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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2022, 09/12/2022, and 06/19/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 8-14 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 8 appears to recite no clear transition between the preamble and the body of the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 8 to recite a clear transition between the preamble and the body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A).
Regarding claim 1, Unno discloses a method of manufacturing a ceramic heater, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) forming, on a surface of a first ceramic fired layer (Fig. 4a #11a ceramic sintered body) or an unfired layer, a resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or a precursor of the resistance heating element in a predetermined pattern;
(b) forming a recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) along a longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element by radiating laser light (Fig. 4a #5a laser beam) to the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element;
(c) obtaining a layered body by disposing, on the surface of the first ceramic fired layer (Fig. 4a #11a ceramic sintered body) or the unfired layer, a second ceramic unfired layer (Fig. 4b #11b ceramic molded body) such that the second ceramic unfired layer covers the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element;
and (d) obtaining the ceramic heater (Fig. 4c) in which the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) is embedded in a ceramic substrate by performing hot press firing on the layered body (Page 7 para. 3),
wherein, in the step (b),the recessed groove is formed such that a side wall surface of the recessed groove is inclined relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer (Page 6 para 6 ---" For example, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed.”; A general incline relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer must be present because a recessed groove is formed.).
Regarding claim 3, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Unno teaches wherein, in the step (b), the recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) is formed such that sectional areas of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) at a plurality of measurement points determined along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element are predetermined target sectional areas, respectively (This limitation is performed by the operator. The operator can choose where to place grooves on the resistive heating element.).
Regarding claim 5, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Unno teaches wherein, in the step (a), the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element is formed such that an end surface (Shown in the figures below) of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) or the precursor of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4a #12 resistance heating element) (Since the heating element is inclined before the groove is formed, the heating element will be inclined after the groove is formed.) or the precursor of the resistance heating element is inclined relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Unno discloses a ceramic heater, wherein, in the ceramic heater, a resistance heating element (Fig. 4c #12 resistance heating element) is embedded in a ceramic substrate (Fig. 4c #11 ceramic sintered body), wherein the ceramic heater includes a recessed groove (Fig. 2 #12f groove) provided, along a longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element (Fig. 4c #12 resistance heating element), in a surface of the resistance heating element, and a side wall surface of the recessed groove inclined relative to a surface of the ceramic substrate (Page 6 para 6 ---" For example, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed.”; A general incline relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer must be present because a recessed groove is formed.),
wherein no gap exists between the side wall surface of the recessed groove and the ceramic substrate ( Page 7 para. 4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein, in the step (b), the recessed groove is formed such that an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer is smaller than or equal to 45º.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer being smaller than or equal to 45º.
Regarding claim 4, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein, in the step (b), a depth of the recessed groove is smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the depth of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth of the recessed groove being smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) as applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein, in the step (a), the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element is formed such that, relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer or the unfired layer, an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element is smaller than or equal to 45°.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the first ceramic fired layer being smaller than or equal to 45º.
Regarding claim 7, Unno teaches the method of manufacturing a ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein, in the step (b), the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove is greater than the inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element or the precursor of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove being greater than the inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is smaller than or equal to 27°.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate being smaller than or equal to 27°.
Regarding claim 11, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein a depth of the recessed groove is smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
However, UNNO do(es), however, teach that, by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the depth of the groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth of the recessed groove being smaller than or equal to half a thickness of the resistance heating element.
Regarding claim 12, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Unno teaches no gap exists between the end surface and the ceramic substrate ( Page 7 para. 4).
However, Unno does not teach wherein an end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element is inclined relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element being inclined relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate is smaller than or equal. to 27º.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element relative to the surface of the ceramic substrate being smaller than or equal to 27º.
Regarding claim 14, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), but does not teach wherein an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element is smaller than the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove.
Nonetheless, UNNO do(es), however, teach that , by controlling the laser irradiation device 5 and adjusting the irradiation position, intensity (irradiation output), irradiation time, operating frequency, and the like of the laser light 5a, the notch 12e and the groove 12f having a desired shape can be formed. Therefore, the inclination angle of the end surface groove 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 resistance value may be changed. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a groove with an inclined angle is formed, were disclosed in the prior art by Unno, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inclination angle of the end surface of the resistance heating element along the longitudinal direction of the resistance heating element being smaller than the inclination angle of the side wall surface of the recessed groove.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al (JP 2006228633 A) as applied to claim 8 in view of Maki et al (US 2008/0017632).
Regarding claim 10, Unno teaches the ceramic heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein an opening edge of the recessed groove are chamfered.
Nonetheless, Maki in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches wherein an opening edge of the recessed groove are chamfered ([0032] lines 1-3 ---" In another preferred heater according to the present invention, an edge of the channel may be preferably formed in an arc shape.”).
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 opening edge of the groove of Unno by incorporating a rounded edge as taught by Maki for the benefit of reducing cracks in the heating element. (Maki [0033])
Conclusion
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