DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after December 4, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Amendments to the claims overcome the previously set forth double patenting rejection: The Examiner agrees. This rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
The amendments to Claims 5 and 6 overcomes the previously set forth 112b rejection: The examiner agrees. This rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
The amendment to the independent claim overcomes the previously set forth rejection in view of Leigh: The examiner agrees. The previously set forth rejection in view of Leigh as the amendment adds the limitation “consists of a two-layer structure” which is not taught by Leigh. The previously set forth rejection in view of Leigh is subsequently withdrawn. New grounds of rejection is required by amendment and provided in view of Dauth (US 2014/0219641 A1). As a result, the remaining arguments addressing the previously set forth rejection in view of Leigh are considered moot. This includes the applicant’s objection to the previously set forth rejection of Claims 8 and 11 in view of Leigh and Naidich.
The supplementary reference Lou (US Pub No. 2008/0009417) teaches only Molybdenum and not molybdenum disilicide: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Lou teaches Molybdenum in a compound with silicon nitride [0049-0050], the product of which would be understood, by one of ordinary skill in the art to form molybdenum disilicide. The argument is therefore not found to be persuasive.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “A ceramic heating element consisting of a two-layer structure, wherein the electric heating element comprises…” (emphasis added). The scope of the claim is unclear because two different transitional phrases are applied to the “ceramic heating element”. As such, an issue of indefiniteness is raised as to whether the claims are limited to a two-layer ceramic heating element, or may include additional structure, such as recited in claims 7-11. Should the claim be limited to a two-layer ceramic heating element with the transitional phrase “consisting of”, then the scope of claims 7-11 may be unclear because they recite additional structure (e.g., “metal coating”, “metal housing”, “electrode”, “soldering iron tip”, “metal layer”). Appropriate revision for clarity is recommended.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dauth (US 2014/021964 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
350
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
192
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Dauth teaches a ceramic electric heating element (“ceramic rod having a ceramic PTC heating conductor and ceramic insulation layer” Abstract Figure 4 Element 1) consisting of a two-layer structure (Figure 9 and 10 show the structure has two layers) , wherein the electric heating element comprises: an inner conducting layer (Figure 9 and 109 Element 12 “PTC heating conductor” layer [0045]) and an outer insulating layer (Figure 9 Element 11 “insulation layer [0044]) ; wherein the insulating layer wraps the conducting layer (shown in Figure 9) and the conducting layer is exposed outside the insulating layer at a head and a tail of the electric heating element (shown in Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 2: Dauth further teaches that a tail of the conducting layer is aligned to a tail of the insulating layer (Shown in Figure 10)
Regarding Claim 3: Dauth further teaches that the tail of the conducting layer is provided with a blind hole or a groove (Figure 4 Element 8 “sealing ring” [0041])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauth (US 2014/021964 A1) in view of Lou (US 2008/0009417 A1):
Regarding Claim 4: Dauth teaches that the tail of the conducting layer is provided with a blind hole or a groove (Figure 4 Element 8 “sealing ring” [0041])
Dauth does not teach that the blind hole is V-shaped
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blind hole of Dauth such that the blind hole is V-shaped as it has been held that changes in shape require only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 IV B) in In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauth (US 2014/021964 A1) in view of Lou (US 2008/0009417 A1):
Regarding Claims 5 and 6: Dauth does not teach the limitations of Claims 5 and 6
However, Lou et al. teaches a metal conducting layer featuring the following weight proportions: silicon nitride [0050]: silicon carbide [0049]: molybdenum disilicide [0050]: yttrium oxide [0036]: lanthanum oxide [0036]: aluminum oxide [0035]. The prior art relates to conductive metal coatings for use under high temperature conditions and makes use of the inherent properties of the metals involved to maximize conductivity of the coating. Given that the use of these metals is known in the prior art, it is obvious that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so given that the properties of the metal components are well known. The limitations of the proportions of the material components, as claimed, amount to a results effective variable, which would be obvious to alter, for one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to achieve the desired conductivity of the metal coating.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauth (US 2014/021964 A1) in view of Axelson (US 5,804,092):
Regarding Claim 7: Dauth teaches the limitations of Claim 1 on which claim 7 depends
Dauth does not teach that the head of the electric heating element is provided with a metal coating covering the conducting layer and the insulating layer.
However, Axelson does teach a metal coating (“metallized coating” Col 5 Line 11”) for a ceramic heater element (“Ceramic igniter” Col 5 Line 8) wherein the coating is silver copper + titanium (“the metalized coatings comprise silver, copper, and titanium” Coo 8 Line 37).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Dauth to include the metalized coating of Axelson in order to enable “direct electrical connection” Col 2 Lines 50-55 between the components of the invention.
Regarding Claim 8: Dauth as modified by Axelson further teaches that the material of the metal coating is silver copper + titanium (“the metalized coatings comprise silver, copper, and titanium” Col 8 Line 37).
Regarding Claim 9: Dauth further teaches that the head of the electric heating element is inserted into a metal housing (“housing” [0038] Figure 4 Element 5) to serve as a negative electrode, and the conducting layer exposed at the tail of the electric heating element is welded to an electrode to serve as a positive electrode (The claims are directed toward the ceramic heating element. Therefore, the attachment of the conducting layer to the electrode, positive or negative, does not seem to further limit the disclosed invention).
Regarding Claim 10: Dauth further teaches the ceramic electric heating element, wherein the head of the ceramic heating element is inserted into the blind hole ((Figure 4 Element 8 “sealing ring” [0041]). The claim also discloses “a soldering iron tip” and that “the tail of the ceramic electric heating element is welded to an electrode.” However, the invention, as claimed, is directed toward the ceramic heating element. Therefore, the insertion of the heating element into the blind hole of the soldering iron tip and welded to the metal layer does not seem to further limit the disclosed invention.
Regarding Claim 11: Dauth as modified by Axelson further teaches that the material of the metal coating is silver copper + titanium (“the metalized coatings comprise silver, copper, and titanium” Col 8 Line 37).
Furthermore, claim 11 additionally discloses that “the head of the ceramic electric heating element is inserted into the blind hole of the soldering iron tip and welded to the metal layer.” The invention, as claimed, is directed toward the ceramic heating element. Therefore, the insertion of the heating element into the blind hole of the soldering iron tip and welding to the metal layer does not seem to further limit the disclosed invention.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761