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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II, claims 8-17 in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “end caps” as recited in claim 14 and “a body” as recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification fails to describe the claimed “end caps” and “a body of the protection device” as recited in claims 14 and 16 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender (US 20080218305) in view of Petrovic (Petrovic, D. et al., DISSOLUTION OF A COPPER WIRE DURING A HOT-DIPPING PROCESS USING A SnCul LEAD-FREE SOLDER, Materials and technology 47 (2013) 6, 831-836).
[AltContent: textbox (metal layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (substrate)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
507
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14, Bender.
Regarding claim 8, Bender teaches, a method of making a protection device (low resistance fuse apparatus, Figs. 1 to 26) that has a fusible element (fusible link 30, see annotated Fig. 14), comprising:
providing a substrate (polymer membrane 202, Fig. 14, materials for the polymer membrane 202 include…polyimide film materials, para. [0112]);
applying a metal layer (foil fuse element layer 20, Fig. 14) to the substrate; and
forming the fusible element (fuse element may be vapor deposited, screen printed, electroplated or applied to the substrate using known techniques, and fuse element geometry may be varied by chemically etching or laser trimming the metallized layer forming the fuse element, para. [0005]) from the metal layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
489
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Petrovic.
Bender does not teach, forming the fuse element 20 by dipping in a metal bath. However, Petrovic teaches a method of making a protection device that has a fusible element in Fig. 1, by dipping in a metal bath (see Abstract, hot dipping of the wire into the soldering bath at 400 °C., page 834, col. 1).
From the teachings of Bender in para. [0155], the fuse element layer is fabricated according to a known additive process, such as electro-forming process wherein the desired shape of the fuse element layer is plated up, and from para. [0038], contact leads i.e. wire terminations,…dipped metallization terminations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have thought that hot dipping the polymer membrane 202 in a soldering bath would improve the electrical and thermal conducting properties as Petrovic disclosed in page 831, col. 2. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Petrovic, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making the protection device of Bender and replace the metal layer 20 of the protection device of Bender with a dip coating in a metal bath as Petrovic taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables forming protection devices having improved electrical and thermal conducting properties as Petrovic disclosed in pages 831 and 835, col. 2. Moreover, metallic dip coating on a polymer substrate by hot dipping in metal bath is known in the art. If applicant disagrees, see Krulik, G.A. and Mandich, N.V. (2000). Metallic Coatings, Survey. In Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15, modified Bender does not teach the recited limitations. However, Petrovic further teaches,
9. The method of claim 8, wherein applying the metal layer comprises applying a tin layer (dipping the Cu wire into a SnCu1 soldering bath, page 832, col. 1).
10. The method of claim 8, wherein applying the metal layer comprises applying a lead-free solder layer (see Title).
15. The method of claim 8, wherein the metal bath is a solder bath (dipped in the solder bath, page 834, col. 2).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Petrovic, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making the protection device of Bender and replace the metal layer 20 of the protection device with a dip coated solder layer as Petrovic taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables forming protection devices having improved electrical and thermal conducting properties as Petrovic disclosed in pages 831 and 835, col. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Bender in view of Petrovic teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 8. Bender further teaches, the method of claim 8, wherein the substrate is a polymeric substrate (polymer membrane 202 include…polyimide film materials, Fig. 14, para. [0107, 0112]).
Regarding claim 12, Bender in view of Petrovic teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 8. Bender further teaches, the method of claim 8, further comprising laser stripping a portion of the metal layer to form the fusible element (fuse element geometry may be varied by chemically etching or laser trimming the metallized layer forming the fuse element, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Bender in view of Petrovic teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 12. Bender further teaches, the method of claim 12, wherein laser stripping comprises removing material from the metal layer to define a geometry of the fusible element (see para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Bender in view of Petrovic teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 8. Bender further teaches, the method of claim 8, further comprising attaching end caps to the substrate (the fuse element extends between conductive end caps, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Bender in view of Petrovic teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 8. Bender further teaches, the method of claim 8, further comprising forming a body of the protection device (see Fig. 14, fuse element layer 20 sandwiched between upper and lower intermediate insulating layers 22, 24 which, in turn, are sandwiched between upper and lower outer insulation layers 122, 124, para. [0079]) around the fusible element.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender in view of Petrovic, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rybka (US 20040034993).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (channel)]
PNG
media_image3.png
271
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5, Rybka.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bender does not teach, substrate having a preformed channel. However, Rybka teaches, a protection device (circuit protection device, Abstract) that has a fusible element (fusible element 42, Fig. 5), comprising: providing a substrate (sheet 20, Fig. 4, para. [0069]); applying a metal layer to the substrate by dipping the substrate in a metal bath (photoresist onto the linear regions 40 and their fusible links 42, metal will not adhere to the linear regions 40 when the sheet 20 is dipped into an electrolytic bath containing a metal, para. [0069]); and forming the fusible element from the metal layer (fusible element 42, Fig. 5), in which, providing the substrate comprises providing a substrate having a preformed channel (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Rybka, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of making the protection device of Bender and to include the substrate having a preformed channel as Rybka taught in Fig. 5 so that it enables forming the metal layers at the desired places on the substrate while simultaneously manufacturing a plurality of protection devices.
Conclusion
Prior art Jin (US 20240388044) teaches, a protection device that has a fusible element, comprising: providing a substrate; applying a metal layer to the substrate by dipping the substrate in a metal bath; and forming the fusible element from the metal layer.
Prior art Nishio (EP 0481493) teaches, a protection device that has a fusible element, providing a substrate; applying a metal layer to the substrate by dipping the substrate in a metal bath; and forming the fusible element from the metal layer.
Prior art Kalra (US 6147585) teaches, a protection device including, providing a substrate; applying a metal layer to the substrate by dipping the substrate in a metal bath; and forming the fusible element from the metal layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights