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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hibayashi (US 6275135 B1).
As to claim 1, Hibayashi discloses: An electrical fuse (Fig. 1-20) comprising:
an electrical conductor element 2 comprising a melting section 3, 5 and further comprising a first extension section 4 and a second extension section 4 both integrally formed with the melting section and extending from both ends of the melting section in the lengthwise direction thereof,
an electrically insulating, multi-part housing 11, 31, which encloses said melting section in an interior space, wherein the multi-part housing comprises a first part 11 and a second part 31 slidingly engaged with said first part and arranged such that the second part covers an access opening (between walls 14) of the first part to the interior space, and
wherein the first extension section and second extension section comprise a terminal area 6, respectively, both terminal areas are arranged outside the multi-part housing.
As to claim 2, Hibayashi discloses: wherein the first part comprises a first opening 15 and a second opening 16 opposite to the first opening, said first and second openings being penetrated by the first extension section and second extension section, respectively, and wherein a wall 35, 32 comprised by the second part covers the access opening (see Fig. 17-20).
As to claim 3, Hibayashi discloses: wherein the first part comprises a first opening 15 (either end) and the second part comprises a second opening (at left or right side of 32 in Fig. 15; into or out of the page in Fig. 16) opposite to the first opening of the first part, said first and second openings being penetrated by the first extension section and second extension section, respectively.
As to claim 7, Hibayashi discloses: wherein said electrical conductor element is a sheet metal (col. 3, lines 9-12).
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibayashi (US 6275135 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stanek (US 20100102920 A1).
As to claim 4, Hibayashi does not disclose: wherein the first extension section comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said first opening, and wherein the second extension section comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said second opening.
However, Stanek discloses:
wherein the first extension section 14 comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said first opening 74 (par. 0054), and wherein the second extension section 16 comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said second opening 74 (par. 0054);
in order to seal the openings and provide a fuse that can operate in a moderately hazardous environment (see par. 0054, 0004).
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 Hibayashi as suggested by Stanek, e.g., providing:
wherein the first extension section comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said first opening, and wherein the second extension section comprised by the electrical conductor element seals said second opening;
in order to seal the openings and provide a fuse that can operate in a moderately hazardous environment.
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 5, Hibayashi in view of Stanek discloses:
wherein a cross-section of said first extension section of the electrical conductor element perpendicular to the lengthwise direction thereof corresponds in form and dimension to the cross-section of said first opening and/or wherein the cross-section of said second extension section of the electrical conductor element perpendicular to the lengthwise direction thereof corresponds in form and dimension to the cross-section of said second opening (see Fig. 3, 8, 15, and 19 of Hibayashi; see Fig. 1D of Stanek).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibayashi (US 6275135 B1) in view of Stanek (US 20100102920 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chiu (US 20100102920 A1).
As to claim 6, Hibayashi in view of Stanek does not disclose:
wherein the first opening and second opening in a cross-sectional view of the multi-part housing in a plane parallel to the lengthwise direction of the melting section of the electrical conductor element are formed in a V-shape or W-shape.
However, Chiu discloses:
wherein the first opening and second opening in a cross-sectional view of the multi-part housing in a plane parallel to the lengthwise direction of the melting section of the electrical conductor element are formed in a V-shape or W-shape (see Fig. 1, annotated Fig. 4; the double projections/openings create a W-shape similarly as in Applicant’s Fig. 5b-5f);
in order to avoid electrical arcs (par. 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Hibayashi and Stanek as suggested by Chiu, e.g., providing:
wherein the first opening and second opening in a cross-sectional view of the multi-part housing in a plane parallel to the lengthwise direction of the melting section of the electrical conductor element are formed in a V-shape or W-shape;
in order to prevent electrical arcs.
A change in shape, absent persuasive evidence that the change in shape is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibayashi (US 6275135 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Leon (US 20180294126 A1).
As to claim 8, Hibayashi does not disclose: further comprising a filling material filled in the interior space.
However, de Leon discloses:
further comprising a filling material filled in the interior space (par. 0020);
in order to mitigate arcing.
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 Hibayashi as suggested by de Leon, e.g., providing:
further comprising a filling material filled in the interior space;
in order to mitigate arcing.
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 9, Hibayashi in view of de Leon discloses:
wherein the filling material comprises a material having arc extinction capability (par. 0020; de Leon).
As to claim 10, Hibayashi in view of de Leon discloses:
wherein the filling material comprises at least one of sand (silica; par. 0020; de Leon), silicone, glass beads and ceramic beads.
As to claim 11, Hibayashi in view of de Leon discloses:
A method of manufacturing an electrical fuse according to claim 10, said method comprising the steps: a) providing an electrical conductor element comprising a melting section and further comprising a first extension section and a second extension section both integrally formed with the melting section and extending from both ends of the melting section in the lengthwise direction thereof, b) providing an electrically insulating, multi-part housing comprising a first part and a second part, c) introducing the conductor element into the multi-part housing thus far that the melting section is enclosed in an interior space thereof, d) slidingly engaging the first and second parts in relation to each other thus covering by the second part an access opening of the first part to the interior space.
See claim 1 above. The product of claim 1 above necessitates the method of claim 11.
As to claim 12, Hibayashi in view of de Leon discloses:
wherein: step b) further comprises providing the first part with a first opening and a second opening opposite to the first opening, step c) further comprises introducing the conductor element through said first opening and through said second opening thus far that said first and second openings being penetrated by the first and second extension sections, respectively (see Fig. 14; Hibayashi).
See claim 2 above. The product of claim 2 above necessitates the method of claim 12.
As to claim 13, Hibayashi in view of de Leon discloses:
wherein: step b) further comprises providing the first part with a first opening and the second part with a second opening opposite to the first opening once the first part and the second part are engaged, step c) further comprises introducing the conductor element through said first opening and through said second opening thus far that said first and second openings being penetrated by the first and second extension sections, respectively (see Fig. 14-20; Hibayashi).
See claim 3 above. The product of claim 3 above necessitates the method of claim 13.
As to claim 14, Hibayashi in view of de Leon does not explicitly disclose (in the current embodiment):
further comprising the step of: e) bending the first extension section and/or second extension section such to abut at least partially against outer wall sections of the multi-part housing.
However, de Leon further discloses:
further comprising the step of: e) bending the first extension section and/or second extension section such to abut at least partially against outer wall sections of the multi-part housing (see Fig. 1C, Fig. 5);
in order to provide a surface mount fuse (see title, abstract).
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 method of Hibayashi in view of de Leon as suggested by de Leon, e.g., providing:
further comprising the step of: e) bending the first extension section and/or second extension section such to abut at least partially against outer wall sections of the multi-part housing;
in order to provide a surface mount fuse.
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 15, Hibayashi in view of de Leon does not explicitly disclose (in the current embodiment):
wherein step d) is preceded by the step of: filling a filling material into the interior space through the access opening.
However, de Leon discloses:
wherein step d) (step 260 in Fig. 5 - sliding engagement of the first part 118; Fig. 1a-1d; and second part 120 in relation to each other) is preceded by the step of: filling a filling material (par. 0020, step 240 in Fig. 5) into the interior space through the access opening (top opening in 118);
in order to mitigate arcing (par. 0020).
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 method of Hibayashi in view of de Leon as suggested by de Leon, e.g., providing:
wherein step d) is preceded by the step of: filling a filling material into the interior space through the access opening;
in order to mitigate arcing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perreault (US 5296832 A), Ide (US 11127555 B1), and Schlaak (US 20170263407 A1) 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