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
Claims 11, 14, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, 14, and 17-18: every instance of “the electrode portions” and “the electrode portion” should be amended to recite “the pair of electrode portions” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 14 Lns.3-5: both instances of “the metal plate” should be amended to recite “the elongated metal plate” for consistent claim nomenclature.
The Office 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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 20150002258).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida discloses (Figs.1-4):
A circuit protection device comprising: a pair of electrode portions (10 and 12); an element portion (4) provided between (See Fig.2) both of the electrode portions (10 and 12); a plate body (26) arranged so as to extend along (See Fig.1) the element portion (4), the plate body (26) being made of an insulator ([0035]: the materials listed are all insulators); and an exterior member (14) configured to cover (See Fig.1) the element portion (4) and the plate body (26).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida further discloses:
Wherein the plate body (26) has a first plate body (26a) arranged on a first side (Figs.1 and 4: with respect to figure 1, 26a is provided on the upper/first side of 4) of the element portion (4) and a second plate body (26b) arranged on a second side (Figs.1 and 4: with respect to figure 1, 26b is provided on the lower/second side of 4) of the element portion (4).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida further discloses:
Wherein the plate body (26) is made of an inorganic material ([0035]: cement is an inorganic material).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida further discloses:
Wherein the element portion (4) is formed of a narrow portion (See Figure Below) (See Fig.2: in relation to 10 and 6, 4 is formed of a narrow portion) formed in an elongated metal plate (Fig.2 and [0032]: 2, which includes 4, 6, 8, and 10, is formed from an elongated copper/copper alloy metal plate), and the electrode portions (10 and 12) include a first electrode portion (See Figure Below) formed on a first side (See Figure Below) of the metal plate bounded by the narrow portion and a second electrode portion (See Figure Below) formed on a second side (See Figure Below) of the metal plate bounded by the narrow portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See next page→
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.
Alternatively, claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 20170236673).
Regarding claim 11, Yoneda discloses (Fig.11):
A circuit protection device comprising: a pair of electrode portions (30- there is a 30 on opposite sides, and thus defining a pair); an element portion (5) provided between both of the electrode portions (30- there is a 30 on opposite sides, and thus defining a pair); and an exterior member (20) configured to cover (See Fig.11) the element portion (5).
However, the relied upon embodiment of Yoneda does not disclose:
A plate body arranged so as to extend along the element portion, the plate body being made of an insulator.
Yoneda however presents a second embodiment that teaches (Fig.8):
A plate body (10) arranged so as to extend along (See Fig.8) the element portion (5), the plate body (10) being made of an insulator ([0114]).
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 secondary embodiment of Yoneda to modify the primary embodiment of Yoneda such that it has a plate body that is made of an insulator and arranged to extend along the element portion, and such that the exterior member covers both the element portion and the plate body, as claimed, in order to better prevent leakage when reflow mounting the circuit protection device as taught by Yoneda ([0111]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yoneda does not teach:
Wherein the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 μm or less.
However, modifying the size of the plate body such that it has a desired thickness, including as claimed (i.e., 100μm or less), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to provide a compact and space efficient design due to the thin structure of the plate body, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, 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 at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20150002258) in view of Tabei (US 4720759).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida further discloses:
Wherein the element portion (4) is made of a copper alloy ([0032]).
However, Yoshida does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the element portion is made of phosphor bronze.
See next page→
Tabei however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the element portion (18 and/or 19) is made of phosphor bronze (Col.4 Lns.10-19).
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 Tabei to modify the device of Yoshida such that the element portion is made of a copper alloy, as claimed, in order to provide a material that has relatively low electric resistance and thus better ensure that the element portion is only dependent upon the ambient temperature as taught by Tabei (Col.4 Lns.10-19).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 20170236673) in view of Ebi (US 4570147).
Regarding claim 16, the second embodiment of Yoneda further teaches:
Wherein the plate body (10) is fixed to the element portion (5) via an adhesive (11).
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 above teaching of the secondary embodiment of Yoneda to further modify the device of modified Yoneda such that the plate body is fixed to the element portion via an adhesive, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved reflow mounting capabilities as outlined in claim 11 above.
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
An inorganic adhesive.
Ebi however teaches:
An inorganic adhesive (Col.4 Lns.8-16).
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 Ebi to further modify the device of modified Yoneda such that the adhesive is an inorganic adhesive, as claimed, in order to provide an efficient means of bonding the plate body to the element portion.
Finally, 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 at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yoneda does not teach:
Wherein the plate body has a groove in a surface.
Ebi however teaches (Fig.5):
Wherein the plate body (51 and/or 52) has a groove in a surface (Fig.5: 51 has a groove on the bottom surface and 52 has a groove on the upper surface so that they form 55 when combined).
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 Ebi to further modify the device of modified Yoneda such that the plate body has a groove in a surface, as claimed, in order to further improve the circuit protection capabilities since the groove can be filled with arc-extinguishing material, and thus providing additional circuit protection capabilities (i.e., improved arc quenching capabilities) as taught by Ebi (Col.4 Lns.25-31).
See next page→
Alternatively, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20150002258).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida does not disclose:
Wherein the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 μm or less.
However, modifying the size of the plate body such that it has a desired thickness, including as claimed (i.e., 100μm or less), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to provide a more compact and space efficient fuse design since the thin structure of the plate body will also allow for a thinner exterior member, and thus resulting in an overall thinner and more space efficient device, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Finally, 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 at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 is 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, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
See next page→
Claim 18 is objected to for being dependent upon an allowable dependent claim that is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 11 and 17, and at least in part, because claim 17 recites the limitations: “the molding material being in close contact with the plate body and the electrode portions, and at least one of the electrode portions has a tab, the tab being projected from a first surface of the electrode portion so as to be inserted into the molding material”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 17, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 11 and 17, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
The remaining prior art references teach other circuit protection devices and/or teach subject matter relevant to the instant application. However, none of the remaining prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned allowable limitations as respectively recited in claim 17. Therefore, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as respectively claimed in claim 17.
Furthermore, in both the English Translation of the International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter I filed in the Japanese WIPO Office on 12/04/2023 and the Notice of Reasons for Refusal filed in the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) on 07/22/2025, the Office actions both also state that claim 7 (equivalent to claim 17 of the instant application) is believed to be in condition for allowance. Therefore, claim 17 of the instant application is also believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in both the English Translation of the International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter I and the Notice of Reasons for Refusal.
Finally, no double patenting rejection has been discovered. For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 17 is believed to be in condition for allowance, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210057180: teaches a surface mount fuse that uses adhesives to combine layers together.
US 20150371804: teaches a chip type fuse with a pair of electrode pairs, a fusible element, a plate body, and an exterior member that covers the fusible element and plate body. The plate body also being made up of a first plate body and second plate body.
US 20130106564: teaches the use of inorganic/ceramic adhesives.
US 4344058: teaches a fuse element that is made out of phosphor bronze.
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