DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, “the silver layer” should be corrected to –the layer of silver-- to maintain consistent wording throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drying unit in claim 16, which is interpreted according to specification p.11 as a box oven or blast furnace.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 2 recites “first and sides.” Claim 1 later recites “the first and second sides.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the… second side” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This rejection may be overcome by amending the line 2 limitation to read –the first and second sides--.
The term “about” in claims 3, 7, 8, 15, 17, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the following are indefinite:
claim 3: the covered surface area
claims 7-8: the layer thickness
claims 15 and 17-18: the processing time and/or temperature
Claim 5 recites “patches with sides paralleling edges of the ceramic substrate.” There is confusion because the previously recited sides are part of the substrate, and these sides are not sufficiently distinguished. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –patches with patch sides paralleling edges of the ceramic substrate--. or – patches with patch edges paralleling edges of the ceramic substrate--.
Claim 11 recites “further including forming two squares of silver.” Claim 11 depends from claim 1, which recites “forming… a layer of silver.” It is unclear whether the two squares are in addition to the silver layer or whether the two squares comprise the silver layer. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –wherein forming the layer of silver comprises forming two square patches of silver--.
Claim 12 recites “further including forming three rectangles of silver.” Claim 12 depends from claim 1, which recites “forming… a layer of silver.” It is unclear whether the three rectangles are in addition to the silver layer or whether the three rectangles comprise the silver layer. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –wherein forming the layer of silver comprises forming three rectangular patches of silver--.
Claim 13 recites “further including forming four rectangles of silver.” Claim 13 depends from claim 1, which recites “forming… a layer of silver.” It is unclear whether the four rectangles are in addition to the silver layer or whether the four rectangles comprise the silver layer. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –wherein forming the layer of silver comprises forming four rectangular patches of silver--.
Claim 14 recites “the first mesh” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the mesh--.
Claim 14 recites “further including providing a mesh stencil over the ceramic substrate and leveling through the first mesh stencil a silver paste.” It is understood that this forms a layer of silver. It is not clear how this is related to the claim 1 limitation “forming… a layer of silver,” i.e. whether it requires forming an additional layer. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to – wherein forming the layer of silver comprises providing a mesh stencil over the ceramic substrate and leveling through the first mesh stencil a silver paste.—
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerle (US 2020/0253350) in view of Kou (CN 211431087).
Regarding claim 1, Bayerle discloses:
A method of making a heater, comprising:
providing a ceramic substrate (ceramic substrate 160, ¶30) having a rectangular shape with first (outer face 162, ¶30) and sides thereof defining a thickness (vertical dimension of 160 in Fig 5) between the first and second (inner face 163, ¶30) sides;
on the second side (163), forming one or more resistive traces (164, ¶31-¶32).
Bayerle does not disclose:
forming on the first side a layer of silver.
Bayerle teaches that the hair contact surface “may be formed directly by a surface of each heater 130, 132 or formed by a material covering each heater 130, 132, such as a shield or sleeve” (¶25).
Kou relates to the problem of temperature gradients in ceramic heaters (¶5) and is thus pertinent to the problem at hand. Kou teaches, for a ceramic resistance heater in an electronic cigarette, a ceramic substrate having a heat conducting layer of silver, silver-palladium, or silver-platinum (¶13) that is 10-15 µm thick (¶20). The silver layer is formed on the green ceramic body by dip coating or spray coating and sintering (¶18) or printing and sintering (¶50). “By attaching a thermally conductive layer with a thermal conductivity greater than that of the ceramic substrate to the outside of the ceramic substrate, the heat distribution on the surface of the ceramic heating element can be quickly balanced, making the surface temperature of the ceramic heating element uniform. At the same time, the presence of the thermally conductive layer reduces the requirement for the thermal conductivity of the ceramic substrate, allowing the use of low thermal conductivity materials, thereby reducing power consumption and reducing the temperature of the bonding wire area” (¶25). Silver is also a low temperature sintering material, which gives more options for the ceramic material (¶26). The temperature gradient is reduced (¶48-¶49). The silver layer may be a monolithic film or may not cover the whole area, and be formed as a mesh, with gaps to allow for different thermal expansion (¶54 “shrinkage”). Kou is not limited to the needle (cylindrical) heating elements; the “heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element” (¶49).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bayerle by forming a coating of silver, silver-palladium, or silver-platinum on the heating surface, i.e. the hair contact surface of Bayerle, as taught by Kou, to obtain the benefit of uniform surface temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
the layer of silver having a coverage of a surface area of the first side less than 100% (a layer with regular voids, such as a grid, ¶54).
Regarding claim 3, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not explicitly teach:
the coverage of the surface area is in a range from about 80% to about 95%.
Kou teaches either a monolithic layer or a layer with regular voids, such as a grid, to allow for differential thermal expansion during sintering and use (¶54). The arrangement with voids reduces the area over which the heat is evenly spread by the conductive silver layer. Kou teaches that the “product of the effective area ratio of the mesh and the thickness of the mesh is not less than the thickness of the heat-conducting layer without mesh” (¶22, see also ¶76). Thus, if the area of the conductive layer is decreased, the thickness must be increased to provide the heat conduction effect. Also, keeping thickness constant, the effective area ratio (area covered by the conductive layer) is a result effective area for the conduction effect, and the reduced temperature gradient across the heater.
According to MPEP § 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the layer of silver cover about 80% to about 95% of the surface area of the ceramic substrate to reduce the temperature gradient because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
forming the layer of silver as a plurality of patches of silver (¶76 “grid” is multiple patches, though the patches are connected).
Regarding claim 6, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not teach:
forming multiple layers of silver.
It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP § 2144.04 §§ VI.B. The specification does not describe a new and unexpected result of having two layers.
MODIFICATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hair iron of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by forming the layer as two layers. Kou discloses that the thickness of the silver layer determines its ability to balance heat distribution (¶19, ¶52, ¶69, ¶71). Forming the layer as multiple layers would not interfere with the thickness requirement, so one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success by forming the layer as two layers.
Regarding claim 7, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not explicitly teach:
each of the multiple layers is formed in a silver thickness of about 10 to about 20 μm.
Kou explicitly teaches a thickness of 10-15 μm for pure silver, and also teaches that the layer may be a mixture of silver with platinum or palladium. Kou further teaches a requirement of that the product of the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive layer and the thickness of the thermally conductive layer is greater than 5500 mW/K (¶19) and that a thicker layer provides improved ability to balance heat distribution (52). Silver has a thermal conductivity of about 429 W/mK. Platinum has a thermal conductivity of about 72 W/mk. Palladium has a thermal conductivity of about 75 W/mK.
MODIFICATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hair iron of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by forming each layer with a thickness of about 10 to about 20 μm. This is more than the explicitly taught total thickness of 10-15 μm for pure silver. The increased thickness is obvious to provide the required total product of thermal conductivity and thickness when using a mixture of silver with platinum or palladium, or it would be obvious to provide a thicker layer to improve the performance in balancing heat distribution (¶52, ¶69).
Regarding claim 8, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
forming the layer of silver in a silver thickness of about 10 to about 30 μm (Kou: ¶20, 10–15 μm for silver, ¶19, ¶52, ¶69, ¶71).
Regarding claim 9, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
forming the layer of silver as a composition of silver and platinum (Kou: ¶13).
Regarding claim 19, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not explicitly teach:
the silver layer is formed on the first side before the one or more resistive traces are formed on the second side.
The references do not indicate a particular order for performing these steps.
It has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 §IV §§C). Forming the silver layer before forming the resistive traces would not have modified the operation of the device, and the Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results from this limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the method to form the silver layer before forming the resistive traces.
Regarding claim 20, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
forming on the second side (163) a plurality of conductors (166, ¶31) to connect to power the one or more resistive traces and forming a layer of glass (180) over the one or more resistive traces (Bayerle: ¶34).
Claims 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerle (US 2020/0253350) in view of Kou (CN 211431087) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Ford (US 2012/0227758).
Regarding claim 5, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not teach:
the layer of silver is four patches of silver, further including forming each of the four patches with sides paralleling edges of the ceramic substrate.
Ford teaches:
A hair styling device with independently operable heating zones to provide a non-uniform heating effect (¶14, ¶68). The zones may be configured as squares or rectangles (¶96) and may number from two (¶64, see Fig 6) to six (see Fig 16a), and may be in a grid (¶15, Fig 16a) or arranged in a line (Figs 9-10). The increased flexibility of selecting a desired heating effect can aid the styling process (¶96).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the hair styling device of Bayerle to have independently controllable heating zones, as taught by Ford, to obtain the benefit of providing a desired heating effect to aid the styling process. The silver layer provides a uniform temperature across its surface and Ford teaches an embodiment that provides a non-uniform temperature profile, i.e. different temperatures in each zone. Thus, the silver layer is applied to each heating zone separately so that the zones can provide different temperatures. In the combination it is obvious to provide anywhere between two and six patches in a linear or two-dimensional array, as taught by Ford, which explicitly teaches 2, 3, 5, and 6 heating zones. All examples shown in Ford have the edges of each heating zone surface parallel the edges of the ceramic substrate. Thus, an embodiment with four heating zones, and four corresponding patches of silver is obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the independent heating zones of Ford teaches:
a shape of the ceramic substrate is a rectangle (Bayerle Fig 3, heater 130 with outer face 150 is a rectangle, ¶28), further including forming the layer of silver as a plurality of rectangular patches of silver (Ford ¶96).
Regarding claim 11, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the independent heating zones of Ford teaches:
forming two (Ford: ¶64, Fig 6) squares (Ford: ¶96) of silver on the first side.
Regarding claim 12, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the independent heating zones of Ford teaches:
forming three (Ford: ¶65, Fig 7) rectangles (Ford: ¶96) of silver on the first side.
Regarding claim 13, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the independent heating zones of Ford teaches:
forming four (given the examples with 2, 3, 5, and 6 rectangles, 4 rectangles is also obvious) rectangles (Ford: ¶96) of silver on the first side.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerle (US 2020/0253350) in view of Kou (CN 211431087) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Aoki (US 2020/0260530).
Regarding claim 14, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
a silver paste (Kou: ¶50 “the thermal conductive electrode paste of the thermal conductive layer,” ¶57).
Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not teach:
providing a mesh stencil over the ceramic substrate and leveling through the first mesh stencil [the silver paste].
Kou teaches “printing”. According to ¶50, “the thermal conductive electrode paste of the thermal conductive layer is printed.” Kou does not provide details about a mesh stencil. Kou also teaches that the heating circuit (¶46) and heat-conducting layer are formed by the same method, which is “sheet printing” (¶68) and sintering (¶17, ¶50) at 850 - 900°C (¶57).
Kou does not disclose the details of printing and sintering the silver paste, silver palladium paste, or silver platinum paste (¶57).
Aoki teaches a method of printing and sintering a silver palladium paste or silver platinum paste having over 90% silver (¶37-¶38). The printing includes providing a mesh stencil over the ceramic substrate and leveling through the first mesh stencil (see Figs 5A-5E, ¶¶34-¶35). The sintering is done by firing with a temperature profile as shown in Fig 8 with a peak temperature of about 850 °C (¶38).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by forming the silver conductive layer by printing with a mesh stencil and firing with a particular temperature profile, as taught by Aoki because Aoki teaches that this is an appropriate method for printing with a silver paste.
Regarding claim 15, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the printing and sintering method of Aoki teaches:
a letting settle the silver paste for about 5 to about 10 minutes at 20° - 25° C (Aoki: ¶31).
Regarding claim 16, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the printing and sintering method of Aoki teaches:
providing the ceramic substrate with layer of silver to a drying unit (Aoki: ¶31).
Regarding claim 17, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the printing and sintering method of Aoki teaches:
drying the layer of silver at about 20° - 25° C followed by a curing or drying cycle of about 30 minutes reaching temperatures of 140°- 160° C (Aoki: ¶31).
Regarding claim 18, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou and the printing and sintering method of Aoki teaches:
firing in the drying unit the layer of silver for about 60 minutes, whereby about 40 of the 60 minutes includes heating at about 25° C and ramping up to a peak temperature of about 850°C and maintaining the peak temperature for at least 10 minutes and decreasing temperature thereafter (Aoki: ¶32, see 102 in Fig 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761