DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/021122, filed on 02/13/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/113228, filed on 08/18/2021, which claims priorities to Chinese patent application No. 2020108303510 titled "METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING METAL HEATING BODY", filed with CNIPA on August 18, 2020, Chinese patent application No. 2020108303328 titled "METAL HEATING BODY AND METAL HEATING DEVICE", filed with CNIPA on August 18, 2020, Chinese patent application No. 2020108303563 titled "METAL HEATING BODY AND METAL HEATING DEVICE", filed with CNIPA on August 18, 2020, Chinese patent application No. 2020108308872 titled "METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING METAL HEATING BODY", filed with the China National Intellectual Property Administration on August 18, 2020.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 08/18/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of the foreign applications.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12-14 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-17, 21, 24, 26-27, 31-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al., US 20190037644 (hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1,
A metal heating body, (Abstract teaches “a planar heater”)
comprising a metal substrate and an electric heating layer, (Abstract teaches “The structure includes a metal substrate, an insulating layer disposed on the metal substrate, an electrode layer disposed on the insulating layer, and an electrically conductive layer disposed on the electrode layer,”. Paragraph [89] teaches “The electrically conductive layer 4 may be a heat generating layer having a heat generating function.”)
wherein the electric heating layer is fixed with the metal substrate, (Fig. 2B)
and the electric heating layer comprises an insulating region and a heating region in a direction away from the metal substrate, (Fig. 2B)
PNG
media_image1.png
302
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2B in Kim teaches metal heating body
the insulating region and the heating region are in an integral structure, (The claim is interpreted as the heater comprises the insulating region and heating region. Fig. 2B)
and the insulating region is configured to isolate the heating region with the metal substrate, and (Fig. 2B)
the metal heating body further comprising two electrode layers, (The claim is interpreted as there are two electrodes. Paragraph [87] teaches “the electrode layer 3 may be formed on the insulating layer 2 such that a positive electrode and a negative electrode are arranged in series or in parallel to be spaced apart from each other at a regular interval.”)
wherein a part of the insulating region is located between the electrode layers and the metal substrate, at least part of one electrode layer is electrically connected to one end of the heating region, and at least part of the other electrode layer is electrically connected to the other end of the heating region. (Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 3,
The metal heating body according to claim 1, wherein the metal substrate comprises a metal tube, a metal plate or a metal sheet, (Fig. 2B teaches metal plate 111.)
and a thickness of the metal substrate is between 0.05mm to 3mm; (Paragraph [146] teaches metal substrate of about 0.8 mm. Here the claimed range of 10 to 210 µm overlaps the range taught in Kim and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
the electric heating layer covers a surface of the metal substrate in a continuous and uninterrupted manner, and the heating region continuously and uninterruptedly covers the surface of the metal substrate,
and/or wherein a resistivity of the heating region of the metal heating body is 85% to 115%, the resistivity is defined as a ratio of a working resistance to a room temperature resistance,
and/or wherein a diameter of the metal tube is 6mm to 80mm, a heating power of the heating region of the metal heating body is 200W to 10000W, and a power density of the heating region of the metal heating body is 30W/cm2 to 180W/cm2. (The claim is interpreted as the electric heating layer covers a surface of the metal substrate in a continuous and uninterrupted manner, and the heating region continuously and uninterruptedly covers the surface of the metal substrate.
Fig. 2A in Kim teaches continuous heating region 14.)
PNG
media_image2.png
390
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A in Kim
Regarding claim 7,
The metal heating body according to claim 1, wherein the heating region comprises at least one of TIO metal oxide nano heating material, LiO metal oxide nano heating material, ZnO metal oxide nano heating material, In203 metal oxide nano heating material, SnO2 metal oxide nano heating material, Ca2InO4 metal oxide nano heating material, graphene nano heating material, and nano silver heating material;
and/or the insulating region comprises a non-metal sinterable and curable glass body or an organic coating material or an electronic paste;
and/or the metal heating body further comprises an electric insulating layer, and the electric insulating layer covers the heating region; the metal heating body further comprises a sintered coating, and the sintered coating is made of a negative temperature coefficient resistance material, the sintered coating is located on the electric insulating layer, and the sintered coating of the negative temperature coefficient resistance material is a sintered coating with a NTC property,
and/or wherein the metal substrate is made of titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, iron, aluminum or aluminum alloy. ( The claim is interpreted as wherein the metal substrate is made of titanium, titanium alloy, stainless steel, iron, aluminum or aluminum alloy. Paragraph [44] teaches “The metal substrate 1 may include a material of iron (Fe), low carbon steel (SPP), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), zinc (Zn), niobium (Nb), silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu), or an alloy thereof, without being limited thereto.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al., US 20140034115 (hereafter Sato).
Regarding claim 2,
The metal heating body according to claim 1, wherein the insulating region and the heating region are made of different materials, ( Paragraph [27] in Kim teaches that insulating region is made of glass frit solution. Paragraph [94] teaches heating region may include glass frit. Paragraph [95] teaches “The glass frit may have a composition and/or content, e.g., amounts of various components thereof, that is the same as or different from those of the insulator.”)
.. a thickness of the heating region is in a range of 1 µm to 30 µm, (Paragraph [110] in Kim teaches “The electrically conductive layer 4 may have a thickness of from about 10 μm to about 50 μm.” Here the claimed range of 1 to 30 µm overlaps the range taught in Kim and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
and a thickness of the insulating region is in a range of 10 µm to 210 µm. (Paragraph [47] in Kim teaches “The insulating layer 2 may have a thickness of from about 100 micrometers (μm) to about 300 μm.” Here the claimed range of 10 to 210 µm overlaps the range taught in Kim and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
and the fusion region is fused with a same material as that of the heating region, (The claim is interpreted as the insulator and heating regions have a same material in common. Paragraph [95] teaches “The glass frit may have a composition and/or content, e.g., amounts of various components thereof, that is the same as or different from those of the insulator.”)
the insulating region comprises a fusion region, (Paragraph [47] in Kim teaches “The insulating layer 2 may be a single layer or a plurality of layers if desired.” However, Kim is silent about a fusion region.
Paragraph [10] in Sato teaches “The insulating layer provided metal substrate according to a first embodiment of the present invention includes a metal substrate having a metallic aluminum on at least one surface and a composite structure layer formed of a porous aluminum oxide film provided on the metallic aluminum by anodization and an alkali metal silicate film covering the porous aluminum oxide film and pore surfaces of the porous aluminum oxide film”. Here alkali metal silicate film corresponds to fusion region.)
a thickness of the fusion region is in a range of 0.01 µm to 10 µm, (Kim is silent about this.
Sato teaches in paragraph [43] thickness of 0.01 to 1 µm for fusion region alkali metal silicate layer 31.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the insulating film on aluminum substrate as anodized aluminum oxide and alkali metal silicate film as taught in Sato to the heater in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a substrate with an anodized aluminum oxide film, as an insulating layer provided metal substrate, excellent in stress and crack resistance,” as taught in paragraph [9] of Sato.
Regarding claim 9,
The metal heating body according to claim 1, …. the ..thin film region is configured to isolate the heating region with the metal substrate, the …thin film region and the heating region are in an integral structure, and the metal heating body further comprising two electrode layers, wherein a part of the …thin film region is located between the electrode layer and the metal substrate, at least part of one electrode layer is electrically connected to one end of the heating region, and at least part of the other electrode layer is electrically connected to the other end of the heating region, (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
wherein the insulating region comprises an anodized thin film region, ( Kim is silent about this.
Paragraph [10] in Sato teaches “The insulating layer provided metal substrate according to a first embodiment of the present invention includes a metal substrate having a metallic aluminum on at least one surface and a composite structure layer formed of a porous aluminum oxide film provided on the metallic aluminum by anodization”)
wherein the metal substrate is an aluminum substrate, and the anodized thin film region comprises an aluminium oxide thin film region and a fusion region. (Kim is silent about this.
Paragraph [10] in Sato teaches “The insulating layer provided metal substrate according to a first embodiment of the present invention includes a metal substrate having a metallic aluminum on at least one surface and a composite structure layer formed of a porous aluminum oxide film provided on the metallic aluminum by anodization and an alkali metal silicate film covering the porous aluminum oxide film and pore surfaces of the porous aluminum oxide film”. Here alkali metal silicate film corresponds to fusion region.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the insulating film on aluminum substrate as anodized aluminum oxide and alkali metal silicate film as taught in Sato to the heater in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a substrate with an anodized aluminum oxide film, as an insulating layer provided metal substrate, excellent in stress and crack resistance,” as taught in paragraph [9] of Sato.
