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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 14 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 25 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-25 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14-17, and 19-25 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 14, and 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggests removing the term “about” from claims 1, 14, and 25.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578) in view of Westphal et al (US 5,777,329) and King et al (US 8,931,950).
Regarding claim 1, Shie discloses radiator device for an IR emitter micro-hotplate, the radiator device, comprising
an IR emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation), and a plurality of cantilever support arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads), connected to the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation), wherein: the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) is suspended by the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) (Shown in figure 1);
and the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) and the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) are formed as a single contiguous piece of a material (Col. 3 lines 35-40 ---"The electric resistor 14 is in the form of a meandering wire-shaped trace, and has two opposite end sections 141 disposed on and extending along upper surfaces of two respective ones of the slim supporting beams 15 to connect with the conductive pads 12, respectively.”).
However, Shie does not disclose wherein the emitter element has a lower resistance in comparison to the arms, so that little heat is generated by the emitter element, wherein the arms have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm.
Westphal do(es), however, teach that arm length can be made longer, ultimately effecting the resistance of the arms. The length of the arms not only effect the thermal resistance but also the electrical resistance, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art using known equation R =
p
L
A
.Therefore, the length of the arms is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that electrical resistance. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that arm length could be increased to a dimension which would make the resistance of the arms higher than the resistance of the emitter element, were disclosed in the prior art by Westphal, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the length of the arms taught by Westphal to increase thermal resistance of the arms thereby reducing current flowing through the emitter element to have a desired current flow through the emitter element.
Furthermore, King which solves the same problem being arm length teaches wherein the arms have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm (Col. 3 lines 61-67 ---" Useful single crystal silicon tethers include tethers having a width selected from the range of 1 to 50 .mu.m and/or a length selected from the range of 10 to 500 .mu.m and/or a thickness selected from the range of 0.05 to 5.0 .mu.m, for example tethers having a width of 10 .mu.m, a length of 222 .mu.m and a thickness selected from the range of 0.1 to 3.0 .mu.m.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm length of Shie by incorporating the arm length as taught by King for the benefit of connecting the emitter element to a current supply. (King Col. 6 para. 5)
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arms at a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm, given that King teaches a range of arm length that overlaps the claimed range, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shie teaches wherein the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) is heatable to a predetermined IR emission temperature by resistive heating in the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) (Col. 3 lines 57-60 ---"The membrane 13 for the heat loss test was operated (i.e., the membrane 13 is heated by the electric resistor 14) at a temperature of 750.degree. C.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Shie teaches wherein the said IR emission temperature is greater than 700 K (Col. 3 lines 57-60 ---"The membrane 13 for the heat loss test was operated (i.e., the membrane 13 is heated by the electric resistor 14) at a temperature of 750.degree. C.”), or greater than 1000 K, or greater than 1,600 K, or greater than 2,000 K, or greater than 2,500 K, or greater than 3,000 K, or greater than 3,500 K.
Regarding claim 4, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Shie teaches wherein the material is either silicon (Col. 3 lines 41-43 ---" In this embodiment, the membrane 13 and the slim supporting beams 15 are made from a silicon wafer using micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) technology.”) or the material is an electrically-conducting refractory ceramic.
Regarding claim 7, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Shie teaches wherein the number of arms is even, and where the even number is at least 4 (Col. 3 lines 11-14 ---“… four slim supporting beams 15 extending from the peripheral end 133 of the membrane 13 through the loop-shaped gap 115 to the base 11 so as to suspend the membrane 13 in the central cavity 113…”), or at least 6, or at least 8.
Regarding claim 23, Shie in view of Westphal and King discloses a SEM or TEM device, comprising the radiator device according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the SEM or TEM device according to claim 23, being adapted for gas sensing, pressure sensing, gas analysing, IR spectrometry spectrometer, scanning electron microscopy or transmission electron microscopy (Examiner notes that the phrase “…is adapted for…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shie in view of Westphal can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 25, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and King teaches wherein the arms have a length of about 15 µm to about 80 µm (Col. 3 lines 61-67 ---" Useful single crystal silicon tethers include tethers having a width selected from the range of 1 to 50 .mu.m and/or a length selected from the range of 10 to 500 .mu.m and/or a thickness selected from the range of 0.05 to 5.0 .mu.m, for example tethers having a width of 10 .mu.m, a length of 222 .mu.m and a thickness selected from the range of 0.1 to 3.0 .mu.m.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm length of Shie by incorporating the arm length as taught by King for the benefit of connecting the emitter element to a current supply. (King Col. 6 para. 5)
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arms at a length of about 15 µm to about 80 µm, given that King teaches a range of arm length that overlaps the claimed range, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578) in view of Westphal et al (US 5,777,329) and King et al (US 8,931,950) as applied to claim 4, in view of Abukawa et al (US 2019/0327790).
Regarding claim 5, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not teach wherein the material is said electrically-conducting refractory ceramic.
Nonetheless, Abukawa in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches wherein the material is said electrically-conducting refractory ceramic ([0108] lines 7-8 ---" Examples of the carbide-based ceramics include TiC, WC, TaC, B.sub.4C, SiC, HfC, ZrC, VC, and Cr.sub.3C.sub.2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shie in view of Westphal and King by incorporating the carbide- based ceramics as taught by Abukawa for the benefit of mitigating damage to the heater due to the durability and thermal resistance of ceramics.
Regarding claim 6, Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Abukawa teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Abukawa in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches wherein the ceramic comprises carbon, HfC, TaHfC or tungsten carbide ([0108] lines 7-8 ---" Examples of the carbide-based ceramics include TiC, WC, TaC, B.sub.4C, SiC, HfC, ZrC, VC, and Cr.sub.3C.sub.2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Abukawa by incorporating the carbide- based ceramics as taught by Abukawa for the benefit of mitigating damage to the heater due to the durability and thermal resistance of ceramics.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578) in view of Westphal et al (US 5,777,329) and King et al (US 8,931,950) as applied to claim 4, in view of Glacer et al (US 2017/0288125).
Regarding claim 8, Shie in view of Westphal and King teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), but does not teach wherein the arms are elastically deformable so as to absorb thermomechanical changes in shape and/or size of the emitter element and/or of the arms during heating and cooling or the emitter element.
Nonetheless, Glacer who is in the same field of endeavor being electronic sensors, teaches wherein the arms are elastically deformable (Shown in the figure below) so as to absorb thermomechanical changes in shape and/or size of the emitter element and/or of the arms during heating and cooling or the emitter element.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
776
media_image1.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 the device of Shie in view of Westphal and King by incorporating the elastically deformable arms as taught by Glacer for the benefit of mitigating heat during the cooling cycle to prevent inaccuracies in measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Glacer teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Shie teaches wherein each of the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) has a cross-section which varies along its length such that its cross-sectional area is a minimum (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams) at a region of the arm (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) adjacent to the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation).
Regarding claim 10, Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Glacer teaches in combination, the radiator device according to claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8), and Shie teaches wherein the emitter element and the arms are encapsulated in a housing (Fig. 1 #3 enclosure) comprising a transparent window (Fig. 1 #32 transparent window plate), wherein said radiator device is a subcombination of an IR emitter device.
Regarding claim 11, Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Glacer teaches in combination, the radiator device according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10), and Shie teaches wherein said housing of said IR emitter device is evacuated to 10-3 Torr (Abstract ---" The enclosed vacuum chamber has a pressure less than 0.01 torr.”), or less than 10-4 Torr, or preferably to less than 10-5 Torr, or more preferably to less than 10-6 Torr.
Regarding claim 12, Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Glacer teaches the radiator device according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10), and Shie in view of Westphal, King, and Glacer teaches in further combination, the radiator device/IR emitter device combination according to claim 10, being incorporated into either an SEM or TEM device.
(Examiner notes that the phrase “being incorporated into either an SEM or TEM device” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Shie in view of Glacer can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578), in view of Glacer et al (US 2017/0288125), Westphal et al (US 5,777,329) and King et al (US 8,931,950).
Regarding claim 14, Shie discloses a method of generating broadband infrared radiation using an IR emitter device, wherein said IR emitting device is comprised of a radiator device, said method of generating broadband infrared radiation comprising
the steps of heating an emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) by applying a voltage across a plurality of cantilever support arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) (Col. 3 lines 31-40 ---"The conductive leads 2 extend sealingly through a bottom wall of the can housing 31 and into the vacuum chamber 4 so as to be electrically and respectively connected to the conductive pads 12 through a pair of bonding wires 5. The electric resistor 14 is in the form of a meandering wire-shaped trace, and has two opposite end sections 141 disposed on and extending along upper surfaces of two respective ones of the slim supporting beams 15 to connect with the conductive pads 12, respectively.” This passage suggest that a voltage is applied to the conductive pads, across the electric resistor via the slim supporting beams to produce infrared radiation (heat).”, said emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) being heated resistively,
wherein said radiator device is comprised of said emitter element (2) and said cantilever arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) such that said plurality of cantilever support arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) are connected to the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation), and further wherein the emitter element and the arms are formed as a single contiguous piece of a material, and further wherein the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) is heatable to a predetermined IR emission temperature by resistive heating in the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads), and yet further wherein said IR emitting device having a transparent window (Fig. 1 #32 transparent window plate) in a housing (Fig. 1 #3 enclosure) encapsulating the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation) and the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads).
However, Shie does not disclose wherein the arms are elastically deformable, so as to absorb thermomechanical changes in shape and/or size of the emitter element and/or of the arms, during heating and cooling of the emitter element; wherein the emitter element has a lower electrical resistance in comparison to the arms, so that little is generated by the emitter element, wherein the arms have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm.
Nonetheless, Glacer who is in thew same field of endeavor being electronic sensors, teaches wherein the arms are elastically deformable, so as to absorb thermomechanical changes in shape and/or size of the emitter element and/or of the arms, during heating and cooling of the emitter element.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
776
media_image1.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 the device of Shie by incorporating the elastically deformable arms as taught by Glacer for the benefit of mitigating heat during the cooling cycle to prevent inaccuracies in measurement.
Furthermore, Westphal do(es), however, teach that arm length can be made longer, ultimately effecting the resistance of the arms. The length of the arms not only effect the thermal resistance but also the electrical resistance, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art using known equation R =
p
L
A
.Therefore, the length of the arms is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that electrical resistance. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that arm length could be increased to a dimension which would make the resistance of the arms higher than the resistance of the emitter element, were disclosed in the prior art by Westphal, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the length of the arms taught by Westphal to increase thermal resistance of the arms thereby reducing current flowing through the emitter element to have a desired current flow through the emitter element.
Furthermore, King teaches wherein the arms have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm (Col. 3 lines 61-67 ---" Useful single crystal silicon tethers include tethers having a width selected from the range of 1 to 50 .mu.m and/or a length selected from the range of 10 to 500 .mu.m and/or a thickness selected from the range of 0.05 to 5.0 .mu.m, for example tethers having a width of 10 .mu.m, a length of 222 .mu.m and a thickness selected from the range of 0.1 to 3.0 .mu.m.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm length of Shie by incorporating the arm ength as taught by King for the benefit of connecting the emitter element to a current supply. (King Col. 6 para. 5)
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arms at a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm, given that King teaches a range of arm length that overlaps the claimed range, since it has been held that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 15, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, and King teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), and Shie teaches wherein said applying said voltage across said plurality of cantilever support arms so as to heat the emitter element to a temperature greater than 700 K (Col. 3 lines 57-60 ---"The membrane 13 for the heat loss test was operated (i.e., the membrane 13 is heated by the electric resistor 14) at a temperature of 750.degree. C.”), or preferably greater than 1000 K, or preferably greater than 1,600 K, or preferably greater than 2,000 K, or more preferably greater than 2,500 K, or still more preferably greater than 3,000 K, or yet more preferably greater than 3,500 K.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578) in view of Glacer et al (US 2017/0288125), Westphal et al (US 5,777,329) and King et al (US 8,931,950) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Willis et al (US 2012/0228502).
Regarding claim 16, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, and King teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), but does not teach comprising pulsing the voltage at a frequency greater than 200 Hz, or preferably greater than 700 Hz, or more preferably greater than 1,000 Hz.
Nonetheless, Willis in the same field of endeavor being control of a IR emitter, teaches pulsing the voltage at a frequency greater than 200 Hz, or preferably greater than 700 Hz, or more preferably greater than 1,000 Hz (Abstract ---" A pulse-width-modulated voltage is applied to an IR emitter during the on-time of a primary drive voltage having a frequency of about 2.5 Hz in order to control the power to a predetermined desired level.“).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, and King by incorporating the pulsed voltage as taught by Willis for the benefit of controlling the power to a predetermined desired level to mitigate overheating of the emitter device.
Regarding claim 19, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, and Willis teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), and Shie teaches wherein the material is either silicon (Col. 3 lines 41-43 ---" In this embodiment, the membrane 13 and the slim supporting beams 15 are made from a silicon wafer using micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) technology.”) or the material is an electrically-conducting refractory ceramic.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 8,575,578) in view of Glacer et al (US 2017/0288125), Westphal et al (US 5,777,329), King et al (US 8,931,950), and Willis et al (US 2012/0228502) as applied to claim 19, further in view of Abukawa et al (US 2019/0327790).
Regarding claim 20, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, and Willis teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 19), but does not teach wherein the material is said electrically-conducting refractory ceramic, and further wherein the ceramic comprises carbon, HfC, TaHfC or tungsten carbide.
Nonetheless, Abukawa in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches wherein the material is said electrically-conducting refractory ceramic ([0108] lines 7-8 ---" Examples of the carbide-based ceramics include TiC, WC, TaC, B.sub.4C, SiC, HfC, ZrC, VC, and Cr.sub.3C.sub.2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, and Willis by incorporating the carbide- based ceramics as taught by Abukawa for the benefit of mitigating damage to the heater due to the durability and thermal resistance of ceramics.
Regarding claim 21, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, Willis, and Abukawa teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), and Glacer teaches wherein the arms are elastically deformable (Shown in the figure below) so as to absorb thermomechanical changes in shape and/or size of the emitter element and/or of the arms during heating and cooling or the emitter element.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
776
media_image1.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 the method of Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, Willis, and Abukawa by incorporating the elastically deformable arms as taught by Glacer for the benefit of mitigating heat during the cooling cycle to prevent inaccuracies in measurement.
Regarding claim 22, Shie in view of Glacer, Westphal, King, Willis, and Abukawa teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), and Shie teaches wherein each of the arms (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) has a cross-section which varies along its length such that its cross-sectional area is a minimum (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams) at a region of the arm (Fig. 1 #15 slim supporting beams and Fig. 1 #12 conductive pads) adjacent to the emitter element (Fig. 1 #13 membrane for generating infrared radiation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of King et al (US 8,931,950).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach wherein the arms have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference King teaches that arms may have a length of about 10 µm to about 150 µm. King teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious. See the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and MPEP 2144.05 I.
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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights