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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/12/2025, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 06/13/2025 (“Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 18 is/are canceled.
Claims(s) 21 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1–17 and 19–21 is/are pending. Of the pending claims, claim(s) 15–17 and 19–20 is/are currently withdrawn because they encompass other invention(s) not elected by Applicant on 09/11/2024.
Therefore, claim(s) 1–14 and 21 is/are addressed below.
Examiner's Note:
Claims 9–11 were previously indicated as allowable. Final Rejection at 3–4. However, as explained at length below, claim 8–11 are drawn to a distinct and divergent species. This creates confusion and results in enablement issues. Examiner recommends canceling claims 8–11.
Additionally, the many of the claimed widths creates a great a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim. Accordingly, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP 2173.06(II) (explaining “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”)
If Applicant would like to schedule an interview to review proposed amendments prior to filing a response, Examiner would happily participate to advance compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks were fully considered but because the great a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the below identified limitations exist.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Indefinite Issue 1
As to claims 1–14 and 21, the claims are unduly confusing when read in light of the Specification, which does not clearly explain the claimed widths and the Drawings do not clearly illustrate the claimed widths. Examiner will attempt to explain below; however, Applicant is invited to schedule an interview with Examiner to discuss the relevant issues. Please note that Examiner mapped the relevant claim limitations to the numbers set out in the Applicant’s Specification.
Claim 1 serves a useful example of how the claims are indefinite. Claim 1 recites “a width along the circumferential direction of the base body (1) of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the second extending section (222).” (note: this limitation is not indefite) This is best illustrated in Fig. 3; however, this width needs to labeled in the Drawings and the Specification needs to be amended to reflect the same.
Claim 1’s recitation of “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221)” is indefinite because it is unduly confusing when read in light of the Specification and Drawings: Examiner hopes the following annotated Figs. help explain why this is indefinite:
Does Applicant mean to capture a length along the axial direction of the far infrared coating? If so, how does “located between the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221)” limit the length? Is it from the termination of the first extending section (212), e.g., illustrated as “h” in Fig. 1? Does the claimed width correspond to “h” illustrated in Fig. 1? As claim 1 is currently written, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain what constitutes “between” the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221).
Additionally, when viewing the Drawings, it does not appear that “h” in Fig. 1 arrives at the claimed proportion range relative to the claimed width along the circumferential direction.
The same or similar confusion exists with the following limitations:
Claim 1’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221)”
Claim 1’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the second extending section (222) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 6’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the third extending section (213) and the second main part (221).”
Claim 6’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the fourth extending section (223) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 10’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the third main part (231).”
Claim 10’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the fifth extending section (232) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 11’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the sixth extending section (233) and the second main part (221).”
Claim 11’s “a width along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the second extending section (222) and the third main part (231).”
Claims 2–14 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons via its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons via its dependency on claim 10.
Indefinite Issue 2
Claims 8–11 are indefinite because they blend two mutually exclusive species. Please see the Enable Rejection in the following section. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain the appropriate scope of dependent claim 8–11 because they conflict/create impossible embodiments.
Examiner recommends canceling claims 8–11 to moot this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 captures an embodiment illustrated in Fig. 2. Please see the below reproduction of claim 1 mapped to Fig. 2:
However, claims 8–11 capture the following structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that claims 8–11 and Fig.4 are directed to a different species, which is distinct from that captured in claims 1–7, 12–14 and 21. Restated differently, modifying claim 1 to include the structures of claims 8–11 would create an impossible embodiment. For example, claim 1’s “a width (again this is indefinite for the reasons stated above) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221)” is effectively cut off by the additional third conductive portion (23). This also modifies the proportion “N” in claim 1 because it would create a longer axial width (as best understood by Examiner) between the first extending section and the main part. Accordingly, the blended embodiment of these divergent species was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, i.e., to have the structure claimed in claim 1 + the structures claimed in claims 8–11.
Claims 9–11 further compound the above issues.
Examiner recommends canceling claims 8–11 to moot this rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “0.8sNs1.2.” This should be amended to recite “0.8≤N≤1.2.”
Claim 6 recites “0.8sN151.2.” This should be amended to recite “0.8≤N1≤1.2.”
Claim 10 recites “0.8sN2s1.2.” This should be amended to recite “0.8≤N2≤1.2.”
Claim 11 recites “0.8sN3s1.2.” This should be amended to recite “0.8≤N3≤1.2.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification/Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show/illustrate the various widths claimed and described as described in the specification. These widths are essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Specifically,
Claim 1’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the second main part (221)”
Claim 1’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the second extending section (222) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 6’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the third extending section (213) and the second main part (221).”
Claim 6’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the fourth extending section (223) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 10’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the first extending section (212) and the third main part (231).”
Claim 10’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the fifth extending section (232) and the first main part (211).”
Claim 11’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the sixth extending section (233) and the second main part (221).”
Claim 11’s “a width (this width needs to be clearly annotated in the Figs. and the Specification must be amended to accurately reflect the same) along the axial direction of the far infrared coating (3) located between the second extending section (222) and the third main part (231).”
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747