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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon entry of the amendment filed on 12 June 2026, Claim(s) 1, 12, 13 and 17-19 is/are amended; Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 is/are withdrawn and Claim(s) 3-6, 11, 14-16 and 20 is/are cancelled. The currently pending claims are Claims 1-2,7-10,12-13 and 17.
Based on applicants’ remarks and amendments (e.g. the specific components and loading amounts), the 102 rejections based on Cai, Chu and Chen are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are provided necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US-5451919-A).
Claims 12, 17, 19-20: Chu discloses a circuit protection device with two electrodes and a PPTC component comprising conductive fillers dispersed in a matrix comprising PVDF (MP of around 170 °C) and ETFE (MP around 235 °C) at various loading ratios (abs, col 2/55 to col 4/60, col 5/1 to col 6/30 and Tables I-VI with accompanying text). The Chu reference discloses the claimed invention with ETFE and PVDF at various loading amounts but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements and 1:1 loading amount with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Chu discloses the PVDF and ETFE at various loading amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and to optimize the loading amounts and their respective amounts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the PVDF and ETFE, less obvious. Here, Chu discloses each of the claimed components and similar loading amounts and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 13 and 18: Chu discloses the melting point difference between the two polymers (col 2/55 to col 4/60, col 5/1 to col 6/30 and Tables I-VI with accompanying text).
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-20220013259-A1).
Claims 12 and 17-20: Chen discloses a circuit protection device with two electrodes and a PPTC component comprising conductive fillers dispersed in a matrix comprising PE (MP 135 °C), PVDF (MP of around 170 °C) and ETFE (MP around 235 °C) at various loading ratios (abs, ¶3-6, 21-32, Fig 1 and Tables I-III with accompanying text). The Chen reference discloses the claimed invention with ETFE and PVDF at various loading amounts but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements and 1:1 loading amount with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Chu discloses PVDF and ETFE at various loading amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components and to optimize the loading amounts and their respective amounts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as PVDF and ETFE, less obvious. Here, Chu discloses each of the claimed components and similar loading amounts and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection and optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 13 and 18: Chen discloses the melting point difference between the two polymers of at least 20 °C (abs) with examples greater than 50 °C (¶3-6, 21-32 and Tables I-III with accompanying text).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7-9, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to Cai, Chu and Chen have been fully considered and are persuasive. The anticipation rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are provided.
Applicant argues that the Chen or Chu reference does not disclose the ETFE component and the loading amounts (pg.9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Chen discloses ETFE in ¶21 and 27 and Chu in col 4/52.
Applicant argues the unexpected results of excellent resistance variation based on Table 1 of the specification (pg. 8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, in order to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness, the applicant may show (1) criticality or unexpected result of the range, (2) the prior art teaches away from the claim or (3) pertinent secondary factors to rebut the rejection under 35 USC 103. MPEP 2144.05. Here, the applicant intends to show the criticality or unexpected result of excellent resistance variation based on Table 1. However, it is noted that the showing in applicant’s specification is not commensurate with the instant claims. In particular, the Showing in applicant’s specification is directed to specific and distinct components at specific loading amounts and differ from the instant claims which are directed to a broader genus of components. After a careful evaluation and consideration of the Showing, it is the examiner’s position that the specific limitations/examples presented in Table 1 would not inexorably extrapolate to the instant broader limitations. Applicant is welcome to provide any evidence that the narrower features recited in the Showing would inevitably lead to the same critical and unexpected results in the broader components of the instant claims. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Thus, the Showing has been found to be insufficient to overcome the rejections and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li discloses a PPTC with PVDF and ETFE at various loading amounts.
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 TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights