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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/28/2026 presents claims 23, 26, and 29-36 as amended and claims 24-25, 27-28, and 37-40 as cancelled. Claims 23, 26, and 29-36 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in addressing the previously indicated claim objections, rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), rejections under 35 USC 112 (d), and rejections under 35 USC 102.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant traverses Okajima in that “the (second) electrode is positioned more towards the center side than the inner bridge” and that “Okajima does not disclose or suggest that the pair of second electrode parts is positioned further outward than the pair of second inner bridges” as required in amended claim 23.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Kim is relied upon in the instant action to teach the positioning of the second electrode parts being further outward than the pair of second inner bridges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23, 26, and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23, as amended, recites “wherein the pair of second electrode parts face between the pair of second inner bridges” and “wherein the pair of second electrode parts is positioned further outward than the pair of second inner bridges.”
PNG
media_image1.png
646
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of instant application
The specification, with respect to Figure 4 (above), details second electrode parts 69A and 69B arranged adjacent to second inner bridges 62. While electrode parts 69A/B are shows arranged further outward (with respect to center C) than the inner bridges 62, it is not clear in what way the electrode parts facing between the inner bridges should be construed. In this context, “between” is defined as “in the space separating (two points, objects, etc.)” (dictionary.com/browse/between, viewed on 05/19/2026). However, the electrodes are not shown as being in the space between the inner bridges. Rather, they are shown away from the space separating the inner bridges. This creates confusion as to the manner in which the second electrode parts are to be considered to face between the pair of second inner bridges and, simultaneously, be positioned further outward than the pair of second inner bridges.
Claims 26 and 29-36 inherit the above deficiency.
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 be23 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) 23, 26, 29, 30, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US2010/0193502) in view of Okajima (US 2003/0075537).
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches an electric heater (Title and Fig. 3) comprising:
a substrate (51);
PNG
media_image2.png
560
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kim (annotated)
an outer pattern part disposed on one surface of the substrate (51), the outer pattern part including a plurality of outer tracks having an arc shape and a plurality of outer bridges connecting the plurality of outer tracks in series (as shown in Fig. 3 above, the outer pattern part is taken as the outer tracks of concentric circles that are connected via curved bridge portions);
an inner pattern part disposed on the one surface of the substrate (51) so as to be located such that the outer pattern part surrounds the inner pattern part, the inner pattern part including a plurality of inner tracks having an arc shape and a plurality of inner bridges connecting the plurality of inner tracks in series (as shown in Fig. 3 above, the inner pattern part is taken as the inner tracks of concentric circles that are connected via curved bridge portions such that the outer pattern part concentrically surrounds the inner pattern part);
a pair of first electrode parts connected to an outer track located at an outermost side of the plurality of outer tracks (as shown above, the electrodes are taken as the portion of 71 that directly connects to the tracks) [Note: the claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, requires the first electrodes to be connected to an outer track and that the outer track is located at an outermost side of the plurality of outer tracks. The claim is not limited to, nor requires, the first electrodes to be, themselves, located at an outermost side of the plurality of tracks. Rather, as shown in Kim, the first electrodes are connected, directly or indirectly, to each track of the outer tracks and, as such, are connected to an outer track that is located at an outermost side of the plurality of outer tracks); and
a pair of second electrode parts connected to an inner track located at an outermost side of the plurality of inner tracks (as shown above, the electrodes are taken as the portion of 71 that directly connects to the tracks) [See also discussion above regarding interpretation of the location of the electrodes),
wherein the pair of second electrode parts is located closer to a center of the arc shape of the plurality of inner tracks than an outer track located at an innermost side of the plurality of outer tracks of the outer pattern part (see annotated Figure 3 above. The second electrodes, connected to the inner tracks, is located further inside the concentric circles of the outer and inner tracks such that they are located within the circle defined by the innermost track of the outer tracks),
wherein the inner pattern part includes:
a pair of first inner tracks having an arc shape and to which the pair of second electrode parts are connected, respectively (plurality of inner tracks each defining or having an arc shape that are connected to the second electrodes, either directly or indirectly);
a pair of second inner tracks having an arc shape, respectively located inside the pair of first inner tracks (concentrically positioned tracks), and spaced apart from the pair of first inner tracks (spacing between adjacent tracks); and
a pair of first inner bridges respectively connecting the first inner track of the pair of first inner tracks and the second inner track of the pair of second inner tracks in series (inner bridges shown in the above annotated Fig.).
Kim further teaches a pair of third inner tracks having an arc shape, respectively located inside the pair of second inner tracks, and spaced apart from the pair of second inner tracks (third inner track taken as any one of the tracks that toward the center of the inner pattern part); and a pair of second inner bridges respectively connecting a second inner track of the pair of inner tracks and the third inner track of the pair of third inner tracks to each other in series (as shown above), wherein the pair of second electrode parts is positioned further outward than the pair of second inner bridges (see above and annotated Figure. A portion of the electrode parts extend more outwardly past the bridges).
Kim is silent on wherein the pair of second electrode parts face between the pair of second inner bridges, wherein a distance between the pair of second inner bridges is wider than a distance between the pair of first inner bridges.
