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
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/08/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 are pending in this application. As directed, claim 1 has been amended; claims 3 and 6 cancelled.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 09/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, regarding the newly added limitation “the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater … is axisymmetric with respect to a line orthogonal to the center line” to the independent claim 1 (lines 12-14), Embodiment Fig.32 of the prior art Suetsugu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0159296 A1) is newly applied to teach the above newly added limitation. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suetsugu et al. Embodiment Fig.1a (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0159296 A1, previously cited) in view of Li et al. (CN 105376884 A, previously cited), Suetsugu et al. Embodiment Fig.32 and further in view of Kawashima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0159592 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a discloses an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (heating electrode device 20, Suetsugu Fig.1a), comprising:
a plurality of heater wires (heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) disposed at intervals to allow transmission of electromagnetic waves (Suetsugu Par.0209 discloses: “The heat-generating conducting body 22 generates heat by being energized. ”; it is well known that objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation; therefore, the heat-generating conducting body 22 allow transmission of electromagnetic waves);
a pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a), one (first bus bar electrode 21a, Suetsugu Fig.1a) of the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) being coupled to one end of each of the heater wires (top end of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) (Suetsugu Fig.1a shows the first bus bar electrode 21a being coupled to the top end of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22), another one (second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) of the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) being coupled to another end of each of the heater wires (bottom end of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) (Suetsugu Fig.1a shows the second bus bar electrode 21b being coupled to the bottom end of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22); and
a pair of coupling wires (pair of coupling wires includes coupling wires 1 and 2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below), one (coupling wire 1, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) of the pair of coupling wires (pair of coupling wires includes coupling wires 1 and 2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) being coupled to one (first bus bar electrode 21a, Suetsugu Fig.1a) of the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a), another one (coupling wire 2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) of the pair of coupling wires (pair of coupling wires 1 and 2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) being coupled to another one (second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) of the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a),
wherein the lateral wires (lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) each have a cross section larger than a cross section of each of the heater wires (each of heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) (Suetsugu Fig.1a shows each of first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b have a cross section larger than a cross section of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22),
wherein each of the plurality of heater wires (each of heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) has a shape of a single straight line and is parallel to the center line (center line, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) (Suetsugu Fig.1a shows each of heat-generating conducting body 22 has a shape of a single straight line and is parallel to the center line),
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein an interval between the adjacent heater wires (heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is less than or equal to 10 mm (Suetsugu Par.0211 discloses: “It is preferable that an interval B between the adjacent heat-generating conducting bodies 22 illustrated as B in FIG. 4 be equal to or more than 0.5 mm and equal to or less than 5.00 mm.”; therefore, Suetsugu teaches the interval between adjacent heater wires is equal to or more than 0.5 mm and equal to or less than 5.00 mm, thus, Suetsugu teaches the range that is within the claimed range);
wherein a width of each of the heater wires (heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is less than or equal to 400 μm (Suetsugu Par.0211 discloses: “In the cross section, when it is assumed that the width be WB and the length of the side opposite to WB be WT, it is preferable that WB>WT, 3 μm≤WB≤15 μm, and 1 μm≤WT≤12 μm are satisfied.”, therefore, Suetsugu teaches the width of each of the heater wires is 3 μm ≤ WB ≤ 15 μm and 1 μm ≤ WT ≤ 12 μm (see WB and WT in Fig.4 of Suetsugu), which is less than 400 μm).
Regarding the limitation about a width of each of the heater wires is less than or equal to 400 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the prior art Suetsugu Par.0211 discloses: “In the cross section, when it is assumed that the width be WB and the length of the side opposite to WB be WT, it is preferable that WB>WT, 3 μm≤WB≤15 μm, and 1 μm≤WT≤12 μm are satisfied.”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Suetsugu teaches certain range of width of each of the heater wires, and having a specific range of width of each of the heater wires is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the width of each of the heater wires is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the width of each of the heater wires would impact the heating surface of the heater, thus, affecting the heating capacity of the heater. A heater with uniformly distributed heat over the entire surface of the heater would achieve optimal heating capacity; thus, the width of each of the heater wires is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of each of the heater wires to be less than or equal to 400 μm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
wherein a thickness of each of the heater wires (heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is less than or equal to 10 μm (Suetsugu Par.0211 discloses: “Furthermore, it is preferable that the thickness H of the heat-generating conducting body 22 be equal to or larger than 5 μm and equal to or less than 30 μm.”. Since the reference shows the overlap with the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the thickness of each of the heater wires of the prior art is 5 μm to 30 μm which overlaps with the claimed thickness of less than or equal to 10 μm, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
wherein a cross section of each of the heater wires (heat-generating conducting body 22, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2 (according to Suetsugu Fig.4, it is noted that the cross section of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22 is equal to [(WT + WB)/2 * H]; since Suetsugu Par.0211 discloses 3 μm≤WB≤15 μm, 1 μm≤WT≤12 μm and H is equal to or larger than 5 μm and equal to or less than 30 μm, therefore, the cross section of each of the heater wires is greater than or equal to 10 μm2 and less than or equal to 405 μm2 according to the equation of the cross section of each of the heat-generating conducting body 22 based on the equation [(WT + WB)/2 * H]. Since the reference shows the overlap with the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the cross section of each of the heater wires of the prior art is greater than or equal to 10 μm2 and less than or equal to 405 μm2 which overlaps with the claimed cross section of greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2; and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.)
Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a does not disclose:
wherein the pair of coupling wires each include a main wire section formed along the center line and two auxiliary wire sections branched from the main wire section, the auxiliary wire sections each being coupled to the lateral wire at two coupling points that are axisymmetric with respect to the center line, and
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater is axisymmetric with respect to a center line intersecting the pair of lateral wires and is axisymmetric with respect to a line orthogonal to the center line;
wherein when X is a ratio of a length of the lateral wire from the center line to the coupling point to a length of the lateral wire from the center line to one end of the lateral wire, and Y is a ratio of a cross section of the lateral wire to a cross section of the heater wire, the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater satisfies the following expression:
(X-0.28)2/0.282+(Y- 11.6)2/3.42 ≤ 1,
where X is smaller than or equal to 0.56 and Y is larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0;
wherein a width of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 400 μm;
wherein a thickness of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 10 μm;
wherein a cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2; and
wherein the cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than the cross section of each of the heater wires.
Li teaches an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (Li Fig.4), comprising:
wherein the pair of coupling wires (pair of coupling wires includes coupling wires 1 and 2, Li annotated Fig.4 below) each include a main wire section (main wire section, Li annotated Fig.4 below) formed along the center line (center line, Li annotated Fig.4 below) and two auxiliary wire sections (each of the main wire section branches to two auxiliary wire sections, Li annotated Fig.4 below) branched from the main wire section (main wire section, Li annotated Fig.4 below), the auxiliary wire sections (auxiliary wire sections, Li annotated Fig.4 below) each being coupled to the lateral wire (lateral wires includes upper bus 3.1 and lower bus 3.2, Li Fig.4) at two coupling points (coupling points, Li annotated Fig.4 below) (it is noted that upper auxiliary wire sections being coupled to upper bus 3.1 at two coupling points, and lower auxiliary wire sections being coupled to lower bus 3.2 at two coupling points) that are axisymmetric (as shown in Li annotated Fig.4 below) with respect to the center line (center line, Li annotated Fig.4 below);
X is a ratio of a length of the lateral wire from the center line to the coupling point (X1, see Li annotated Fig.4 below) to a length of the lateral wire from the center line to one end of the lateral wire (X2, see Li annotated Fig.4 below)
Regarding the limitation about X is smaller than or equal to 0.56, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the Li annotated Fig.4 below where the reference Li shows certain range of length of X1 and X2 in order to calculate X because X = X1/X2), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Li teaches certain range of length of each of X1 and X2, and having a specific range of length of each of the X1 and X2 is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the length of each of the X1 and X2 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the length of each of the X1 and the X2 would impact the transfer of current from the power source to the heating wires, thus, affecting the heating capacity of the heater. A heater with uniformly distributed heat over the entire surface of the heater would achieve optimal heating capacity; thus, the length of each of the X1 and the X2 is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the X1 and the X2 of Li, by making the length of the X1 to be approximately half of the length of the X2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Therefore, since the length of X1 is approximately half of the length of the X2, X is equal to approximately 0.5 because X = X1/X2, thus, Li teaches the range that is within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image2.png
1122
1536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in combination, by substituting the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a pair of coupling wires and coupling locations of the coupling wires (see coupling wires 1 and 2 in Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a above) with the Li pair of coupling wires and coupling locations of the coupling wires (see coupling wires 1 and 2 in Li annotated Fig.4 above), Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li teaches:
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (heating electrode device 20, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is axisymmetric with respect to a center line (center line, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a above) intersecting the pair of lateral wires (pair of coupling wires includes coupling wires 1 and 2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a pair of coupling wires and coupling locations of the coupling wires (see coupling wires 1 and 2 in Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a above) with the Li pair of coupling wires and coupling locations of the coupling wires (see coupling wires 1 and 2 in Li annotated Fig.4 above), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of proving connecting wires between the power source and the heater in order for the power source to apply electric current to the heater. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater is axisymmetric with respect to a line orthogonal to the center line;
Y is a ratio of a cross section of the lateral wire to a cross section of the heater wire, the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater satisfies the following expression:
(X-0.28)2/0.282+(Y- 11.6)2/3.42 ≤ 1;
Y is larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0;
wherein a width of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 400 μm;
wherein a thickness of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 10 μm;
wherein a cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2; and
wherein the cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than the cross section of each of the heater wires.
Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 teaches an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater, comprising:
wherein the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (320, Suetsugu Fig.32) is axisymmetric with respect to a line (line, Suetsugu annotated Fig.32 below) orthogonal to the center line (center line, Suetsugu annotated Fig.32 below) (Suetsugu annotated Fig.32 below shows the heater 320 is axisymmetric with respect to a line orthogonal to the center line);
PNG
media_image3.png
582
891
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 modify Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, by adding the teachings of the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater is axisymmetric with respect to a line orthogonal to the center line, as taught by Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32, in order to optimize heating uniformity, efficiency, and computational modeling. The modification allows for even distribution of heat across the emblem, thus, efficiently melting ice and snow.
Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li and Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 teaches the apparatus as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
Y is a ratio of a cross section of the lateral wire to a cross section of the heater wire, the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater satisfies the following expression:
(X-0.28)2/0.282+(Y- 11.6)2/3.42 ≤ 1;
Y is larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0;
wherein a width of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 400 μm;
wherein a thickness of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 10 μm;
wherein a cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2; and
wherein the cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than the cross section of each of the heater wires.
Kawashima teaches an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (Kawashima Fig.4):
wherein a width of each of the lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) is less than or equal to 400 μm (Kawashima Par.0064 teaches: “The wiring pattern 33 has a heater wiring width of 50 to 70 μm”; therefore, Kawashima teaches width of each of the lateral wires is 50 to 70 μm, which is within the claimed range);
Regarding the limitation about a width of each of the lateral wires is less than or equal to 400 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the prior art Kawashima Par.0064 teaches: “The wiring pattern 33 has a heater wiring width of 50 to 70 μm”), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Kawashima teaches certain range of width of each of the lateral wires, and having a specific range of width of each of the lateral wires is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the width of each of the lateral wires is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the width of each of the lateral wires would impact the transfer of current from the power source to heating wires and impact the heating surface of the heater, thus, affecting the heating capacity of the heater. A heater with uniformly distributed heat over the entire surface of the heater would achieve optimal heating capacity; thus, the width of each of the lateral wires is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of each of the lateral wires to be less than or equal to 400 μm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
wherein a thickness of each of the lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) is less than or equal to 10 μm (Kawashima Par.0064 teaches: “The wiring pattern 33 has a heater wiring width of 50 to 70 μm, a pitch of 4 to 6 mm, and a plating thickness of 10 to 20 μm.” And Kawashima Par.0016 teaches: “a wiring pattern of the transparent heater film is formed by the copper plating”; therefore, Kawashima teaches thickness of each of the lateral wires is 10 to 20 μm. Since the reference shows the overlap at the end point (10 μm). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the thickness of each of the lateral wires of the prior art is 10 μm to 20 μm which overlaps at the end point (10 μm) with the claimed thickness of less than or equal to 10 μm and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.);
wherein a cross section of each of the lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) is greater than or equal to 200 μm2 and less than or equal to 4000 μm2 (it is noted that cross section of each of the lateral wires is πr2, since Kawashima teaches width of each of the lateral wires is 50 to 70 μm, the cross section of each of the lateral wires is approximately 1963 μm2 to 3848 μm2 according to the equation of cross section of each of the lateral wires πr2; therefore, Kawashima teaches cross section of each of the lateral wires is within the claimed range); and
wherein the cross section of each of the lateral wires (Kawashima teaches cross section of each of the lateral wires is approximately 1963 μm2 to 3848 μm2, as cited and explained above) is greater than the cross section of each of the heater wires (it is noted that the primary reference Suetsugu the cross section of each of the heater wire is 10 μm2 to 405 μm2, as cited and explained above) (therefore, in combination, Suetsugu in view of Li and Suetsugu teaches the cross section of each of the lateral wires is greater than the cross section of each of the heater wires);
Y is a ratio of a cross section of the lateral wire (Kawashima teaches cross section of each of the lateral wires is approximately 1963 μm2 to 3848 μm2, as cited and explained above) to a cross section of the heater wire (it is noted that the primary reference Suetsugu discloses the cross section of each of the heater wire is 10 μm2 to 405 μm2, as cited and explained above), Y is larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0 (Kawashima teaches cross section of each of the lateral wires is approximately 1963 μm2 to 3848 μm2, as cited and explained above, it is noted that the primary reference Suetsugu discloses the cross section of each of the heater wires is 10 μm2 to 405 μm2, as cited and explained above; therefore, Y = cross section of each of the lateral wire / cross section of each of the heater wire = 3848 μm2 / 405 μm2 = 9.5, which is within the claimed range)
Regarding the limitation about Y is larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the prior art Suetsugu discloses the cross section of each of the heater wires is 10 μm2 to 405 μm2, as cited and explained above; and the prior art Kawashima teaches cross section of each of the lateral wires is approximately 1963 μm2 to 3848 μm2, as cited and explained above), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches certain range of cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire, and having a specific range of cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire would impact the transfer of current from the power source to heating wires and impact the heating surface of the heater, thus, affecting the heating capacity of the heater. A heater with uniformly distributed heat over the entire surface of the heater would achieve optimal heating capacity; thus, the cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross section of the heater wire and cross section of the lateral wire by making the ratio of the cross section of the lateral wire to the cross section of the heater wire to be larger than or equal to 8.2 and less than or equal to 15.0 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
wherein the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) has an outwardly projecting curved shape (as shown in Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) to form substantially ellipse outer shape (as shown in Kawashima Fig.4);
PNG
media_image4.png
803
869
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 substitute the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a pair of lateral wires (see the first bus bar electrode 21a and the second bus bar electrode 21b as shown in Suetsugu Fig.1a) with the Kawashima pair of lateral wires (see the lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2 in the Kawashima Fig.4), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of proving lateral wires on the outer of the heater wires in order for the power source to apply electric current to the heater wires through the lateral wires. MPEP 2143 I (B). It is noted that by substituting the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a pair of lateral wires (see the first bus bar electrode 21a and the second bus bar electrode 21b as shown in Suetsugu Fig.1a) with the Kawashima pair of lateral wires (see the lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2 in the Kawashima Fig.4), the top end of each of the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a heat-generating conducting body 22 would be coupled to the Kawashima lateral wire 1 and the bottom end of each of the Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a heat-generating conducting body 22 would be coupled to the Kawashima lateral wire 2.
Since Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the outer shape of the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater is substantially ellipse shape, as cited and incorporated above, and it is noted that the formula for an ellipse shape is (((X-h)2/(a2)) + ((Y-k)2/(b2)) = 1), as evidenced by Study.com (https://study.com/academy/lesson/ellipse-definition-equation-examples.html, accessed on 03/12/2026), Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima further teaches X is a ratio of a length of the lateral wire from the center line to the coupling point to a length of the lateral wire from the center line to one end of the lateral wire, and Y is a ratio of a cross section of the lateral wire to a cross section of the heater wire, therefore, the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater of Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima satisfies the following expression because the electromagnetic wave transmitting heater has substantially ellipse outer shape: (X-h)2/a2+(Y- k)2/b2 ≤ 1
While Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater satisfying the expression for an ellipse, (X-h)2/a2+(Y-k)2/b2≤1, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima does not explicitly teach wherein h=0.28, a=0.28, k=11.6, and b=3.4 as required by the claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include h=0.28, a=0.28, k=11.6, and b=3.4, because the courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II (A). In this case, the particular values represent the shape of the ellipse. That is, using different values for h, a, k, and b will result in ellipses that can be stretched in one direction or the other. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose appropriate values for h, a, k, and b, in order to have the heater positioned over a desired region.
Regarding claim 2, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein as a distance from the center line (center line, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a above in the rejection of claim 1) along the lateral wire (lateral wires, Kawashima Fig.4; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) increases, a distance between the pair of lateral wires (lateral wires, Kawashima Fig.4; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) decreases and a length of the heater wire (length of heat-generating conducting body 22, see the heat-generating conducting body 22 in Suetsugu Fig.1a) decreases (it is noted that in combination, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the length of heat-generating conducting body 22 decreases as the distance from the center line along the lateral wire increases because pair of lateral wires has an outwardly projecting curved shape with the distance between the pair of lateral wires being largest along the center line, and the distance is getting smaller as approaching two ends [left and right ends] of each of the lateral wires, as shown in Kawashima Fig.4 and as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1, and since the primary reference Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a already discloses that one of the pair of lateral wires being coupled to one end of each of the heater wires, another one of the pair of lateral wires being coupled to another end of each of the heater wires, as cited and explained previously in the rejection of claim 1; therefore, in combination, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches as a distance from the center line along the lateral wire increases, a distance between the pair of lateral wires decreases and a length of the heater wire decreases because of the outwardly projecting curved shape of pair of lateral wires as shown in Kawashima Fig.4).
Regarding claim 4, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a also discloses:
wherein a distance (distance d1, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) between the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a) is smaller than a distance (distance d2, Suetsugu annotated Fig.1a below) between one end and another end of each of the pair of lateral wires (each of pair of lateral wires includes first bus bar electrode 21a and second bus bar electrode 21b, Suetsugu Fig.1a).
PNG
media_image5.png
752
1122
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 4, and also teaches:
wherein the pair of lateral wires (pair of lateral wires includes lateral wire 1 and lateral wire 2, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) has an outwardly projecting curved shape (as shown in Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) with a vertex (vertex, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below), the vertex (vertex, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) being an intersection with the center line (centerline, Kawashima annotated Fig.4 below) (it is noted that in combination, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the pair of lateral wires has outwardly projecting curved shape, as shown in Kawashima Fig.4 and as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
803
869
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suetsugu et al. Embodiment Fig.1a (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0159296 A1, previously cited) in view of Li et al. (CN 105376884 A, previously cited), Suetsugu et al. Embodiment Fig.32, Kawashima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0159592 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Hirata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0039216 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 2, and but does not explicitly teach:
wherein among the plurality of heater wires, a heating amount of the heater wire having a largest heating amount is smaller than or equal to double a heating amount of the heater wire having a smallest heating amount.
Hirata teaches an electromagnetic wave transmitting heater (Hirata Fig.4):
wherein among the plurality of heater wires (heating conductors 40 and 41 within heating element 10, Hirata Fig.4), a heating amount of the heater wire having a largest heating amount is smaller than or equal to double a heating amount of the heater wire having a smallest heating amount (Hirata Para.0148 teaches: “Thus, by making wider the width W of a certain coupling conductor 40 than the width W of another coupling conductor 40 whose path length is shorter than the path length of the former coupling conductor 40, resistance values of the respective coupling conductors 40 can be made uniform. In particular, when a value obtained by dividing the width W of the coupling conductor 40 by the square of the path length is constant, heat generated per unit area can be made uniform in each coupling conductor 40. Thus, the transparent heating element 10 can uniformly generate heat entirely”; therefore, Hirata teaches the heating element is designed so that in any shape or orientation, the heat generated will be uniform across the component.).
While Hirata teaches using heating wires with different heating amounts as described above, Hirata does not explicitly teach wherein the heating amount of the heater wire having largest heating amount is smaller than or equal to double a heating amount of the heating wire having a smallest heating amount. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the heating amount of the heater wire having largest heating amount is smaller than or equal to double a heating amount of the heating wire having a smallest heating amount. The courts have held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hirata Par.0148 & Fig.4), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range, MPEP 2144.05.
In this case, Hirata teaches the use of heating wires with different heating amounts as described above to ensure uniform heating across the entire heating element, and having a specific size or length (for example, in an ellipse shape) for the heating amount is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the heating amount is recognized as a result-effective variable as a result of a routine experimentation. In this case, adjusting the heating amount to generate a uniform heating distribution across the entirety of the vehicle emblem’s heating element is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.1a in view of Li, Suetsugu Embodiment Fig.32 and Kawashima, by adding the teachings of wherein among the plurality of heater wires, a heating amount of the heater wire having a largest heating amount is smaller than or equal to double a heating amount of the heater wire having a smallest heating amount, as taught by modified Hirata, in order to achieve a uniform heating distribution across the entirety of the heating element; thus, enhancing the performance of the heating element.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Phan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0139803 A1) discloses a pane having an electric heating layer, including: a first pane having a surface; at least one electric heating layer that is applied to at least part of the surface and has at least one uncoated zone; at least two busbars, provided for connection to a voltage source, which are connected to the electric heating layer such that a current path for a heating current is formed between the busbars; and n separating lines which electrically subdivide the electric layer into m segments.
Okumura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0111776 A1) discloses a radio wave transmissive cover is arranged in a path of a radio wave of a millimeter wave radar device. The cover includes a transparent member, which serves as the surface of the cover, and an ornamental layer, which is formed on the rear surface of the transparent member.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/12/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761