DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change 2 accordingly: “wherein the component comprises the showerhead and the showerhead comprises” for proper antecedent basis.
change 5 accordingly: “wherein the component comprises the pipe and the pipe is” for proper antecedent basis.
change 6 accordingly: “wherein the component comprises the vessel and the vessel is” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 125 (see e.g. fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No.: US 2017/0290096 A1 (Duce).
Regarding claim 1, Duce discloses (see figs. 1, 3, 4 and 6) an apparatus, comprising: a component (see par. 60: “any suitable device”; Duce discloses other components besides a heat pipe 202, one of ordinary skill would understand such other components including a printed heater and printed temperature sensor; heat pipe 202) comprising at least one of a showerhead, a pipe 202, a valve manifold, and a vessel1 202; a printed (heater 130 is printed onto first layer 420 shown in fig. 4 over heat pipe 202; see fig. 6 and par. 54, top) heater 130 affixed (see figs. 4 and 6) on an outer surface (the outer surface being that of the outer casing 302 of heat pipe 202 in fig. 3 because fluid inside the heat pipe 202 absorbs “thermal energy” from the outer casing 302; see par. 40, top; also see “the resistance heater 130 … printed directly over the heat pipe 202” in par. 54 top; thus one of ordinary skill would understand the printed heater to be on the outer surface as claimed) of the component and configured to heat the component (fluid inside the heat pipe 202 absorbs “thermal energy” from the outer casing 302; see par. 40, top; the heater 130 heats heat pipe 202, see fig. 6); a printed (see par. 56, top) temperature sensor 614 affixed (see fig. 1) on the surface (see surface 302 of heat pipe 202 shown in figs. 3 and 6) of the component 202 and configured to measure an actual temperature (see par. 56, bottom and fig. 6) of the component 202 and generate a corresponding temperature signal (the controller 190 receives an electrical signal from the sensor 614 in order to “monitor” the temperature detected by the sensor 614; see par. 56), wherein the printed temperature sensor 614 is positioned adjacent (see fig. 6) to the printed heater 130; and a controller 190 (see figs. 1 and 6) connected to the printed temperature sensor 614 and the printed heater 130, and configured to control power (see par. 56, bottom) to the printed heater 130 according to the temperature signal (the controller 190 receives an electrical signal from the sensor 614 in order to “monitor” the temperature detected by the sensor 614; see par. 56).
Regarding claim 8, Duce discloses (see fig. 6) wherein the printed heater 130,604 comprises a metal electrode 606,608 affixed to the surface of the component and a dielectric layer overlying the metal electrode. The traces 606,608 are the first conductor 602 in fig. 6. Such first conductor 602 (being metal; see par. 54, top) carries electric current to the second conductor 604 that is the heater 130 resistive element. At least a portion of the first conductor, shown as first conductor 544 in fig. 5D is printed on the first layer 402 with a dielectric 406 (see par. 44, top; i.e. dielectric 406 is non-conductive) on top (see fig. 5E).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duce in view of Pub. No.: US 2003/0097987 A1 (Fukuda), as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2014/0083361 A1 (Rocha-Alverez) and US Patent 5,653,806 (Van Buskirk).
Regarding claim 2, Duce discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce does not explicitly disclose the component comprises a showerhead and the showerhead comprises: a first surface comprising a plurality of apertures; and a second surface, opposite-facing from the first surface, and comprising a smooth, uniform surface; wherein the printed heater is affixed on at least a portion of the smooth, uniform surface.
Fukuda teaches an apparatus comprising a component 7 the component comprising a showerhead 7 and the showerhead comprises: a first surface (see annotated figure below) comprising a plurality of apertures (one of ordinary skill understands a showerhead has a plurality of apertures that are not shown in the fig. 2 schematic in order for gas to go from piping through opening 7 to forming a film on object 1, see par. 53; example apertures 118,162 are shown in Rocha-Alverez fig. 1); and a second surface (surface opposite the first surface and the surface on which heaters 16 are located), opposite-facing (see annotated figure below) from the first surface (see annotated figure below), and comprising a smooth, uniform surface (the schematic fig. 2 of Fukuda displays much information and such smooth and uniform features are not shown because the chamber 2 wall is aligned with the second surface; Van Buskirk showerhead 12 second surface is evidence that showerhead second surfaces are smooth and uniform by way of showing thermocouple temperature sensors 3,4 located on such second surface wherein the Van Buskirk heater 27 is on a side surface; Rocha-Alverez fig. 1 is evidence that showerhead 114 heaters 116 may be located directly on top of a showerhead 114 second surface); wherein a heater 16 is affixed to the smooth uniform surface (the heater 16 is affixed to the second surface of showerhead 4 via the chamber 2 wall). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the showerhead 4 of Fukuda for the component 202 of Duce par. 60 (as discussed in the claim 1 analysis Duce discloses in par. 60 that heat pipe 202 discussed in Duce may be any suitable component or in other words a component using a heater and temperature sensor wherein Fukuda includes a component that is a showerhead 7 with a heater 16 and temperature sensor 22 for heating the showerhead 7 as discussed in par. 662 middle) for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of heating the component. This results in par. 60 component of Duce being a showerhead as taught by Fukuda and evidenced by Rocha-Alverez and Van Buskirk such that the component 202 of the combination of Duce in view Fukuda shown in fig. 6 of Duce is a showerhead and the surface at 130 in fig. 6 is the second surface of the showerhead of Duce in view Fukuda upon which the printed heater 130 and printed temperature sensor 614 are located. It is further noted that one of ordinary skill understands that a printed heater can be used in place of other types of heaters (see pertinent prior art infra).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (first surface)][AltContent: arrow]
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duce in view of Pub. No.: US 2020/0116388 A1 (Roach) and Pub. No.: US 2011/0277803 A1 (Grande).
Regarding claim 3, Duce discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce is silent the printed heater 130 has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters and the printed temperature sensor has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters. Duce discloses the thickness of the first layer 402 and the second layer 406 in pars. 42 and 44 respectively however does not discuss the thickness of the printed heater 130 and the printed temperature sensor 614.
Roach teaches a printed heater (heater 10 printed heaters by way of additive manufacturing, see pars. 18-19, such heaters 10 being printed directly on a component see par. 38, top, such component being a pipe, see par. 3) has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters (see par. 89 wherein the range 0.0001 inches to 0.010 inches equals 0.00254 mm to 0.254 mm). Thus a thickness of 0.25 mm falls within the instant claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Duce with the printed heater of Duce has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters as taught by Roach in order to facilitate the printed heater 82 with good fatigue resistance (see Roach par. 40, bottom) that can be used with a variety of shaped components (see par. 82) at low cost (see par. 82, bottom).
Grande teaches a printed temperature sensor (thermocouple device 10, see pars. 36, top and 37) has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters (see par. 52 wherein the range 0.1 to 500 microns equals 0.0001 mm to 0.5 mm). Thus a thickness of 0.5 mm falls within the instant claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Duce in view of Roach with the printed temperature sensor has a thickness in the range of 0.1 millimeters to 10 millimeters as taught by Grande in order to facilitate providing a printed thermocouple with a compact form that is less likely to detach from the component (see Grande par. 18). It is noted that this is similar to the printed thermocouple 614 type of temperature sensor of Duce in view of Roach shown in Duce fig. 6.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duce in view of US Patent 5,344,104 (Homer).
Regarding claim 4, Duce discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The current provided to the printed heater 130 from controller 190 permits the heater to generate a range of temperatures (see par. 34). Regarding general background, one of ordinary skill understands for example temperature ranges of spacecraft component operating temperatures in orbit may range from +10°C to +100°C (see pertinent prior art infra). Duce is silent the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 10 to 250 degrees Celsius.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Homer teaches in col. 11, ll. 42-61 that the temperature a heater generates is based on the component the heater is used to heat and the available electrical power to operate the heater. For example a heat pipe on a satellite is used to control the temperature of components (i.e., the payload) on the spacecraft when such components are powered off and thus the temperature of components may decrease wherein such heaters are used to help “maintain thermal balance”. The temperature the heater generates is based on “available power … [and knowledge] of the payload” regarding a nominal temperature of the payload when powered off (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61). For example if the temperature of the heater does not reach the nominal temperature then the payload would be subject to thermal cycling stress that can affect the durability of such payload and thermal balance would not be maintained. Similarly if the temperature is above the nominal temperature then this would require using extra electrical power that is limited on the spacecraft and can subject the payload to a temperature above the payload maximum temperature (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61 and see Duce par. 38, bottom). In addition a higher than needed temperature can negatively affect the health of the heater (see Duce par. 37 bottom discussing a health alert when the maximum temperature of the printed heater is exceeded).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the temperature a printed heater generates is a result-effective variable that controls the power used by the heater and the durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat. Thus, the claimed wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 10 to 250 degrees Celsius is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the printed heater generates a temperature, were disclosed in the prior art by Duce, 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 modify Duce’s invention to include wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 10 to 250 degrees Celsius in order to provide efficient use of energy and durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat as suggested and taught by Homer and Duce. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Duce discloses (see fig. 6) wherein the pipe 202 is configured to flow one of a gas (see par. 40) or a liquid (see par. 40). The current provided to the printed heater 130 from controller 190 permits the heater to generate a range of temperatures (see par. 34). One of ordinary skill understands for example temperature ranges of spacecraft component operating temperatures orbit may range from +45°C to +100°C (see pertinent prior art infra). Duce is silent the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 45 to 150 degrees Celsius.
Here, Homer teaches in col. 11, ll. 42-61 that the temperature a heater generates is based on the component the heater is used to heat and the available electrical power to operate the heater. For example a heat pipe on a satellite is used to control the temperature of components (i.e., the payload) on the spacecraft when such components are powered off and thus the temperature of components may decrease wherein such heaters are used to help “maintain thermal balance”. The temperature the heater generates is based on “available power … [and knowledge] of the payload” regarding a nominal temperature of the payload when powered off (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61). For example if the temperature of the heater does not reach the nominal temperature then the payload would be subject to thermal cycling stress that can affect the durability of such payload and thermal balance would not be maintained. Similarly if the temperature is above the nominal temperature then this would require using extra electrical power that is limited on the spacecraft and can subject the payload to a temperature above the payload maximum temperature (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61 and see Duce par. 38, bottom). In addition a higher than needed temperature can negatively affect the health of the heater (see Duce par. 37 bottom discussing a health alert when the maximum temperature of the printed heater is exceeded).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the temperature a printed heater generates is a result-effective variable that controls the power used by the heater and the durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat. Thus, the claimed wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 45 to 150 degrees Celsius is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the printed heater generates a temperature, were disclosed in the prior art by Duce, 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 modify Duce’s invention to include wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 45 to 150 degrees Celsius in order to provide efficient use of energy and durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat as suggested and taught by Homer and Duce. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Duce discloses (see fig. 6) the vessel 202 is configured to contain one of a gas (see par. 40) or a liquid (see par. 40). The current provided to the printed heater 130 from controller 190 permits the heater to generate a range of temperatures (see par. 34). One of ordinary skill understands for example temperature ranges of spacecraft component operating temperatures orbit may range from +10°C to +100°C (see pertinent prior art infra). Duce is silent the printed heater 130 is configured to generate a temperature in the range of 10 to 150 degrees Celsius
Here, Homer teaches in col. 11, ll. 42-61 that the temperature a heater generates is based on the component the heater is used to heat and the available electrical power to operate the heater. For example a heat pipe on a satellite is used to control the temperature of components (i.e., the payload) on the spacecraft when such components are powered off and thus the temperature of components may decrease wherein such heaters are used to help “maintain thermal balance”. The temperature the heater generates is based on “available power … [and knowledge] of the payload” regarding a nominal temperature of the payload when powered off (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61). For example if the temperature of the heater does not reach the nominal temperature then the payload would be subject to thermal cycling stress that can affect the durability of such payload and thermal balance would not be maintained. Similarly if the temperature is above the nominal temperature then this would require using extra electrical power that is limited on the spacecraft and can subject the payload to a temperature above the payload maximum temperature (see Homer co. 11, ll. 59-61 and see Duce par. 38, bottom). In addition a higher than needed temperature can negatively affect the health of the heater (see Duce par. 37 bottom discussing a health alert when the maximum temperature of the printed heater is exceeded).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the temperature a printed heater generates is a result-effective variable that controls the power used by the heater and the durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat. Thus, the claimed wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 10 to 150 degrees Celsius is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the printed heater generates a temperature, were disclosed in the prior art by Duce, 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 modify Duce’s invention to include wherein the printed heater generates a temperature in the range of 10 to 150 degrees Celsius in order to provide efficient use of energy and durability of the printed heater and the component the printed heater is used to heat as suggested and taught by Homer and Duce. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duce in view of Roach.
Regarding claim 7, Duce discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer directly between the surface of the component and the printed heater. For example the pipe 202 of Duce does not disclose the instant adhesive layer with the printed heater and it appears Duce may discourage the printed heater worker from using an adhesive layer with a heat pipe in the spacecraft environment (for example in pars. 2 and 38 Duce suggests not using adhesive with “conventional” heaters on satellites in outer space). However Roach discloses a pipe and Roach is not in the outer space environment and Roach teaches a “printed” heater rather than a “conventional” heater and that such printed heater can either be directly printed on the component or alternatively affixed to the component with adhesive as explained below (see underlined text). Thus as explained below one of ordinary skill in the heater arts would consider it reasonable to substitute the generic component in Duce par. 60 for the pipe of Roach because such substitution would yield the predictable result heating the pipe of Roach with temperature control using a printed temperature sensor of Duce that can be applied to curved surfaces in an efficient manner. Thus this combination is used to teach applicant embodiment of figs. 3 or 4 that includes an adhesive later 300 between the component 225 and the printed heater 200. It is noted that a claim 7 back-up rejection is shown Roach in view Lecca below in the 103 section wherein the issues above in this paragraph are not present. There is two steps in this rejection: (1) simple substitution of the pipe of Roach for the generic component of Duce, and (2) simple substitution of the way Roach affixes the printed heater to the pipe of Duce in view Roach (i.e., with an adhesive) for the way Duce affixes the printed heater to the pipe of Duce in view Roach (i.e. without adhesive). It is thought the (1) way would not discourage the heater worker because the printed heater is not on a spacecraft, the printed heater is not a “conventional” heater, and Roach expressly suggests the substitution via the underlined text below.
Roach discloses an apparatus comprising a component comprising a pipe (see “rigid” tube in par. 18, bottom for example). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the pipe of Roach for the component 202 of Duce par. 60 (as discussed in the claim 1 analysis Duce discloses in par. 60 that heat pipe 202 discussed in Duce may be any suitable component or in other words a component using a heater and temperature sensor wherein Roach includes a component that is a pipe with a heater 10 and temperature sensor (see par. 27) for heating the pipe as discussed in par. 183 middle) for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of heating the component. This results in par. 60 component of Duce being the pipe of Roach such that the component 202 of the combination of Duce in view Roach is shown in fig. 6 of Duce is a pipe (of the type discussed in Roach rather than a heat pipe) and the surface at 130 in fig. 6 is the surface of the pipe of Roach upon which the printed heater 10 and are located in Roach.
Roach further teaches an adhesive layer directly between the surface of the component and the printed heater. The heater 12 is printed onto substrate 14 and substrate 14 is attached to the component (rigid tube) with adhesive (see par. 37). Roach teaches it is acceptable to (1) print a printed heater direction onto the component or (2) print the heater onto a substrate and attach the substrate to the component with adhesive. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the affixing of the printed heater of Roach (i.e. by using the substrate and adhesive) or the affixing of Duce in view of Roach for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of heating the component. For example the substrate taught by Roach can be used in lieu of the first layer 402 of Duce in view of Roach.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach in view of US 20090266343 A1 (Lecca).
Regarding claim 1, Roach discloses (see fig. 1) an apparatus, comprising: a component comprising at least one of a showerhead, a pipe (see “rigid” tube in par. 18, bottom for example), a valve manifold, and a vessel (water tank 820; see par. 67); a printed heater 10 affixed (the heater is affixed on outer surface of such pipes; for example see printed heater 210 affixed to outer wall 224 of pipe 220 in fig. 2) on an outer surface of the component and configured to heat (see par. 18, top) the component (see “rigid” tube in par. 18, bottom for example); a temperature sensor (see par. 27) affixed (the instant sensor is applied to (1) the substrate 14 of the heater 10 or (2) the component, see par. 27; the assembly of par. 27 is the component, see par. 39, top; thus in the latter case (2) one of ordinary skill would understand the sensor would be adjacent to the printed heater since the substrate relates to the printed heater rather than to the entire pipe component; see substrate 14 in fig. 1 and substrate 214 in fig. 2; this is evidenced by Lecca fig. 4 showing printed temperature sensor 270 adjacent to printed heater 252, both on component 260 ) on the surface of the component and configured to measure an actual temperature (the temperature of the pipe component is regulated and thus the temperature sensor measures the temperature of the pipe) of the component and generate a corresponding temperature signal (the signal comprising the “data” in par. 27), wherein the printed temperature sensor is positioned adjacent (see above) to the printed heater 12; and a controller 19 connected (see fig. 1 showing controller connected to heater 12 and see par. 27 stating temperature sensor is connected to the controller 19) to the printed temperature sensor and the printed heater, and configured to control power (electrical current to the resistive heaters is controlled by an on/off switch or by input from the temperature sensor; see pars. 26-27) to the printed heater according to the temperature signal. Roach does not explicitly disclose the temperature sensor is a printed temperature sensor.
Lecca teaches (see fig. 4) a component 260 (of an engine, see par. 13 top; it is noted that Roach also discloses components for engines, see par. 67, and thus one or ordinary skill would consider Lecca’s teachings to be applicable to Roach) and further teaches a printed (see par. 43, top) temperature sensor 270 (adjacent to a printed, see par. 14, middle, heater 252, see par. 13, top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to print the temperature sensor of Roach onto the substrate of Roach as taught by Lecca in order to facilitate using an attachment method that can conform to the curved surfaces of a pipe.
Regarding claim 7, Roach in view of Lecca teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Roach further discloses an adhesive layer directly between the surface of the component and the printed heater. The heater 12 is printed onto substrate 14 and substrate 14 is attached to the component (rigid tube) with adhesive (see par. 37).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Heat pipes are closed vessels having a chamber therein”: US 4776389 (col. 1, ll. 10-15);
Spacecraft component environment temperatures: NPL “Small Satellite Operational Phase Thermal Analysis and Design: A Comparative Study“ (Table 6);
Water pipe heaters in aircraft: Pub. No.: US 2004/0057709 A1 (claim 11); and
printed heater can be used in place of other types of heaters: JP 2008274625 A (page 4, bottom of translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 In the component arts a heat pipe such as heat pipe 202 is considered a vessel (see pertinent prior art infra) and the claim does not require both a pipe and a vessel (i.e. claim 1 requires only one “component”).
2 Fukuda fig. 2 includes a controller 25 connected to the heater 16 and the temperature sensor similar to the controller 190 of Duce fig. 6 connected to the heater 130 and temperature sensor 614.
3 Roach includes (see par. 27 and fig. 1) a controller connected to the heater 10 and the temperature sensor similar to the controller 190 of Duce fig. 6 connected to the heater 130 and temperature sensor 614.