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 .
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 05/19/2026 to the non-final Office action of 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on the currently pending claims 11-12, 14-18, and 20 follows.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20150002258) in view of Jollenbeck (US 20040169578).
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) the pair of 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), wherein the plate body (26) is made of an inorganic material ([0035]: cement is an inorganic material).
However, Yoshida does not disclose:
The plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less.
Jollenbeck however teaches (Figs.1-1b):
The plate body (18) has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less ([0008] and [0030]: “The cover layer is preferably relatively thick, for instance 10 µm-100 µm, preferably 20 µm-40 µm, thick” and “The cover layer 18 is preferably produced with the aid of a screen printing process, in which a glass frit is imprinted and subsequently tempered (fired) so that a thickness of the cover layer of e.g. about 20 µm is produced”).
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 Jollenbeck to modify the device of Yoshida such that the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less, as claimed, in order to provide a compact and space efficient design due to the thin structure of the device as outlined by Jollenbeck ([0032]- the thickness of the cover layer 18 plays an active role in ensuring that that overall thickness is low).
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 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 pair of electrode portions (10 and 12) includes a first electrode portion (See Figure Below) formed on a first side (See Figure Below) of the elongated 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 elongated metal plate bounded by the narrow portion.
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
618
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20150002258) and Jollenbeck (US 20040169578) as applied to claim 11 above, and further 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, modified Yoshida does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the element portion is made of phosphor bronze.
Tabei however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the element portion (18 and/or 19) is made of phosphor bronze (Col.4 Lns.10-19).
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 Tabei to modify the device of Yoshida such that the element portion is made of phosphor bronze, 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).
Alternatively, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 20170236673) in view of Yoshida (US 20150002258) and in further view of Jollenbeck (US 20040169578).
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 the pair of 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; and an exterior member configured to cover the element portion and the plate body, wherein the plate body is made of an inorganic material, and the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less.
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]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
Wherein the plate body is made of an inorganic material, and the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less.
Yoshida however teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the plate body (26) is made of an inorganic material ([0035]: cement is an inorganic material).
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 Yoshida to further modify the device of modified Yoneda such that the plate body is made of an inorganic material, as claimed, in order to provide a plate body that is thermally stable and does not carbonize as taught by Yoshida ([0035]), and thus providing a better thermal barrier that can achieve the desired thermal resistance disclosed by Yoneda ([0114]).
However, the above combination still fails to teach:
The plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less.
Jollenbeck however teaches (Figs.1-1b):
The plate body (18) has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less ([0008] and [0030]: “The cover layer is preferably relatively thick, for instance 10 µm-100 µm, preferably 20 µm-40 µm, thick” and “The cover layer 18 is preferably produced with the aid of a screen printing process, in which a glass frit is imprinted and subsequently tempered (fired) so that a thickness of the cover layer of e.g. about 20 µm is produced”).
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 Jollenbeck to further modify the device of modified Yoneda such that the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm or less, as claimed, in order to provide a compact and space efficient design due to the thin structure of the device as outlined by Jollenbeck ([0032]- the thickness of the cover layer 18 plays an active role in ensuring that that overall thickness is low).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 20170236673), Yoshida (US 20150002258), and Jollenbeck (US 20040169578) as applied to claim 11 above, and further 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→
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as respectively recited in independent claim 17, and at least in part, for the reasons outlined in the non-final Office action of 02/26/2026.
In the amendments filed on 05/19/2026, Applicant amended claim 17 such that it is an independent claims that includes the subject matter of both claims 11 and 17 (i.e., claim 17 is now written in independent form and includes the subject matter of claims 11 and 17 from the claim set filed on 04/10/2024). Therefore, independent claim 17 is believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the non-final Office action of 02/26/2026.
Furthermore, none of the prior art references provided the Global Dossier, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter as respectively recited in independent claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is still believed to be in condition for allowance for the same reasons as those outlined in the Office actions provided by the Global Dossier.
Finally, the Office has not identified any double patenting issues. For all of the reasons outlined above, independent claim 17 is believed to be in condition for allowance.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/19/2026 have been fully considered, but have been found unpersuasive. Applicant contests that Yoshida fails to disclose “the plate body is made of an inorganic material” and “the plate body has a plate thickness of 10 µm or less” as now recited in independent claim 11. Specifically regarding the limitation “the plate body is made of an inorganic material”, Applicant contests that “the present application and Yoshida have different operating mechanisms”, and thus Yoshida fails to disclose the claimed plate body.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Office directs Applicant’s attention to independent claim 11. The claim only requires that the plate body extend along the element portion, be made out of an insulating inorganic material, and to be covered by the exterior member. In other words, all of the features outlined by Applicant are not required elements in the claim, and thus Yoshida is not required to teach and/or suggest the features outlined by Applicant. It appears as though Applicant is requiring the Office to import limitations from the specification into the claims, which is improper. Referring now to the rejection above, Yoshida clearly discloses a plate body that extends along the element portion, be made out of an insulating inorganic material, and to be covered by an exterior member, and thus teaching all of the required structure of the claimed “plate body”.
Furthermore, even if Applicant were to amend the claim such that it recites that the plate material is supposed to “suppress transmission of heat, pressure, and impact”, the Office notes that it still would not distinguish the claim over Yoshida. As outlined in paragraph [0035], Yoshida explicitly teaches that the layer “26” is made of a “silicone resin or cement” which are two materials that are thermal insulators and will by definition have to suppress the transmission of heat. Paragraph [0035] of Yoshida also further explicitly teaches that both silicone resin and cement are materials that are thermally stable, which means that the materials can withstand elevated temperatures without having significant changes in its physical form, and thus also being stable to ensure pressure and impact. In other words, although not explicitly taught by Yoshida, the materials of Yoshida are capable of and will most likely be able to perform the functions outlined by Applicant. Therefore, for all of the reasons outline above, even if Applicant were to amend the claims to incorporate the aforementioned limitations, the limitations would not be distinguishable over Yoshida.
Regarding the limitation “the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm”, Applicant contests that the limitation “is not directed to an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill would do” since Applicant’s specification provides a specific reason as to why the range is being utilized.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, and while the Office agrees that the limitation has criticality, the Office notes that because the scope of the independent claim has been changed, the rejection has also been updated to provide a prior art reference that teaches the claimed range being a range known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the updated rejection is believed to properly reject the aforementioned limitation of independent claim 11.
Regarding the rejection made over Yoneda, Applicant contests that independent claim 11 is allowable over Yoneda because “claim 13 is not rejected in view of Yoneda”, and thus Yoneda does not teach and/or suggest “a plate body is made of an inorganic material” as claimed in independent claim 11.
The Office notes that the above argument has been fully considered, but is moot since the rejection modified to meet the limitations of the amended claims (See rejection above) (i.e., the scope of independent claim 11 has now been changed since it now recites the combined subject matter of claims 11, 13, and 19, and claims 13 and 19 not being previously being dependent on each other).
Regarding the limitation “the plate body has a plate thickness of 100 µm”, Applicant notes that Yoneda has the same deficiency as that of Yoshida (i.e., Applicant’s disclosure provides criticality for the limitation and is thus not just a design choice as contested by the Office), and thus rendering the claim allowable over Yoneda.
The Office has fully considered the above argument, but as outlined above, while the Office agrees that the limitation has criticality, the Office notes that because the scope of the independent claim has been changed, the rejection has also been updated to provide a prior art reference that teaches the claimed range being a range known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the updated rejection is believed to properly reject the aforementioned limitation of independent claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2841
Prosecution Insights