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
The amendment filed 07/22/2025 presents claims 1, 10, 13, as amended, claims 4, 9, and 16-30 as withdrawn, and claims 31-41 as added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 31-41 remain pending examination.
In view of the amendment, the previously indicated grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 34-36, 39, and 41 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 34-35 depend from claim 1 and require, in part, that the outer portion of the metal layer comprises dielectric material distinct from the ceramic plate. With respect to the instant specification Figure 2 is considered representative of the claimed invention and is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of instant application
Figure 2 and paragraph 0097 identify the substrate support as including first and second layers 204, a heating element 110, and layers 210 and 212 between the first and second layers 204. With respect to layers 210 and 212, paragraphs 0097-0098 refer to the same as “metal layers” while paragraph 0099 states that the metal layers “are implemented as metal screens or meshes that are disc-shaped” and “include the stacking of multiple metallic layers resulting in a composite structure.”
The specification lacks explicit support for “dielectric material.” Further, based on the above indicated direction provided by the specification, the claimed metal layer is not disclosed, explicitly or implicitly, as including a dielectric material. As such, claims 34-35 introduces subject matter that was not originally presented in the specification and, therefore, fails to satisfy the written description requirement. Additionally, “ceramic” layers are discussed in paragraph 0084 with respect to Figure 1, but no mention of “dielectric material” is presented. As disclosed in paragraph 0084-0090, the ceramic material is described as including additives to effect thermal conductivity and/or electrical conductivity. There does not appear to be any discussion on dielectrics or insulating characteristics of the ceramic material.
Claim 36 inherits the above deficiency as a result of being dependent on claim 35.
Claim 39 depends from claim 6 and requires, in part, that the outer portion of the metal layer comprises dielectric material. Claim 6, which depends directly from claim 1, requires a metal layer between the first intermediate layer and the second layer. With respect to the instant specification Figure 2 is considered representative of the claimed invention and is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of instant application
Figure 2 and paragraph 0097 identify the substrate support as including first and second layers 204, a heating element 110, and layers 210 and 212 between the first and second layers 204. With respect to layers 210 and 212, paragraphs 0097-0098 refer to the same as “metal layers” while paragraph 0099 states that the metal layers “are implemented as metal screens or meshes that are disc-shaped” and “include the stacking of multiple metallic layers resulting in a composite structure.”
The specification lacks explicit support for “dielectric material.” Further, based on the above indicated direction provided by the specification, the claimed metal layer is not disclosed, explicitly or implicitly, as including a dielectric material. As such, claim 39 introduces subject matter that was not originally presented in the specification and, therefore, fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 41 similarly requires that the inner portion includes a ceramic plate and the outer portion comprises a dielectric material distinct from the ceramic plate. For the same reasons detailed above, claim 41 introduces subject matter that was not originally presented in the specification and, therefore, fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 31-41 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.
Claim 1 is amended to recite, in relevant part, “at least one of the material of the first intermediate layer and the material of the second layer have at least one of a different density and a different porosity than the first material of the first layer.” With respect to the first layer and the second layer, claim 1 requires that the first layer is “formed of a first material” and the second layer is “formed of the first material or a second material.” With respect to the intermediate layer, claim 1 requires that it be “formed of a different material than the first layer and the second layer.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 is such that the second layer can be formed of the same material of the first layer or a different material and that the intermediate layer is formed of a material different from the first and second layers. The aforementioned amended limitation creates confusion as “the material of the second layer” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if “the material” is intended to refer to the “first material” or the “second material.” Additionally, as the amended limitation includes “at least one of” the scope of such limitation includes arrangements in which the material of the second layer has at least one of a different density and a different porosity than the first material of the first layer. However, as indicated above, the scope of claim 1 allows for the second layer to be formed of the same material as the first layer (i.e., the first material). As such, it is not clear in what way the second layer, being formed of the first material, is to have a different density than the first material of the first layer. As best understood, “density” is an intrinsic material property and the first layer and the second layer, both being formed of the first material, would have the same density. For such reasons the scope of claim 1 creates confusion.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-15, and 31-41 inherit the above deficiency due to their respective dependency from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of limitations required in claim 1 including “at least one of the material of the first intermediate layer and material of the second layer have at least one of a different density and a different porosity than the first material of the first layer.”
Additionally, there does not appear to be any evidence of record to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, or otherwise consider it obvious, to modify the specific materials of the first intermediate layer and/or the second layer and arrive at the claimed 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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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 Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights