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 Objections
Claim 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 Lns.1-2: the clause “is in rectangular or circular shape” should be amended to recite “is in a rectangular or circular shape” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 5 Lns.1-2: the clause “is in zigzag shape on” should be amended to recite “is in a zigzag shape on” for grammatical reasons.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (KR 20210081819) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document).1
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses (Figs.1-3):
A fuse comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) (10); a conductive pattern (14 and 22) disposed on the PCB (10); a film (16) disposed at lateral sides (See Figure Below) of the conductive pattern (14 and 22) or on a partial region of the conductive pattern (14 and 22) to leave an open region (18) (Figs.1-2, [0029], and [0031]: 16 is provided at a partial region of 14 and leaves an open region 18 so that 22 is exposed and then covered by 24); and a coating (24) disposed on the conductive pattern (14 and 22) and the film (16) (Fig.1: 24 is disposed on 14, 16, and 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses (Figs.1-3):
A method of fabricating a fuse, comprising: forming a conductive pattern (14 and 22) disposed on a printed circuit board (PCB) (10); forming a film (16) disposed at lateral sides (See Figure of Claim 1) of the conductive pattern (14 and 22) or on a partial region of the conductive pattern (14 and 22) to leave an open region (18) (Figs.1-2, [0029], and [0031]: 16 is provided at a partial region of 14 and leaves an open region 18 so that 22 is exposed and then covered by 24); and forming a coating (24) disposed on the conductive pattern (14 and 22) and the film (16).
Regarding claim 2, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the coating (24) comprises a flame-retardant material ([0031] and [0033]-[0034]: 24 is made to prevent and extinguish arc, and is thus an arc-extinguishing material, and thus a flame-retardant material).
Regarding claim 4, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the open region (18) is in rectangular or circular shape (Fig.2: 18 is rectangular).
Regarding claim 5, Oh further discloses:
See next page→
Wherein the conductive pattern (14 and 22) is in zigzag shape (See Fig.2) on the PCB (10) to accumulate heat ([0030]: 22 is part of 20, which is explicitly called a fuse and will by definition accumulate heat and blow at the overcurrent condition).
Regarding claim 6, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the film (16) is spaced at a distance (See Figure of Claim 1) from the lateral sides (See Figure of Claim 1) of the conductive pattern (14 and 22).
Regarding claim 7, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the film (16) at least partially covers upper portions (See Figure Below) of the conductive pattern (14 and 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the coating (24) has an adhesive strength that permits for the coating (24) to be physically separated from the conductive pattern (14 and 22) when gas ([0034]: “discharging gas generated inside the pattern fuse”) is generated between the conductive pattern (14 and 22) and the coating (24) ([0034], [0037], and [0039]: the gas generated by 20 will have to generate a physical space between 24 and 14,22 so that 24 can exhaust the gas to the outside while also preventing sparks and particles from flying to the outside).
Regarding claim 12, Oh further discloses:
Wherein the PCB (10) comprises a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) ([0027]: a soft PCB is another name for a FPCB).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20210081819) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) in view of Rahman (US 20090066469).
Regarding claim 3, Oh does not disclose:
Wherein the flame-retardant material contains a flame-retardant substance of a V0 rating.
Rahman however teaches:
Wherein the flame-retardant material ([0010] and [0042]: “Polyphenylene Sulfide”) contains a flame-retardant substance of a V0 rating ([0010] and [0042]: Polyphenylene Sulfide is known to be a flame-retardant substance that has a V0 rating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Rahman to modify the device of Oh such that the flame-retardant material contains a flame-retardant substance of a V0 rating, as claimed, in order to further optimize the arc and flame protection capabilities due to the material of the flame-retardant material as taught by Rahman ([0010] and [0042]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20210081819) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document) in view of Baek (US 20090057880) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Oh does not disclose:
A dummy region disposed on the film to limit heat dissipation.
Baek however teaches (Figs.1-2):
A dummy region (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Baek to modify the device of Oh such that it has a dummy region that is disposed on the film to limit heat dissipation, as claimed, in order to further ensure that the conductive pattern breaks at the proper overcurrent condition, and thus provide a more accurate breaking of the conductive pattern (i.e., by providing a dummy region on the film, the dummy region will act as a heat sink, as taught in paragraphs [0048] and [0050] of Baek, that can manage thermal concentration, and thus limit heat dissipation, and thus better prevent the conductive pattern from prematurely heating and breaking before the actual overcurrent condition).
Regarding claim 10, Baek further teaches:
Wherein the dummy region (110) comprises copper ([0085]).
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Baek to further modify the device of modified Oh such that the dummy region comprises copper, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved breaking capabilities as outlined in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, Oh further discloses:
A melting and breaking portion (22) of the conductive pattern (14 and 22).
However, Oh does not disclose:
Wherein the dummy region is offset from a region above a melting and breaking portion of the conductive pattern.
However, as outlined in claim 9 above, Baek teaches:
The dummy region (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Baek to further modify the device of modified Oh such that when the dummy region is incorporated in the device of Oh, as modified in claim 9 above, the dummy region is offset from a region above the melting and breaking portion of the conductive pattern, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved breaking capabilities as outlined in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See next page→
US 20210243879: teaches an embedded fuse pattern in a printed circuit board. The printed circuit board also being a flexible printed circuit board.
US 20180192511: teaches an embedded fuse pattern in a flexible printed circuit board.
US 20020011404: teaches the use of PPS, which has a V0 rating.
US 20010044168: teaches the use of a dummy electrode in a fuse element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
1 Examiner's Note: regarding method claim 13, since there are no specific method steps being claimed, just a general process of assembling the device (i.e., providing each element, forming, joining, inserting, connecting, etc.), the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is anticipated over Oh, means that the general method for providing such a structure is also anticipated in view of the same reference. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently necessitated by the structure of the device of Oh.