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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected group II. Applicant did not provide any specific arguments against the restriction requirement and as such this is being treated as an election without traverse.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2 and 6 utilize inappropriate shading. Please see 37CFR1.84(m). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108617042 to Liu in view of US 2022/0248758 to Lei.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6 and 17
Liu teaches: An electromagnetic induction heating element, comprising: a substrate (4,5) the heating element including a coil (9) surrounding the electromagnetic induction heating element, the coil being configured to generate a magnetic field (description of Fig. 1 “an alternating magnetic field of the induction coil”) wherein the substrate of the heating element is configured to induce the magnetic field and generate an electric current (abstract) and a temperature sensing layer (19) the material of the substrate comprises a metal elementary substance or alloy and specifically stainless steel (“5 generally made of iron, iron alley, stainless steel or ferrite”)
Liu does not teach that the temperature sensing layer is arranged on an insulating layer alloy, and wherein the temperature sensing layer comprises a temperature measuring circuit formed by sintering resistance slurry and a protective layer arranged on the temperature sensing layer.
Lee teaches a temperature sensing layer (20; as described in ¶ [0042]) arranged on an insulating layer (10) and wherein the temperature sensing layer comprises a temperature measuring circuit formed by sintering resistance slurry (¶ [0039]). And a protective layer arranged on the sintering layer (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu with the temperature sensing layer of Lee in the configuration claimed for the purpose of allowing realtime temperature monitoring of the components, thus increasing safety.
Regarding claim 2
While Liu as modified is silent as to any particular sintering temperature this would necessarily be a step in the method of making the finished product which is only required to be a temperature sensing sintered slurry. Therefore this limitation appears to be directed solely to the process of making this product and does not appear to impart any structural distinction over the modified Lee. Product claims are defined by the final product, not the process by which they are made (see MPEP §2113).
Regarding claim 3
Liu does not specifically teach that the sheet resistance of the temperature measuring circuit is from 1 to 5 ohms per square and wherein a temperature coefficient of resistance of the temperature measuring circuit ranges from 300ppm/c to 3500 ppm/c.
It is noted that these measurements are not stated as providing any unknown or unpredictable result, aside from being well known result effective variables which derive simply from their units and the basic principles of electrical engineering. As would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art sheet resistance is a unit which measures a film resistance in the lateral (not through) directions and by the basics of ohms law this resistance will affect how much current per applied voltage will travel through the film. The temperature coefficient of resistance measures how much the electrical resistance of a conductor changes due to temperature and therefore is a result effective variable with respect to the resistance which as stated above will control the amount of current which flows per applied voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the variables discussed above in order to arrive at the claimed invention as these are known result effective variables which will effect the final resistance and therefore current flow of the device.
Regarding claim 8
Liu as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the substrate ranges from 0.1mm to 1mm. However, it is noted that Applicant does not state this range is for any particular purpose or provides any synergistic or unexpected result. In fact Applicant’s disclosure states that certainly other values could be used. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the substrate of the modified Liu in the thickness value claimed. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the recitation of a dimensioning that is not disclosed as having an unpredictable effect on the function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 9
Liu as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the insulating layer ranges from 10 to 300 micrometers. However, it is noted that Applicant does not state this range is for any particular purpose or provides any synergistic or unexpected result. In fact Applicant’s disclosure states that certainly other values could be used. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the insulating layer of the modified Liu in the thickness value claimed. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the recitation of a dimensioning that is not disclosed as having an unpredictable effect on the function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 10
Liu as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the temperature sensing layer layer ranges from 10 to 300 micrometers. However, it is noted that Applicant does not state this range is for any particular purpose or provides any synergistic or unexpected result. In fact Applicant’s disclosure states that certainly other values could be used. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the temperature sensing layer of the modified Liu in the thickness value claimed. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the recitation of a dimensioning that is not disclosed as having an unpredictable effect on the function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 11
Wherein the substrate is in a shape of a sheet, strip, tube , column or cone (Liu Fig. 1, tube, but also conical at end).
Claim(s) 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lee and in further view of CN 104244486 to Wang.
Regarding claim 12 and 16
Liu as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but is silent as to how the wherein, in parts by mass, the resistance slurry comprises 10 to 20 parts of organic carrier, 30 to 45 parts of inorganic adhesive, and 30 to 50 parts of conductive agent, wherein the inorganic adhesive comprises glass powder, and wherein the conductive agent comprises at least one of silver and palladium.
Wang teaches a resistance slurry including a resistance slurry made of inorganic adhesive including glass powder and conductive agent including silver (¶[0017] and ¶[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Liu to have a resistance slurry made of the materials disclosed in Wang as it has been that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is only the selection of materials known to be suitable for that particular purpose a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.07).
Further, while Wang does not teach the exact compositional weights of each component (in claim 12 or more narrowly in claim 16) it is noted that the function of the product is similar despite having slightly different weights. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Liu to arrive at the claimed invention as it has been held that when the difference in composition ranges does not result in a different function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 15
Liu as modified further teaches wherein the organic carrier comprises terpineol (¶[0015])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lee and in further view of US 2003/0121906 to Abbott.
Liu as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not teach that the insulating layer is a glaze with an expansion coefficient ranging from 9x10-6(1/K) to 13x 10- 6(1/K).
Abbott teaches applying metallic particles onto a non-conductive (insulating) layer of glass (¶ [0102]).
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the insulating layer of Liu out of glaze as taught by Abbot as it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the selection of a material known to be suitable for an intended purpose a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Similarly, while the modified Liu does not teach an exact expansion coefficient. It is known from basic physics and electrical engineering that this is a result effective variable effecting the expansion of a material with respect to temperature, as such it would have been an obvious matter of optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the claims from which it depends. The prior art fails to teach the specific compositions of 13 and 14 and fails to teach the specific layering design of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761