PNG
media_image3.png
531
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Okajima (annotated)
Okajima relates to a planar heating element (Abstract; Fig. 1) that includes a substrate (2) an outer pattern part (3) and an inner pattern part (4) connected to respective electrode pairs (6A/7) with the outer pattern part and inner pattern part including connecting bridges (portions that connect adjacent concentrically positioned tracks indicated by the annotated arrows).
Okajima teaches wherein the pair of second electrode parts face between the pair of second inner bridges (as shown above the electrode pairs face between the inner bridge).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Okajima (annotated)
Okajima also teaches wherein a distance between the pair of second inner bridges is wider than a distance between the pair of first inner bridges. (as shown above the spacing between the lower annotated inner bridges is wider than the upper annotated inner bridges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kim with Okajima, by modifying the placement of the second electrode parts, with the electrodes facing between the second inner bridges taught by Okajima, for in doing so would merely shift the position of the electrode pair relative to the inner bridges of the inner pattern part, which would not have modified the operation of the heating device. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kim with Okajima, by modifying the placement of the distance between opposing bridges of Kim, with the distance between the pair of second inner bridges being wider than the distance between the pair of first inner bridges taught by Okajima, for in doing so would amount to a change in shape of the inner pattern part, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV. Additionally, having the distance between the pair of second inner bridges being wider than the distance between the pair of first inner bridges would amount to merely shifting the second inner bridges, relative to the first inner bridges, which would not have modified the operation of the heating device. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 26, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 23, including wherein a gap between the first inner track and the second inner track is constant (Kim; spacing between adjacent tracks is shown being constant).
Claims 32 and 33 are defined as depending from claims 23 and 26, respectively. Kim, as detailed above, teaches the electric heater and an electric heating apparatus including the heater (i.e., cooktop for heating a cooking utensil).
Regarding claim 29, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 23, including
PNG
media_image2.png
560
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kim (annotated)
wherein the outer pattern part includes: a pair of first outer tracks having an arc shape and to which the pair of first electrode parts are connected, respectively; a pair of second outer tracks having an arc shape, respectively located inside the pair of first outer tracks (defined by the concentrically arranged tracks of the outer pattern part), and spaced apart from the pair of first outer tracks (spacing between adjacent tracks); and a pair of first outer bridges respectively connecting a first outer track of the pair of first outer tracks and a second outer track of the pair of outer tracks to each other in series (as shown above).
Kim is silent on wherein a distance between the pair of second inner bridges is wider than a distance between the pair of first outer bridges.
PNG
media_image5.png
554
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Okajima (annotated)
Okajima relates to a planar heating element (Abstract; Fig. 1) that includes a substrate (2) an outer pattern part (3) and an inner pattern part (4) connected to respective electrode pairs (6A/7) with the outer pattern part and inner pattern part including connecting bridges (portions that connect adjacent concentrically positioned tracks indicated by the annotated arrows).
Okajima teaches wherein a distance between the pair of second inner bridges is wider than a distance between the pair of first outer bridges. (as shown above the spacing between the annotated inner bridges is wider than the annotated outer bridges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kim with Okajima, by modifying the placement of the distance between opposing bridges of Kim, with the distance between the pair of second inner bridges being wider than the distance between the pair of first outer bridges taught by Okajima, for in doing so would amount to a change in shape of the inner pattern part, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV. Additionally, having the distance between the pair of second inner bridges being wider than the distance between the pair of first inner bridges would amount to merely shifting the second inner bridges, relative to the first inner bridges, which would not have modified the operation of the heating device. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 29, and further teaches [Kim] wherein a width of the first outer track and the second outer track is different from that of the first inner track, the second inner track, and the third inner track (the diameter defined by the outer tracks of the outer pattern part is larger than a diameter defined by the inner tracks of the inner pattern part. As such, the first and second outer track of the outer pattern part is wider, individually, than the first, second and third inner track, individually.).
Claims 34-35 are defined as depending from claims 29 and 30, respectively.
Kim, as detailed above, teaches the electric heater and an electric heating apparatus including the heater (i.e., cooktop for heating a cooking utensil).
Claim(s) 31 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Okajima (US 2003/0075537).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 30, except for wherein a gap between the first inner track and the outer pattern part is varied along a length direction of the outer pattern part.
Kim teaches an alternative embodiment (Fig. 8) wherein a gap between the first inner track (inner track of inner heating portion 351) and the outer pattern part (320) is varied along a length direction of the outer pattern part (as shown in Fig. 8, the outer pattern part has a variable pattern defining an overall arc shape. This variable pattern creates variable gap between the inner track of 351 and outer pattern part 320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kim with Okajima, by modifying the shape of the outer pattern part of Kim (Fig. 3), with that of Kim (Fig. 8) for in doing so would amount to a change in shape of the outer pattern part, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV.
Claim 36 is defined as depending from claim 31.
Kim, as detailed above, teaches the electric heater and an electric heating apparatus including the heater (i.e., cooktop for heating a cooking utensil).
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights