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 .
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 “cylindrical radial fuse” recited in claim 19 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 specification must be amended to match the amended drawings.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4, 8-16, 18 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7, 808, 362 to Stanek et al. (hereafter “Stanek”, cited in IDS) in view of US 2024/0158944 to Behnke et al. (hereafter “Behnke”) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)/General knowledge in the art.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 16, 18 and 20, Stanek discloses (Figs. 1A-3B) an axial electric fuse housing (40) comprising: one or more electrical insulating plates (44, 46); and an anodized metal can structure (42) (col. 4, ll. 41-64) comprising: an aluminum metal layer (col. 4, ll. 41-64), but does not disclose:
a barrier layer and an oxide layer, wherein the barrier layer and the oxide layer are formed on top of the metal layer using a hard anodizing process, wherein the oxide layer comprises a plurality of pores, and wherein the plurality of pores is filled with one or more substances applied as conformal coating (par. [0057]).
Behnke discloses (Figs. 1-3) an anodized metal structure (200) comprising: a metal layer (i.e., a metal article (202), par. [0052]), a barrier layer (204) and an oxide layer (206), wherein the barrier layer and the oxide layer are formed on top of the metal layer using a hard anodizing process (see par. [0067], the anodization layer thickness of up to 200 μm implies that the hard anodizing process is used), wherein the oxide layer comprises a plurality of pores (212), and wherein the plurality of pores is filled with one or more substances (214) for the benefits of the enhanced protection properties of the metal article (202), such as: enhanced resistance to dielectric breakdown, enhanced sealing, enhanced resistance to elevated temperatures, etc. (pars. [0032], [0052]).
Furthermore, the AAPA teaches that known electrical fuses operate at high temperatures and undergo high pressurization impulses, electrical arcing, and explosive forces, and therefore, there is a need for enhanced strength and thermal resistance of fuses and their components (see pars. [0003]-[0005] in the “Background” section). Also, the above teachings of the AAPA were general knowledge in fuse art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the fuse of Stanek is a “hazardous environment fuse” (e.g., see the abstract). Further, the metal article (202) of Behnke also operates in a hazardous environment of a component processing chamber and would benefit from enhanced protection (pars. [0032], [0052]).
Accordingly, in view of the above, one of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that inventions of Stanek and Behnke faced the same nature of the problem to be solved, which is a problem of optimal protection of metal components operating in hazardous environments. Therefore, since the fuse housing/anodized can structure of Stanek is an example of such a component, the approach of Behnke would have been recognized in the invention of Stanek before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify to Stanek according to the teachings of Behnke and AAPA/General knowledge in related arts, so the Stanek would have: a barrier layer and an oxide layer, wherein the barrier layer and the oxide layer are formed on top of the metal layer using a hard anodizing process, wherein the oxide layer comprises a plurality of pores, and wherein the plurality of pores is filled with one or more substances, in order to predictably enhance protection of the anodized metal can structure of Stanek due to augmented resistance to dielectric breakdown, enhanced sealing, enhanced resistance to elevated temperatures, etc. (Behnke, pars. [0032], [0052]). Also, 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).
Alternatively, since it was well-known in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that significant anodization layer thicknesses can be achieved by utilizing hard anodizing processes, wherein Behnke teaches such a significant anodization layer thickness of up to 200 μm (par. 0067]), it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the hard anodizing process to form the barrier layer and the oxide layer on top of the metal layer in Stanek-Behnke combination, in order to predictably achieve high quality anodization layer(s). Also, 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).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claim 20, since the claim essentially repeats the structure and methos steps recited in the apparatus claim 1, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention as recited in claim 1 is obvious over Stanek-Behnke-AAPA combination, means that the general method for providing/manufacturing such a structure is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in claim 20 are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the device of the Stanek-Behnke-AAPA combination.
Regarding claims 2-4, Behnke discloses that the one or more substances comprise an electrical or thermal insulating substance, wherein the electrical or thermal insulating substance comprises silicon rubber or ceramic, or color dye, wherein the one or more substances comprise an arc interruption substance (see “alumina” in par. [0055], see also various materials in pars. [0028]-[0029]).
Alternatively, since all claimed substances were known before effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known substances, including as claimed, to fill pores of the oxide layer in Stanek-Behnke-AAPA combination, in order to predicably achieve desired protection of the metal layer and optimal thermal, electrical, and mechanical characteristics of the device, while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 9-11, the claims recite a process of forming the device (electric fuse) and depending on the apparatus claims and therefore are product-by-process claims. However, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Even though the claims are limited by and defined by the recited process, the determination of patentability of the product is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). It should also be noted that a “[p]roduct-by process claim, although reciting subject matter of claim in terms of how it is made, is still product claim; it is patentability of product claimed and not recited process steps that must be established, in spite of fact that claim may recite only process limitations”. See In re Hirao and Sato, 190 USPQ 15 (Fed. Cir. 1976). The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See In re Stephens, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, the claims have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 13-15, Stanek discloses that the one or more electrical insulating plates (44, 46) are made of polymer, ceramic, or anodized metal (col. 4, l. 65 - col. 5, l. 6) and are assembled with the anodized metal can structure (42) to make the electrical fuse housing sealed (col. 4, l. 65 - col. 5, l. 6; col. 5, ll. 35-41; col. 6, ll. 42-46) and secured thereto by applying adhesive between the one or more electrical insulating plates (44, 46) and the portion of anodized metal can structure (42) (col. 6, ll. 47-50).
Regarding claim 12, Stanek-Behnke-AAPA combination does not explicitly teach that the barrier layer and the oxide layer are formed on both sides of the metal layer, wherein the plurality of pores on a first oxide layer on a first side of the metal layer are filled by one or more first substances, wherein the plurality of pores on a second oxide layer on a second side of the metal layer are filled by one or more second substances, and wherein the one or more first substances are different than the one or more second substances.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided in the Stanek-Behnke-AAPA combination the barrier layer and the oxide layer formed on both sides of the metal layer, wherein the plurality of pores on a first oxide layer on a first side of the metal layer are filled by one or more substances, wherein the plurality of pores on a second oxide layer on a second side of the metal layer are filled by one or more substances, in order to predictably provide optimal protection for the metal layer from both sides thereof, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore, since all claimed substances were known before effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable known substances, to fill the plurality of pores of the oxide layer on each side of the metal layer, including the first substance on the first side that is different from the second substance on the second side, as claimed, in order to predicably achieve desired optimal protection of the metal layer on both sides thereof and to achieve optimal thermal, electrical, and mechanical characteristics of the device, while not exceeding its targeted production costs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/General knowledge combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4, 603, 315 to Leong et al. (hereafter “Leong”).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/General knowledge combination discloses all as applied to claim 1 above, but the fuse housing that is configured as a cylindrical radial fuse.
However, cylindrical radial fuses have been notoriously known in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Leong (Figs. 1-4, see cylindrical radial fuse housing (26)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the fuse housing of the Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/General knowledge combination as a cylindrical radial fuse, as taught by Leong, in order to predicably adapt the fuse for a particular application (e.g., for PCB mounting, etc.). Also, 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).
Claims 5-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/ General knowledge combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5, 015, 514 to Rinehart.
Regarding claims 5-7, Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/ General knowledge combination discloses all as applied to claim 1 above, but that the one or more substances comprise an arc interruption substance, wherein the arc interruption substance releases one or more elements when an electric arc occurs within the electric fuse housing, wherein the one or more elements cool heat caused by the electric arc, wherein the one or more elements comprise hydrogen, nitrogen, or oxygen.
Rinehart discloses fuse housings (tubes) comprising one or more substances that are arc interruption substances, wherein the arc interruption substances release one or more elements when an electric arc occurs within the electric fuse housing, wherein the one or more elements cool heat caused by the electric arc, wherein the one or more elements comprise hydrogen, nitrogen, or oxygen (col. 1, ll. 13-18, 45-56; col. 3, ll. 1-7; col. 4, ll. 11-15; col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4; col. 6, ll. 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the one or more substances in the Stanek-Behnke-AAPA/ General knowledge combination, so the one or more substances comprise an arc interruption substance, wherein the arc interruption substance releases one or more elements when an electric arc occurs within the electric fuse housing, wherein the one or more elements cool heat caused by the electric arc, wherein the one or more elements comprise hydrogen, nitrogen, or oxygen, as taught by Rinehart, in order to predictably enhance arc interruption/arc quenching performance of the fuse (see Rinehart, col. 1, ll. 13-18, 45-56; col. 3, ll. 1-7; col. 4, ll. 11-15; col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4; col. 6, ll. 24-28). Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (i.e., such as claimed well-known arc interruption substances) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 2011/0147219 and US 5705225 teach porous anodized layers on metal articles with pores filled with various substances; US 4544907 and US 4189695 teach radial fuses, US 6903649 and US 5140294 teach axial fuses, and WO 2011/110505 teaches an axial fuse with anodized metal housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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 N. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights