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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-10,12-20 and 22 are pending.
Claims 1, 13-15 and 17 are amended.
Claims 11 and 21 are cancelled.
Claim 22 is newly added.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 and 22 are examined as follow:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 12-13 and 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102013216290B4 (previously cited) herein set forth as DE6290B4, in view of Murakami et al (US2008/0302781A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Murakami.
Regarding claim 1, DE6290B4 discloses a ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) having an independently controllable middle region (refer to “middle” annotated in fig.3), the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) comprising:
a center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) including a center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) provided at first position corresponding to a center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) of a heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) and an edge heating element (refer to “edge element” annotated in fig.3) provided at second position corresponding to an edge region (refer to “edge” annotated in fig.3) of the heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3); and
a middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) provided at third position corresponding to a middle region (refer to “middle” annotated in fig.3) surrounded by the center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) and the edge region (refer to “edge” annotated in fig.3) of the heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3), and
one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) for supplying power to the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3); and
one or more second electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3) for supplying power to the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3).
wherein the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) further comprises a heating wire (refer to the line formed the #22 in fig.3) connecting electrically the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) and the edge heating element (refer to “edge element” annotated in fig.3),
wherein the center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) in which the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) is formed is a circular region (refer to the circular shape of “center element” annotated in fig.3),
wherein the one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) are connected to the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3);
wherein a first one (refer to any one of the first and second terminals, they are opposite against each other) of the first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) is disposed opposite (refer to the position on the first and second electrode terminals in fig.3) a first one of the second electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more first electrode terminals are directly connected to the center heating element; wherein the first and second electrode terminals are disposed within the center region where the center heating element is formed.
In the similar field of a ceramic heater with individual heating zone, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the annotated “first electrode terminals” in fig.1) are directly connected to the center heating element (#4b, fig.1); wherein the first and second electrode terminals (refer to the annotated “first electrode terminals” and “second electrode terminals” in fig.1) are disposed within the center region (refer to annotated “center region” in fig.1) where the center heating element (#4b, fig.1) is formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s ceramic heater with wherein the one or more first electrode terminals are directly connected to the center heating element; wherein the first and second electrode terminals are disposed within the center region where the center heating element is formed, as taught by Murakami, in order to provide a more compacted heater and reduce required 2D surface area for the whole heater, such that would be able to squeeze in tighter installation.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further discloses wherein the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) and the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) are electrically separated and driven independently of each other.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) and the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) are provided on the same plane (refer to fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) is formed to have a ring shape (refer to the shape of “middle element” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) has a heating wire arrangement density (refer to the number of wire in “edge element”) different from the edge heating element (refer to “edge element” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein a second one of the first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” that is also “common terminal” annotated in fig.3) of the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) and a second one of second electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more second terminals” that is also “common terminal” annotated in fig.3) of the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) are configured as a common terminal (refer to the two “common terminal” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein a radius of the center heating element (#22, fig.3) is smaller (refer to fig.3) than a radius of an inner circumference of the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 17, DE6290B4 discloses a ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) having an independently controllable middle region (refer to “middle” annotated in fig.3), the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) comprising:
a center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) including a center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) provided at first position corresponding to a center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) of a heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3) and an edge heating element (refer to “edge element” annotated in fig.3) provided at second position corresponding to an edge region (refer to “edge” annotated in fig.3) of the heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3), wherein the center region in which the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) being formed is a circular region (refer to the circular area of “center element” annotated in fig.3), and the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) has a ring shape (refer to the shape of “center element” annotated in fig.3); and
a middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) provided at third position corresponding to a middle region (refer to “middle” annotated in fig.3) surrounded by the center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) and the edge region (refer to “edge” annotated in fig.3) of the heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3),
one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) for supplying power to the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3), and
one or more second electrode terminal (refer to the “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3) for supplying power to the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3),
wherein the one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the “first terminals” annotated in fig.3) are connected to the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3),
wherein a first one (refer to any one of the first and second terminals, they are opposite against each other) of the first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) is disposed opposite (refer to the position on the first and second electrode terminals in fig.3) a first one of the second electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more first electrode terminals are directly connected to the center heating element; wherein the first and second electrode terminals are disposed within the center region where the center heating element is formed.
In the similar field of a ceramic heater with individual heating zone, Murakami discloses wherein the one or more first electrode terminals (refer to the annotated “first electrode terminals” in fig.1) are directly connected to the center heating element (#4b, fig.1); wherein the first and second electrode terminals (refer to the annotated “first electrode terminals” and “second electrode terminals” in fig.1) are disposed within the center region (refer to annotated “center region” in fig.1) where the center heating element (#4b, fig.1) is formed.
PNG
media_image2.png
443
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s ceramic heater with wherein the first electrode terminals are directly connected to the center heating element; wherein the first electrode terminals are disposed within the center region where the center heating element is formed, as taught by Murakami, in order to provide a more compacted heater and reduce required 2D surface area for the heater, such that would be able to squeeze in tighter installation.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) has a ring shape (refer to the shape of “center element” annotated in fig.3).
Regarding claim 20, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 19, DE6290B4 further wherein the center region (refer to “center” annotated in fig.3) in which the center heating element (refer to “center element” annotated in fig.3) is provided has a center corresponding to a center (refer to “center of surface” annotated in fig.3) of the heating surface of the ceramic heater (refer to fig.3).
Regarding claim 22, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein a second one (refer to the any one of the first and second terminals, they are opposite against each other) of the first electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) is disposed opposite (refer to the position on the first and second electrode terminals in fig.3) a second one of the second electrode terminals (refer to the “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3).
, and
wherein the first one and the second one of the first electrode terminals (refer to the any one of the first and second terminals, they are aligned each other) are aligned with the first one and the second one of the second electrode terminals (refer to the any one of the first and second terminals, they are aligned each other) respectively.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102013216290B4 (previously cited) herein set forth as DE6290B4, in view of Murakami et al (US2008/0302781A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Murakami, and further in view of Jung et al (US2018/0254204A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Jung.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are embedded in the ceramic heater.
In the similar field of ceramic heater, Jung discloses wherein the center-edge heating element (third heating element #330 and second heating element #320, fig.3A) and the middle heating element (first heating element #310, fig.3A) are embedded in the ceramic heater (refer to fig. 3A and Paragraph 0041 cited above) (refer to paragraph 0041 cited: “…The body part (not shown) of the substrate heating apparatus 300 may be made using ceramic or metal, etc. according to its use or the process used. A heating element for heating the substrate may be included in the body part together with a high frequency electrode (not shown) used in the plasma process, etc. In addition, a plurality of pin holes (not shown) may be formed in the substrate heating apparatus 300 to mount the substrate on the top surface of the body part or allow lift pins for unloading the substrate to move outward.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s ceramic heater with the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are embedded in the ceramic heater, as taught by Jung, in order to provide a stronger heater, reduce physical damage of the heating element and also reduce complexity during replacing heater.
Claims 5-7, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102013216290B4 (previously cited) herein set forth as DE6290B4, in view of Murakami et al (US2008/0302781A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Murakami, and further in view of UMEKI (US2019/0341279A1 previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are provided on different planes.
In the similar field of ceramic heater, UMEKI discloses wherein the center-edge heating element (#40, fig. 1) and the middle heating element (#30, fig.1) are provided on different planes (refer to fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are provided on different planes, as taught by UEMKI, in order to provide better control on the heating the surface and can overlapping heated zone to increase heating if necessary (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…where the second heating resistor is sandwiched between the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion of the first heating resistor, a large amount of carbon component present in the vicinity (above and below) of the second heating resistor is consumed by reaction with the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion so that the second heating resistor fails to show a desired resistance value due to less amount of carbon component reacted with the second heating resistor…”).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of DE6290B4, Murakami and UEMKI discloses all feature set forth in claim 5, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one portion of the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are disposed to overlap each other in a vertical direction.
In the similar field of ceramic heater, UMEKI discloses wherein at least one portion of the center-edge heating element (#20, fig.1) and the middle heating element (#30, fig.1) are disposed to overlap each other in a vertical direction (refer to fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein at least one portion of the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are disposed to overlap each other in a vertical direction, as taught by UMEKI, in order to provide better control on the heating (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…where the second heating resistor is sandwiched between the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion of the first heating resistor, a large amount of carbon component present in the vicinity (above and below) of the second heating resistor is consumed by reaction with the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion so that the second heating resistor fails to show a desired resistance value due to less amount of carbon component reacted with the second heating resistor…”).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the center-edge heating element includes a center heating element and an edge heating element that are provided on different planes.
In the similar field of ceramic heater, UMEKI discloses wherein the center-edge heating element (#40, fig. 1) and the middle heating element (#30, fig.1) are provided on different planes (refer to fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are provided on different planes, as taught by UEMKI, in order to provide better control on the heating the surface and can overlapping heated zone to increase heating if necessary (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…where the second heating resistor is sandwiched between the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion of the first heating resistor, a large amount of carbon component present in the vicinity (above and below) of the second heating resistor is consumed by reaction with the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion so that the second heating resistor fails to show a desired resistance value due to less amount of carbon component reacted with the second heating resistor…”).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 further wherein the one or more first electrode terminals (refer to “one or more first terminals” annotated in fig.3) of the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) are disposed on a plane (refer to fig. 3) where the center-edge heating element (#22, fig.3) is provided, and wherein the one or more second electrode terminals (refer to “one or more second terminals” annotated in fig.3) of the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) are disposed on a plane (refer to fig. 3) where the middle heating element (refer to “middle element” annotated in fig.3) is provided.
However, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose two different plane for center-edge heating element and middle heating element.
In the field of ceramic heater, UMEKI discloses two different plane (refer to fig.1) for center-edge heating element (#20, fig.1) and middle heating element (#30, fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein at least one portion of the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are disposed to overlap each other in a vertical direction, as taught by UMEKI, in order to provide better control on the heating (refer to Paragraph 0011 cited: “…where the second heating resistor is sandwiched between the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion of the first heating resistor, a large amount of carbon component present in the vicinity (above and below) of the second heating resistor is consumed by reaction with the planer electrode and the planer first resistive portion so that the second heating resistor fails to show a desired resistance value due to less amount of carbon component reacted with the second heating resistor…”).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of DE6290B4, Murakami and UMEKI discloses all feature set forth in claim 14, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode terminals are disposed on an inside of a region corresponding to a region occupied by a shaft on a surface opposite to the heating surface of the ceramic heater.
In the similar field of a ceramic heater with individual heating zone, Murakami discloses wherein the electrode terminals (refer to annotated “terminal” in fig.4) are disposed on an inside of a region (refer to annotated “region” in fig.4) corresponding to a region occupied by a shaft (#8, fig.4) on a surface opposite (refer to the surface where #8 attached to in fig.4) to the heating surface (refer to annotated “heating surface” on fig.4) of the ceramic heater (#2A, fig.4).
PNG
media_image4.png
363
391
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein the electrode terminals are disposed on an inside of a region corresponding to a region occupied by a shaft on a surface opposite to the heating surface of the ceramic heater, as taught by Murakami, in order to provide a hollow and better controlled support for platform which the ceramic heater is on.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses all feature set forth in claim 5, DE6290B4 does not specifically disclose wherein the heating wire is a metal wire.
In the field of ceramic heater, UMEKI discloses wherein the heating wire is a metal wire (refer to paragraph 0039 cited: “…the electrode 20 is formed from a foil or mesh of heat-resistant metal material such as molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W) in a planar shape …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein the heating wire is a metal wire, as taught by UMEKI, in order to take advantage of heat-resistant property of the metal material, such that would have longer operational span and wide possible material for manufacturing the invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102013216290B4 (previously cited) herein set forth as DE6290B4, in view of Murakami et al (US2008/0302781A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Murakami, and further in view of Jung et al (US2018/0254204A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Jung.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of DE6290B4 and Murakami discloses all feature set forth in claim 1, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are resistance heating elements.
In the field of ceramic heater, Jung discloses all features set forth in claim 1, Jung further discloses wherein the center-edge heating element (third heating element #330 and second heating element #320, fig.3A) and the middle heating element (first heating element #310, fig.3A) are resistance heating elements (refer to Paragraph 0039 cited: “…IG. 4 illustrates a table calculating the resistance and amount of generated heat of the wire configuring the third heating element while varying the diameter of the wire according to an embodiment of the present invention. As can be seen from FIG. 4, when the diameter of a wire configuring the third heating element is 0.50 mm, the resistance of the wire is 0.030Ω, and when a current of 14.5 Å is applied to the wire, the wire presents an amount of generated heat of 6.27 W.…” and fig.4).
PNG
media_image5.png
315
753
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with the center-edge heating element and the middle heating element are resistance heating elements, as taught by Jung, in order to provide a type of well-known heating element, and also widely calculated resistance heating value, such that would save on design complexity and easier to enquire manufacturing material.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of DE6290B4, Murakami and Jung discloses all feature set forth in claim 8, DE6290B4 does not explicitly disclose wherein materials of the resistance heating elements are molybdenum (Mo).
In the similar field of a ceramic heater with individual heating zone, Murakami discloses wherein materials of the resistance heating elements are molybdenum (Mo) (refer to Paragraph 0019 cited: “…said resistance heating metal may be a metal selected from among elementary substances of molybdenum, vanadium, chrome, manganese, niobium, tantalum, nickel and tungsten and an alloy of the aforementioned. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DE6290B4’s invention with wherein materials of the resistance heating elements are molybdenum (Mo), as taught by Murakami, in order to have better reinforce the heating element, relaxing internal stresses, such that the heating element would not be easily bend, damage or crack by the internal stress (refer to Paragraph 0074 cited: “…the electrode 80A and the reinforcing member 80B are formed of metal mesh such as molybdenum so as to function as reinforcing members that relax an internal stress in the ceramic material when embedded in the ceramic material similar to a composite material …”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
Regarding to the newly amended limitation such as “…wherein a first one of the first electrode terminals is disposed opposite a first one of the second electrode terminals…” and “…wherein a second one of the first electrode terminals is disposed opposite a second one of the second electrode terminals, and wherein the first one and the second one of the first electrode terminals are aligned with the first one and the second one of the second electrode terminals, respectively.…”,
It is noted that such newly amended limitation does not overcome or distinguish from the prior art of records (refer to the 103 rejection above), since the term “opposite” and “aligned” is very board and boarder in the scope of interpretation that what applicant argued, such that the newly amended claims still read on the prior art of records.
It is suggested to clarify how such terms “opposite” and “aligned” are referring to in relative to the first and second terminals. Such that would clearly distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding to the argument of “impermissible hindsight” for the combination of DE6290B4 in view of Murakami.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the information/knowledge required for the combination are within the level of ordinary skill at the time, by simply relocating the terminal of DE6290B4’s terminals to the center region just as show by Murakami.
Regarding to the argument of “DE6290B4 leads away from the modification”.
It is noted that DE6290B4 does not have any teaching disclosed in the specification that lead away from such modification, furthermore, terminal in the center region would not interference a temperature fuse #15, since temperature fuse #15 does not occupant the whole #10b center region (refer to fig.3 below) and temperature fuse #15 is also already grouped up with the annotated first and second terminals (refer to the annotated fig.3 below). Modifying the terminals to the #10b center region would not have caused any interference to the temperature fuse #15 at all.
PNG
media_image6.png
434
690
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 January 21th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761