Regarding claim 12,
The metal heating body according to claim 9, wherein the aluminum substrate comprises an aluminum tube or an aluminum plate, (Paragraph [44] in Kim teaches “The metal substrate 1 may include a material of iron (Fe), low carbon steel (SPP), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), zinc (Zn), niobium (Nb), silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu), or an alloy thereof, without being limited thereto.” Fig. 2B teaches that substrate is a plate.)
and a thickness of the aluminum substrate is between 0.05mm and 5mm; (Paragraph [146] in Kim teaches metal substrate of about 0.8 mm where the substrate is carbon steel substrate. Paragraph [44] teaches metal substrate may include carbon steel or aluminum. It is implied that for an aluminum substrate, the thickness would be about 0.8mm.
Here the claimed range of 0.05mm to 5mm overlaps the range taught in Kim and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
the electric heating layer continuously and uninterruptedly covers a surface of the aluminum substrate, and the heating region continuously and uninterruptedly covers the surface of the aluminum substrate. (Fig. 2A in Kim.)
Regarding claim 14,
The metal heating body according to claim 9,.. a thickness of the heating region is in a range of 1 µm to 20 µm, , (Paragraph [110] in Kim teaches “The electrically conductive layer 4 may have a thickness of from about 10 μm to about 50 μm.” Here the claimed range of 1 to 30 µm overlaps the range taught in Kim and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
wherein a thickness of the fusion region is in a range of 0.01 µm to 10 µm, (Kim is silent about this.
Sato teaches in paragraph [43] thickness of 0.01 to 1 µm for fusion region alkali metal silicate layer 31.)
…and a thickness of the aluminum oxide thin film is in a range of 3 µm to 40 µm. (Paragraph [64] teaches “the anodized film has a thickness of 3 to 50 µm”. Here the claimed range of 3 to 40 µm overlaps the range taught in Sato and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the insulating film on aluminum substrate as anodized aluminum oxide and alkali metal silicate film as taught in Sato to the heater in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to provide a substrate with an anodized aluminum oxide film, as an insulating layer provided metal substrate, excellent in stress and crack resistance,” as taught in paragraph [9] of Sato.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Sato as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Werkman et al., US 20090114639 (hereafter Werkman) and Boussemart et al., US 20060027103 (hereafter Boussemart).
The metal heating body according to claim 12, wherein the aluminum substrate is an aluminum tube, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Werkman teaches a heating element with aluminum substrate. Paragraph [21] teaches “The substrate may be in the form of a flat plate, a tube, or any other configuration that is compatible with the final utility.”)
…and a power density of the heating region of the aluminum tube is 1W/cm2 to 100W/cm2. (Werkman teaches a power density of 20 W/cm2 for aluminum heater in paragraph [14]. Here the claimed range overlaps the range taught in Werkman and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the aluminum substrate as tube as taught in Werkman in the heater in Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The substrate may be in the form of a flat plate, a tube, or any other configuration that is compatible with the final utility” as taught in paragraph [21] in Werkman.
Primary combination of references is silent about a diameter of the aluminum tube is 6mm to 80mm, and a heating power of the aluminum tube is 10W to 5000W.
Boussemart teaches a diameter of the aluminum tube is 6mm to 80mm, (Boussemart teaches a metal tube heater in paragraph [16]. Paragraph [16] further teaches diameter of the tube may be 6 to 20mm. Here the claimed range overlaps the range taught in Boussemart and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
and a heating power of the aluminum tube is 10W to 5000W, (Boussemart teaches power range from 438 to 1410 Watt in paragraph [35]. Here the claimed range overlaps the range taught in Boussemart and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the aluminum tube in Werkman to have a diameter between 6 to 80mm and power of 10 to 5000W as taught in Boussemart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The size of the tube can vary, depending on the type of use” as taught in paragraph [16] in Boussemart. Similarly, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to design a power level between 10 to 5000W depending on type of use of the heater.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tang et al., US 20140131904 (hereafter Tang), Fig. 4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761