comprises an electrically conductive material (copper; paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 12, Matus, in view of Rentrop, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 11. Matus further discloses the electrically conductive material comprises copper (paragraph 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 10 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1 and 2, a combination of limitations that a pair of landing pads disposed opposite the pair of terminals such that the backing is sandwiched between the pair of landing pads and the pair of terminals. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wolkin (US 20070145362) discloses a substrate having an array of components, Fig. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH B TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Tim Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/BINH B TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights