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 07/30/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 5, 7-9 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.
Regarding Claim 5
The term “approximates” in claim 5 is relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximates” 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. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance a length of said tabs of said second foil element is considered to approximate a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
For the purposes of examination, a length of said tabs of said second foil element is assumed to be in the range of from more than 25% to less than 100% of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel, in light of the specification of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7
The term “about” in claim 7 is relative terms 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. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance a length of said tabs of said second foil element is considered to be about three quarters of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
For the purposes of examination, a length of said tabs of said second foil element is assumed to be 75% ±10% of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
Regarding Claim 8
The term “about” in claim 8 is relative terms 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. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance a length of said tabs of said second foil element is considered to be about one half of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
For the purposes of examination, a length of said tabs of said second foil element is assumed to be 50% ±10% of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
Regarding Claim 9
The term “about” in claim 9 is relative terms 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. It is not clear to what degree and within what tolerance a length of said tabs of said second foil element is considered to be about one quarter of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
For the purposes of examination, a length of said tabs of said second foil element is assumed to be 25% ±10% of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ESCC4009/002-10 (“RESISTORS, HEATERS, FLEXIBLE, SINGLE AND DOUBLE LAYER", European Space Components Coordination (ESCC) Detail Specification No. 4009/002, Issue 10, February, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, ESCC4009/002-10 discloses a resistive foil heater (Titled as “RESISTORS, HEATERS, FLEXIBLE, SINGLE AND DOUBLE LAYER”, the specification describes resistive foil heaters in Sec. 1.6.1, Heater Thickness, p. 11: “0.25 mm max thickness for single layer heater, 0.4 mm max thickness for double layer heater”; in Sec. 1.7.1, Heater Resistive Element, p. 11: “The heater resistive element shall be made of flexible nickel/chromium/iron alloy (76/16/8 Inconel)”.) comprising
a coverlay (the top layer of the composite panel, which is the top polyimide polymer/FEP film, as indicated in Sec. 1.7.3, Protective Coating, p. 11: “Heater resistive elements, terminal leads connections and, for Strip heaters, bridging tabs connections shall be completely coated with Polyimide Polymer/FEP in accordance with MIL-P-46112”, and Sec. 1.2, p. 5: “MIL-P-46112: Military Specification for Polyimide Plastic Sheet and Strip”.),
a base (the bottom layer of the composite panel, which is the base polyimide polymer/FEP film, as illustrated in Sec. 1.7.3, p11.),
an etched composite panel intermediate said coverlay and said base (Variants 25-48 are double-layer heaters [Table 1(a)], therefore the composite panel is a stack of polyimide/FEP with two foils, where conductive foil is made of nickel/chromium/iron alloy (76/16/8 Inconel) [Sec. 1.7.1], insulative layer is made of polyimide polymer/FEP [Sec. 1.7.3]. The composite panel is positioned between the two protective coating layers of coverlay and base [Sec. 1.7.3], therefore is intermediate coverlay and base. Examiner’s note: “Etched” is a method of production. Patentability of the product “composite panel” is based on the product itself rather than its method of production. If a “composite panel” from prior art is the same as or obvious from the claimed invention, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See product-by-process claim, MPEP § 2113.),
transition tabs (see Figure in p10, annotated), and
lead wires (terminal leads, see Figure in p. 10),
said etched composite panel comprising a foil element (foil, see Sec. 1.6.1, Sec. 1.7.1, p. 11) and a substrate (polyimide substrate, Sec. 1.7.3) for supporting said foil element (Secs. 1.7.1 and 1.7.3),
said foil element characterized by an etched resistive foil heater (resistive foil heater, see Sec. 1.6.1, Sec. 1.7.1, p. 11) and associated transition pads (see Figure in p. 10, annotated),
said transition tab united to said transition pads of said foil element of said etched composite panel (see Figure in p. 10, annotated),
said lead wires functionally united with said etched resistive foil heater via said transition tabs (see Figure in p. 10, annotated).
Regarding claim 3, ESCC4009/002-10 discloses wherein
said foil element of said etched composite panel is a first foil element (corresponds to the first resistive layer in a ESCC double-layer variant, see Variants 25-48, Table 1(a)),
said etched composite panel comprising a second foil element (corresponds to the second resistive layer in an ESCC double-layer variant, see Variants 25-48, Table 1(a)),
said substrate (corresponds to the internal polyimide/FEP insulation required as the dielectric separator between two layers to prevent a short circuit, Sec.1.7.3.) intermediate said first and second foil elements (Specifications for double layer heaters with two foil elements and intermediate insulation are explicitly categorized in Table 1(a), Variants 25-48, p. 6-7 and shown in Sec. 1.6.1, p. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
874
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure of ESCC 4009/002-10, p10, annotated
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.
Claims 2, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESCC4009/002-10 (“RESISTORS, HEATERS, FLEXIBLE, SINGLE AND DOUBLE LAYER", European Space Components Coordination (ESCC) Detail Specification No. 4009/002, Issue 10, February, 2020) in view of Fjelstad (“Flexible Circuit Technology”, 4th ed. BR Publishing, Seaside, OR, 2011.)
Regarding claim 2, ESCC4009/002-10 discloses that each of the double layer heaters, Variants 25-48 in Table 1(a), only has one total resistance specified for the finished part. To achieve a specific total resistance from two separate etched foils, those foils must be connected, either in series or in parallel. Since both layers must exit through the same strip (dimension G) to reach the lead wires, they must be electrically linked at the terminal area (see Figure of ESCC 4009/002-10, p10, annotated). Therefore, electrically linking a first foil to a second foil via tabs and pads is required to manufacture any ESCC double-layer variant that functions as a single heater.
ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein said etched composite panel is adapted for passage of said transition tabs in furtherance of functional union with said lead wires.
However, Fjelstad teaches the methods for establishing electrical continuity between layers in a multilayer flexible circuit [Subsec. Alternative two-metal interconnection methods, p. 317-319]. As shown in Z wire interconnection of Figure 9-24 of Fjelstad, annotated, transition tab is used as conductive extension to weave through the passage to connect the transition pads for bridging the dielectric gap between the landing areas on the two layers. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to electronically connect the two foil layers of an ESCC-style heater would naturally include the method taught by Fjelstad in furtherance of functional union with said lead wires, in order to achieve the goal of moving current through the two-layer circuit. This represents a routine application of known interconnect techniques to reach the terminal of leads and achieve the predictable result of electrical continuity between layers.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9-24 of Fjelstad, annotated
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said etched composite panel is adapted for passage of said transition tabs in furtherance of functional union with said lead wires, in order to electronically connect the two foil layers of an ESCC-style heater as taught by Fjelstad. This is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
Regarding claim 4, ESCC4009/002-10 discloses wherein said foil element of said etched composite panel is a first foil element, said etched composite panel comprising a second foil element, said substrate intermediate said first and second foil elements (see rejection on claim 3).
ESCC4009/002-10 also discloses that only one total resistance is specified for the finished part of double layer heaters in Table 1(a), therefore, two foil elements are connected in series or parallel. Since both layers must exit through the same strip (Dimension G) (see Figure of ESCC 4009/002-10, p10, annotated) to reach the lead wires, they must be linked at the terminal area.
ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose said second foil element characterized by tabs and transition pads, said transition pads of said second foil element linked to said transition pads associated with said etched foil heater via said transition tabs.
However, Fjelstad teaches to connect transition pads through weaving transition tabs through passage for establishing electrical continuity between layers in a multiplayer flexible circuit (see rejection on claim 2).
Moreover, Fjelstad teaches “Staggered length design practice is commonly employed for ease of flexing multilayer and rigid-flex designs” [Sec. Staggered Length Circuits, p.194]. By selective removal of the dielectric polyimide substrate from the second surface, a “back bared” (windowed pad) [Fig.3-7, p.61; Fig.3-8, p.63] or ”dual access” (staggered insulation) [Fig. 7-6, p. 194] circuit is made, which “allows access to features of the conductor pattern, such as lead terminations, from both sides” [p. 18, bottom para.], where the conductive window at terminal corresponds to transition pad, while non-removal dielectric polyimide substate corresponds to the tab of the second foil element of the claimed invention. As taught by Fjelstad in Fig.3-7, Fig.3-8 and Fig.7-6, the delimitation of the tabs and transition pads is a subtractive process well-known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to use the weave or interconnect described in the prior art would naturally use selective removal of the dielectric polyimide substrate as a predictable and routine method to define these mechanical features.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the tab-and-pad linking structure and perform the selective removal of the dielectric polyimide substrate on the second foil taught by Fjelstad to the termination to electrically connect the two foil layers of an ESCC-style heater, i.e. to include said second foil element characterized by tabs and transition pads, said transition pads of said second foil element linked to said transition pads associated with said etched foil heater via said transition tabs. The “weave” and “tab” structures are a predictable result of combining know elements of windowed pads and staggered insulation to solve a known problem of low-profile interconnection. This is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
461
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3-7 of Fjelstad Figure 3-8 of Fjelstad
PNG
media_image5.png
244
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 7-6 of Fjestad
Regarding claim 5, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element approximates a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches staggered termination to provide strain relief: “if two metal layers are required, the traces should be offset or staggered” to enhance flexibility [p.239]. Fjelstad also teaches: “The designer should also stagger traces in the bend area from side to side. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the I-beam effect, which can be a critical concern in dynamic applications (fig. 7-11). When copper conductors are directly aligned on opposite sides of the flexible base, it increases the stiffness of the circuit through bend and fold areas. Additionally, where the copper foil is on the outside of the bend radii or folds, the area is subject to forming stress cracks that can impact product reliability. Placement of vias within the bend area is discouraged since they will adversely affect bend formation and create additional points of stress and potential crack propagation” [p.200, para.2]. The stiffer the material and the tighter the bend radius, the greater the need for a larger offset to allow the layers to move independently. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element approximates a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel. By claiming the range of from less than 25% to 100% of the substrate length, it is merely the listed standard engineering benchmarks used for preferred mechanical flexibility and material stiffness. Any choice within the range is prima facie obvious. These numerical limitations lack unexpected results and are therefore unpatentable optimizations for the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is less than a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches staggered termination to provide strain relief: “if two metal layers are required, the traces should be offset or staggered” to enhance flexibility [p.239]. Fjelstad also teaches: “The designer should also stagger traces in the bend area from side to side. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the I-beam effect, which can be a critical concern in dynamic applications (fig. 7-11). When copper conductors are directly aligned on opposite sides of the flexible base, it increases the stiffness of the circuit through bend and fold areas. Additionally, where the copper foil is on the outside of the bend radii or folds, the area is subject to forming stress cracks that can impact product reliability. Placement of vias within the bend area is discouraged since they will adversely affect bend formation and create additional points of stress and potential crack propagation” [p.200, para.2]. The stiffer the material and the tighter the bend radius, the greater the need for a larger offset to allow the layers to move independently. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is less than a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization. By claiming the tab is shorter than substrate of the etched composite panel is merely applicant’s choice of preferred mechanical flexibility and material stiffness. The limitation lacks unexpected results and is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about three quarters of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches staggered termination to provide strain relief: “if two metal layers are required, the traces should be offset or staggered” to enhance flexibility [p.239]. Fjelstad also teaches: “The designer should also stagger traces in the bend area from side to side. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the I-beam effect, which can be a critical concern in dynamic applications (fig. 7-11). When copper conductors are directly aligned on opposite sides of the flexible base, it increases the stiffness of the circuit through bend and fold areas. Additionally, where the copper foil is on the outside of the bend radii or folds, the area is subject to forming stress cracks that can impact product reliability. Placement of vias within the bend area is discouraged since they will adversely affect bend formation and create additional points of stress and potential crack propagation” [p.200, para.2]. The stiffer the material and the tighter the bend radius, the greater the need for a larger offset to allow the layers to move independently. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about three quarters of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel. By claiming the range of from less than 25% to 100% of the substrate length, it is merely the listed standard engineering benchmarks used for preferred mechanical flexibility and material stiffness. Any choice within the range is prima facie obvious. These numerical limitations lack unexpected results and are therefore unpatentable optimizations for the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about one half of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches staggered termination to provide strain relief: “if two metal layers are required, the traces should be offset or staggered” to enhance flexibility [p.239]. Fjelstad also teaches: “The designer should also stagger traces in the bend area from side to side. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the I-beam effect, which can be a critical concern in dynamic applications (fig. 7-11). When copper conductors are directly aligned on opposite sides of the flexible base, it increases the stiffness of the circuit through bend and fold areas. Additionally, where the copper foil is on the outside of the bend radii or folds, the area is subject to forming stress cracks that can impact product reliability. Placement of vias within the bend area is discouraged since they will adversely affect bend formation and create additional points of stress and potential crack propagation” [p.200, para.2]. The stiffer the material and the tighter the bend radius, the greater the need for a larger offset to allow the layers to move independently. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about one half of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel. By claiming the range of from less than 25% to 100% of the substrate length, it is merely the listed standard engineering benchmarks used for preferred mechanical flexibility and material stiffness. Any choice within the range is prima facie obvious. These numerical limitations lack unexpected results and are therefore unpatentable optimizations for the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about one quarter of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches staggered termination to provide strain relief: “if two metal layers are required, the traces should be offset or staggered” to enhance flexibility [p.239]. Fjelstad also teaches: “The designer should also stagger traces in the bend area from side to side. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the I-beam effect, which can be a critical concern in dynamic applications (fig. 7-11). When copper conductors are directly aligned on opposite sides of the flexible base, it increases the stiffness of the circuit through bend and fold areas. Additionally, where the copper foil is on the outside of the bend radii or folds, the area is subject to forming stress cracks that can impact product reliability. Placement of vias within the bend area is discouraged since they will adversely affect bend formation and create additional points of stress and potential crack propagation” [p.200, para.2]. The stiffer the material and the tighter the bend radius, the greater the need for a larger offset to allow the layers to move independently. Selecting a length for a mechanical support is a routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of said tabs of said second foil element is about one quarter of a length of said substrate of said etched composite panel. By claiming the range of from less than 25% to 100% of the substrate length, it is merely the listed standard engineering benchmarks used for preferred mechanical flexibility and material stiffness. Any choice within the range is prima facie obvious. These numerical limitations lack unexpected results and are therefore unpatentable optimizations for the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose further comprising an anchor element interposed between said coverlay and said lead wires.
However, Fjelstad teaches the use of anchor elements interposed between layers to provide strain relief for lead wires. Fjelstad explicitly explained that because flexible circuits are thin, lead wires can easily peel the copper foil off the polyimide if they are pulled: “Coverlayers help to physically restrain the pads and hold them in place during soldering, preventing pad lift. The coverlayer (or possibly a covercoat) also allows conductors to be placed in the neutral axis for improved flex and bending performance.” (Sec. Coverlayer and covercoat concerns, p.212-213). Fjelstad describes using anchor elements (often made of the same polyimide/Kapton as the coverlay) to interpose between the layers, which distributes the pulling force across the substrate instead of the solder joint: “Adhesive-backed polymer films are the type of coverlayer most frequently specified and used by flex circuit designers and manufacturers. It is also the flex circuit covering method best suited to dynamic flex circuit applications because of the balanced material properties from side to side” (Subsec. Adhesive-backed films, p.213). Placing a piece of material to anchor a wire is a functional necessity to a flex circuit design. Any manufacturer seeking to pass the ESCC qualification for space flight would be forced to include an anchor element.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising an anchor element interposed between said coverlay and said lead wires. The use of such an anchor is a predictable application of basic mechanical engineering to meet the lead pull requirement of the ESCC4009/002-10. It is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
Regarding claim 11, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose further comprising an anchor element interposed between said base and the union of said transition tabs with said transition pads of said foil element of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches that “stiffness is proportional to the cube of thickness, meaning that if the thickness is doubled, the material becomes eight times stiffer and will only deflect 1/8 as much under the same load” [para. 1, p.138]. The union of transition pads and transition tabs increases thickness, thus creates a localized area with increased stiffness, and accordingly generates a stress concentration point. Without reinforcement, the polymer will propagate a tear. Thus, in order to avoid hinge-point failure, a common problem described by Fjelstad [Sec. Reliability, p. 507-513], the designer would naturally adopt the teachings of Fjelstad to apply a supportive element between the base and the union to smooth the transition of mechanical loads and reinforce the area around the cut [paras 2-3, p.512].
Further, Fjelstad teaches the use of stiffeners to bridge these discontinuities in mechanical stresses: “While stiffener materials are not an integral part of the flex circuit, they are an important element of flex circuit construction. Stiffening materials are used to reinforce flex circuits when and where required. Stiffeners are most commonly attached under areas where electronic components are to be attached. They support the weight of the components through the assembly process and in the application. Stiffeners can be made of almost any material, including metal, plastic, resin-glass laminates or even additional layers of coverlayer material. The use of coverlayer material to stiffen areas of a flex is actually a very common practice” [Sec. Stiffener Materials, p. 144]. Moving a stiffener to sit between the base and the union is simply performing its well-known function of strain relief in a well-known location.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising an anchor element interposed between said base and the union of said transition tabs with said transition pads of said foil element of said etched composite panel, in order to solve mechanical stress at a panel passage and interconnect union by using stiffener as a reinforcing anchor, as taught by Fjelstad. It is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
Regarding claim 12, ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose further comprising a first anchor element interposed between said coverlay and said lead wires and a second anchor element interposed between said base and the union of said transition tabs with said transition pads of said foil element of said etched composite panel.
However, as established in the rejections for claims 10 and 11, the use of anchor elements for lead wires and internal unions are known methods to yield predictable results. The first anchor for lead wires and the second anchor for the internal union perform their functions completely independently of each other. The lead anchor protects the external connection from being pulled off. The internal anchor protects the internal weave from tearing or delaminating. The presence of the first anchor does not change how the second anchor works, and so vice versa. Because they act independently to solve two separate and well-known mechanical problems, their combination is a mere aggregation of obvious parts. It would be obvious to try reinforcing all known stress points in a single heater to ensure the entire assembly. Combining the two anchors is a predictable and routine optimization.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising a first anchor element interposed between said coverlay and said lead wires and a second anchor element interposed between said base and the union of said transition tabs with said transition pads of said foil element of said etched composite panel. The mere aggregation of two known elements, each performing its expected function, is not an inventive step. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
Regarding claim 13, ESCC4009/002-10 discloses a resistive foil heater (Titled as “RESISTORS, HEATERS, FLEXIBLE, SINGLE AND DOUBLE LAYER”, the specification describes resistive foil heaters in Sec. 1.6.1, Heater Thickness, p. 11: “0.25 mm max thickness for single layer heater, 0.4 mm max thickness for double layer heater”; in Sec. 1.7.1, Heater Resistive Element, p. 11: “The heater resistive element shall be made of flexible nickel/chromium/iron alloy (76/16/8 Inconel)”.) comprising
a coverlay (the top layer of the composite panel, which is the top polyimide polymer/FEP film, as indicated in Sec. 1.7.3, Protective Coating, p. 11: “Heater resistive elements, terminal leads connections and, for Strip heaters, bridging tabs connections shall be completely coated with Polyimide Polymer/FEP in accordance with MIL-P-46112”, and Sec. 1.2, p. 5: “MIL-P-46112: Military Specification for Polyimide Plastic Sheet and Strip”.),
a base (the bottom layer of the composite panel, which is the base polyimide polymer/FEP film, as illustrated in Sec. 1.7.3, p11.),
an etched composite panel intermediate said coverlay and said base (Variants 25-48 are double-layer heaters [Table 1(a)], therefore the composite panel is a stack of polyimide/FEP with two foils, where conductive foil is made of nickel/chromium/iron alloy (76/16/8 Inconel) [Sec. 1.7.1], insulative layer is made of polyimide polymer/FEP [Sec. 1.7.3]. The composite panel is positioned between the two protective coating layers of coverlay and base [Sec. 1.7.3], therefore is intermediate coverlay and base. Examiner’s note: Patentability of the product “composite panel” is based on the product itself rather than its method of production “etched”. If a “composite panel” from prior art is the same as or obvious from the claimed invention, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See product-by-process claim, MPEP § 2113.)
transition tabs (see Figure in p10, annotated), and
lead wires (terminal leads, see Figure in p.10),
said etched composite panel comprising
a first foil layer (corresponds to the first resistive layer in a ESCC double-layer variant, see Variants 25-48, Table 1(a)),
a second foil layer (corresponds to the second resistive layer in an ESCC double-layer variant, see Variants 25-48, Table 1(a)), and
a substrate (corresponds to the internal polyimide/FEP insulation required as the dielectric separator between two layers to prevent a short circuit, Sec.1.7.3) intermediate said first and said second foil layers (Specifications for double layer heaters with two foil elements and intermediate insulation are explicitly categorized in Table 1(a), Variants 25-48, p. 6-7 and shown in Sec. 1.6.1, p. 11),
said first foil layer characterized by an etched resistive foil heater (resistive foil heater, see Sec. 1.6.1, Sec. 1.7.1, p. 11) and associated transition pads (see Figure in p. 10, annotated).
ESCC4009/002-10 discloses that only one total resistance is specified for the finished part of double layer heaters in Table 1(a), therefore, two foil elements are connected in series or parallel. Since both layers must exit through the same strip (Dimension G) (see Figure of ESCC 4009/002-10, p10, annotated) to reach the lead wires, they must be linked at the terminal area. ESCC4009/002-10 also discloses that said lead wires functionally united with said etched resistive foil heater via said transition tabs (see Figure of ESCC 4009/002-10, p10, annotated.)
ESCC4009/002-10 does not expressly disclose said second foil layer characterized by tabs and associated transition pads, said etched composite panel characterized by passages through which said transition tabs are passed, each of said transition tabs united to first and second transition pads of each of said first and second foil layers of said etched composite panel, said lead wires functionally united with said etched resistive foil heater via said transition tabs uniting first and second transition pads of each of said first and second foil layers of said etched composite panel.
However, Fjelstad teaches “Staggered length design practice is commonly employed for ease of flexing multilayer and rigid-flex designs” [Sec. Staggered Length Circuits, p.194]. By selective removal of the dielectric polyimide substrate from the second surface, a “back bared” (windowed pad) [Fig.3-7, p.61; Fig.3-8, p.63] or ”dual access” (staggered insulation) [Fig. 7-6, p. 194] circuit is made, which “allows access to features of the conductor pattern, such as lead terminations, from both sides” [p. 18, bottom para.], where the conductive window at terminal corresponds to transition pad, while non-removal dielectric polyimide substate corresponds to the tab of the second foil element of the claimed invention. As taught by Fjelstad in Fig.3-7, Fig.3-8 and Fig.7-6, the delimitation of the tabs and transition pads is a subtractive process well-known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to use the weave or interconnect described in the prior art would naturally use selective removal of the dielectric polyimide substrate as a predictable and routine method to define these mechanical features.
Moreover, Fjelstad teaches the methods for establishing electrical continuity between layers in a multilayer flexible circuit [Subsec. Alternative two-metal interconnection methods, p. 317-319]. As shown in Z wire interconnection of Figure 9-24 of Fjelstad, annotated, transition tab is used as conductive extension to weave through the passage to connect the transition pads for bridging the dielectric gap between the landing areas on the two layers. One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to electronically connect the two foil layers of an ESCC-style heater would naturally include the method taught by Fjelstad in furtherance of functional union with said lead wires, in order to achieve the goal of moving current through the two-layer circuit. This represents a routine application of known interconnect techniques to reach the terminal of leads and achieve the predictable result of electrical continuity between layers.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said second foil layer characterized by tabs and associated transition pads, said etched composite panel characterized by passages through which said transition tabs are passed, each of said transition tabs united to first and second transition pads of each of said first and second foil layers of said etched composite panel, said lead wires functionally united with said etched resistive foil heater via said transition tabs uniting first and second transition pads of each of said first and second foil layers of said etched composite panel, in order to electronically connect the two foil layers of an ESCC-style heater as taught by Fjelstad. This is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/ Zunjing J Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761