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 because of the use of grey shading, which is not permitted. See MPEP 608.02. 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.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.6: although not mandatory, the Office recommends amending the clause “a quantity of arc suppressing material” to recite “a quantity of an arc suppressing material” in order to put the claim limitation in better form (i.e., for all other instances that state “the arc suppressing material, it simply makes it easier to indicate where the antecedent basis for the limitation comes from).
The Office notes that the above objection is a non-exhaustive list, and thus 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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20240290565).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses (Figs.1-2):
A fuse comprising: a fuse body (120); a fusible element (114) disposed within (See Fig.1) the fuse body (120); first (112c- the one on the left) and second (112c- the one on the right) terminals extending from opposite ends (Fig.1: both 112c's are on opposite sides of 114 and are outside of 120) of the fusible element (114) and out of the fuse body (120); and a quantity of arc suppressing material (140) formed on (See Fig.1) the fusible element (114), wherein the arc suppressing material (140) is formed of a mixture ([0035]: "the arc extinguishing material may, for example, be selected from quartz, silicone, melamine, glass, or a combination thereof"- 140 can be made from a combination of quartz, silicone, and melamine) of sand ([0035]: the quartz will define the sand), an arc suppressant ([0035]: the melamine will define the arc suppressant), and a flame retarding binder ([0035]: the silicone will define the flame retarding binder).
Regarding claim 2, Chang further discloses (Fig.2):
Wherein the arc suppressant ([0035]: the melamine will define the arc suppressant) is one of melamine ([0035]: melamine is included in the combination/mixture of 140) and cyanuric acid.
Regarding claim 3, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the flame retarding binder ([0035]: the silicone will define the flame retarding binder) is a silicone-based material ([0035]: silicone is included in the combination/mixture of 140 and is thus a silicone-based material).
Regarding claim 5, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the arc suppressing material (140) is cast directly onto the fusible element (114) (Fig.1 and [0034]: 140 is directly applied/casted on 114).
Regarding claim 8, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the fusible element (114) and the first (112c- the one on the left) and second (112c- the one on the right) terminals are formed from a single piece of material (See Figs.1-2 and [0030]: 110 includes 112 and 114 and 110 is a single piece material, and thus 112 and 114 will also be a single piece material).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240290565) in view of Wang (US 20140133059).
Regarding claim 4, Chang does not disclose:
Wherein the flame retarding binder is polydimethylsiloxane.
Wang however teaches (Fig.5):
Wherein the flame retarding binder (13d) is polydimethylsiloxane ([0065]).
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 Wang to modify the device of Chang such that the flame retarding binder is polydimethylsiloxane, as claimed, in order to provide a material that can reduce energy caused by arcing and avoid short circuits caused by sputter from forming as taught by Wang ([0060]). Furthermore, utilizing a material that can also function as a pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Wang ([0065]) will provide a simple and efficient means of coupling the arc suppressing material to the fuse body.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240290565) in view of Douglass (US 20240379314).
Regarding claim 6, Chang does not disclose:
Wherein the fuse body is filled with an arc quenching material that surrounds the fusible element and the arc suppressing material.
Douglass however teaches (Fig.1):
Wherein the fuse body (104) is filled with an arc quenching material (112) that surrounds (Fig.1: 112 surrounds 102, which holds 106 and 108, and thus 112 surrounds 106 and 108) the fusible element (106) and the arc suppressing material (108).
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 Douglass to modify the device of Chang such that the fuse body is filled with an arc quenching material that surrounds the fusible element and arc suppressing material, as claimed, in order to further improve the overall arc extinguishing capabilities due to the increased number of arc quenching components being utilized to address the electrical arc.
Regarding claim 7, Douglass further teaches:
Wherein the arc quenching material (112) is sand ([0017]: "a filler material 112 such as sand that is typically used for arc quenching purposes").
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 Douglass to further modify the device of modified Chang such that the arc quenching material is sand, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved arc dissipation capabilities as outlined in claim 6 above.
Claims 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240290565) in view of Yoshida (US 20150002258).
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses (Figs.1-2):
A fuse (10) comprising: a fuse body (120); a fusible element (114) disposed within (See Fig.1) the fuse body (120); first (112c- the one on the left) and second (112c- the one on the right) terminals extending from opposite ends (Fig.1: both 112c's are on opposite sides of 114 and are outside of 120) of the fusible element (114) and out of the fuse body (120); an arc suppressing material (140); wherein the arc suppressing material (140) is formed of a mixture ([0035]: "the arc extinguishing material may, for example, be selected from quartz, silicone, melamine, glass, or a combination thereof"- 140 can be made from a combination of quartz, silicone, and melamine) of sand ([0035]: the quartz will define the sand), an arc suppressant ([0035]: the melamine will define the arc suppressant), and a flame retarding binder ([0035]: the melamine will define the arc suppressant), and a flame retarding binder ([0035]: the silicone will define the flame retarding binder).
However, Chang does not disclose:
A first puck formed of an arc suppressing material disposed on a first side of the fusible element; and a second puck formed of the arc suppressing material disposed on a second side of the fusible element opposite the first side.
Yoshida, however, teaches (Figs.1-4):
A first puck (26a) formed of an arc suppressing material (26) disposed on a first side (Fig.4: bottom side of 4) of the fusible element (4); and a second puck (26b) formed of the arc suppressing material (26) disposed on a second side (Fig.4: upper side of 4) of the fusible element (4) opposite the first side (Fig.4: bottom side of 4) (Fig.4: the first and second pucks are on opposite sides of each other with respect to 4).
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 modify the device of Chang such that the arc suppressing material comprises a first puck formed of the arc suppressing material disposed on a first side of the fusible element and a second puck formed of the arc suppressing material disposed on a second side of the fusible element opposite the first side, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of binding and encapsulating the arc suppressing material to the fusible element as suggested by Yoshida ([0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the arc suppressant ([0035]: the melamine will define the arc suppressant) is one of melamine ([0035]: melamine is included in the combination/mixture of 140) and cyanuric acid.
Regarding claim 11, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the flame retarding binder ([0035]: the silicone will define the flame retarding binder) is a silicone-based material ([0035]: silicone is included in the combination/mixture of 140 and is thus a silicone-based material).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida further teaches:
See next page→
Wherein the first (Figs.1-2: the left 10 and 12 in combination) and second (Figs.1-2: the right 10 and 12 in combination) terminals are bent to define a cradle for receiving at least one of the first puck (26a) and the second puck (26b) (Fig.4: the first and second terminals are bent to form a cradle to receive 26b).
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 Chang such that the first and second terminals are bent to form a cradle for receiving at least one of the first puck and the second puck, as claimed, in order to achieve the efficient binding and encapsulating means as outlined in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 14, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the fuse (10) is a surface mount fuse (Fig.1: 10 is a surface mount fuse due to the first and second terminals being used to be connected to a surface in order to form an electrical connection- also see [0027] of Yoshida which teaches a fuse similar to 10 of Chang and explicitly calls the fuse a "surface-mounted fuse", and thus also making 10 of Chang a surface mount fuse).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida further teaches:
Wherein the first puck (26a) and the second puck (26b) are pre-cast elements (Fig.4 and [0038]-[0040]: 26a and 26b are pre-cast elements in order to embed 4).
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 Chang such that the first puck and second puck are pre-cast elements, as claimed, in order to achieve the efficient binding and encapsulating means as outlined in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, Chang further discloses:
Wherein the fusible element (114) and the first (112c- the one on the left) and second (112c- the one on the right) terminals are formed from a single piece of material (See Figs.1-2 and [0030]: 110 includes 112 and 114 and 110 is a single piece material, and thus 112 and 114 will also be a single piece material).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20240290565) and Yoshida (US 20150002258) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20140133059).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chang does not teach:
Wherein the flame retarding binder is polydimethylsiloxane.
Wang, however, teaches (Fig.5):
Wherein the flame retarding binder (13d) is polydimethylsiloxane ([0065]).
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 Wang to further modify the device of modified Chang such that the flame retarding binder is polydimethylsiloxane, as claimed, in order to provide a material that can reduce energy caused by arcing and avoid short circuits caused by sputter from forming as taught by Wang ([0060]). Furthermore, utilizing a material that can also function as a pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Wang ([0065]) will provide a simple and efficient means of coupling the arc suppressing material to the fuse body.
See next page→
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210210300: teaches a surface mount fuse that has an arc extinguishing material that is made out of sand or a mixture of a flame retardant and epoxy resin.
US 20210024730: teaches how it is known that silicone is considered to be a flame retardant.
CN 107845555: teaches an arc extinguishing material that is made from a mixture comprising a sand, melamine, and a flame-retardant binder.
US 5914649: teaches how it is known in the art that silicone is considered to be a flame retardant.
US 5357234: teaches a fuse that is known in the art in which the terminals extend outside the housing and the housing holding arc-extinguishing material.
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.
See next page→
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
