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 .
Specification
The specification amendment filed 06/22/2026 is acceptable and has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where claim 7 is supported (in light of the claim 1 amendments), nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “further comprising an adhesive layer directly between the outer surface of the component and the printed heater” wherein the electrode is directly affixed to the outer component in the application as filed. For example par. 22 states “For example, the printed heater 200 may be printed directly on the outer surface of the component 225. Alternatively, the printed heater 200 may be attached to the outer surface of the component 225 with an adhesive layer 300 arranged directly between the component and the printed heater 200.” Similarly par. 24 states “the conductive layer 215 may be deposited directly on the outer surface of the component 225. Alternatively, the conductive layer 215 may be adhered to the outer surface of the component 225 with the adhesive layer 300. Thus use of the adhesive appears to be in the alternative regarding directly affixing the printing heater to the outer surface of the component. There was no discussion found of a combined embodiment. The claim 1 metal electrode is interpreted as the conductive layer 215 (examiner did not find any other discussion of “metal” in applicant disclosure). More specifically there is not a written description of how the metal portion of the printed heater could be affixed directly to the outer surface of the component and at the same time there also be an adhesive layer between the two.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2017/0290096 A1 (Duce) in view of US 2020/0116388 A1 (Roach).
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), wherein the printed heater 130,604 comprises a metal electrode 606 and/or 608 and/or 130 affixed to the outer surface of the component (the conductor 602 (being metal; see par. 54, top) carries electric current to the conductor 604 that is the heater 130 resistive element. The conductor 130 is printed on the first layer 402 (see fig. 4 and 5E) that is affixed directly to an outer surface of the component 202; see fig. 4; wherein the first layer is a dielectric, see par. 42);
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).
Duce does not disclose the metal electrode affixed directly to the outer surface of the component.
Roach teaches (see fig. 6 or 7) vessel (see par. 59) component 620 for aerospace (see par. 18) and further teaches a metal electrode 612 (i.e. printed heater) affixed directly to a surface 628 of the component 620 (in fig. 7 the component 730 is a planar component with metal electrode 712 directly affixed). The conductive ink 612,712 may be silver (see par. 21) and this is similar to silver conductive ink of Duce in par. 43. Roach teaches a less complex printed heater can be used when the component is not metal and thus the dialectic layer between the component (such as a composite component or less conductive component) and the printed ink can be omitted (see par. 39 and 47).
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 metal electrode affixed directly to the outer surface of the component as taught by Roach in order to facilitate ease of manufacture and reduced costs (in the scenario the Duce component can be made of composite that is lighter for aerospace applications). This results in omitting layer 402 in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 7, Duce in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce does not explicitly disclose an adhesive layer directly between the outer surface of the component and the printed heater.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to include an adhesive layer when the printed heater is directly printed onto the outer surface. Applicant has not stated any benefit or reason to include an adhesive layer. Also see 112 section above.
Regarding claim 8, Duce in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce discloses (see fig. 4) wherein the printed heater 400 (as modified by Roach in the claim 1 analysis above to omit layer 402) further comprises a dielectric layer 406 overlying the metal electrode 130.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duce in view of Roach as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce does not explicitly disclose the component comprises 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 Duce2 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. 663 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 Roach as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2011/0277803 A1 (Grande).
Regarding claim 3, Duce in view of Roach teach 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 second layer 406 in par. 44 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 in view of Roach with the printed heater 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 Roach as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,344,104 (Homer).
Regarding claim 4, Duce in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The current provided to the printed heater 130 disclosed by Duce 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 in view of Roach, 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 in view of Roach’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 in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce discloses (see fig. 6) wherein the component comprises the pipe, and wherein the pipe 202 is configured to flow one of a gas (see par. 40) or a liquid (see par. 40) therethrough (see arrows in fig. 3 showing fluid flowing through heat pipe). 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 in view of Roach, 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 in view of Roach’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 in view of Roach teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Duce discloses (see fig. 6) the component comprises the vessel and 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 in view of Roach, 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 in view of Roach’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) 1 and 8 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 and 7) an apparatus, comprising:
a component comprising at least one of a showerhead, a pipe, a valve manifold (see “valve” in par. 41), and a vessel (see “tank” in par. 41);
a printed heater 10,710,712 affixed (directly printed to component 720; see fig. 7 and par. 63), wherein the printed heater comprises a metal electrode 712 affixed directly to the outer (see par. 64 wherein layer 716 is towards external env.) surface (at 712) of the component 720;
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 temperature sensor 270 adjacent to printed heater 252, both on component 260; because the heater is directly printed on the component rather than on a substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the sensor to be affixed directly to the component or indirectly via the assembly) 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 8, Roach in view of Lecca teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Roach discloses (see fig. 1 and 7) wherein the printed heater 10,710,712 further comprises (see fig. 7) a dielectric layer 716 overlying the metal electrode 712.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments were considered, but a new combination of references regarding base reference Duce (Pub. No.: US 2017/0290096) were used to reject the claims and therefor the arguments were moot. Regarding base reference Roach (US 2020/0116388) a different embodiment is cited. For example Roach fig. 7 shows printed heater metal electrode 712 affixed directly to the outer surface of vessel component 720. Printed ink 712 comprises “silver” (see pars. 21 and 61) and the dielectric layer 716 faces the external environment (see par. 64).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 Of Duce in view of Roach
3 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.
Prosecution Insights