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 presents claims 21, 29, 32, 34, 38, and 39 as amended and claim 22 as cancelled. Claims 21 and 23-40 remain pending examination.
The amendment to claims 29 and 39 is sufficient in overcoming the previously indicated objections to the same.
The cancellation of claim 22 and the amendment to claims 38 and 39 address the previously indicated rejections of the same under 35 USC 112 (b).
Further grounds of objection and rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Specification
The specification stands objected to for not providing antecedent basis for the subject matter of claim 39.
Applicant references Fig. 5B and pages 19-20 of the specification and states
“…that a thickness T3 of the bridge 112 is configured to be larger than the thickness T1 of the track 111. One example of manufacturing the structure of Fig. 5B is to print on the surface of the substrate in a form of tracks, bridges, and an electrode portion, which are dried. Then, printing on the surface of the substrate is performed once again in a form of a bridge and an electrode portion.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification mentions printing as a manufacturing method, the portions cited by the Applicant do not address the language of claim 39, specifically the limitation of “a number of times the plurality of bridges is printed is greater than a number of times the plurality of tracks is printed.” In other words, the specification, including the portions cited by Applicant, do not show where antecedent support is for the limitation “a number of times the plurality of bridges is printed is greater than a number of times the plurality of tracks is printed” as required in claim 39.
As such, the Examiner maintains that the objection to the specification is proper.
Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant states that:
Although Applicant does not necessarily agree with the rejection, Applicant is filing a Terminal Disclaimer in order to expedite prosecution of this application. Filing of the Terminal Disclaimer should not constitute as an agreement to the Examiner's opinion as to obviousness.
However, the Examiner notes that no terminal disclaimer was filed along with the amendment. As such, the Double Patenting rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) to Kim
Applicant traverses the Kim reference, with respect to amended claim 21, in that:
The claimed invention is characterized by the fact that the thickness of the bridge is formed to be thicker than the thickness of the track where a direction of a thickness is a direction protruding from one surface of the substrate.
Various benefits and advantages may be derived from this structure. For example, the resistance of the bridge may be configured to be low even if a large difference in current density flowing along the bridge occurs. In addition, there is an advantage in that local heating of the bridge portion and insulation breakdown caused by this may be prevented.
For instance, in Kim the bridge (connector) is formed by the bend between adjacent tracks and is wider than a single track. But Kim does not disclose or suggest the above-noted features of claim 21. That is, in Kim, only the width relationship between the bridge and the track is disclosed, and the thickness relationship cannot be disclosed.
The Office Action appears to acknowledge this by stating that, in rejecting claim 22, that "Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 21, and further teaches wherein the thickness is in a direction from one surface of the substrate (as detailed above in claim 21; the thickness extends laterally from one surface)." (Emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that Applicant intends for “a direction of a thickness is a direction protruding form one surface of the substrate” to refer to the thickness of the bridge whose thickness is thicker than a thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks. However, that is not how the claim language is presented. Claim 21 is amended to recite, in relevant part, “wherein a thickness of a bridge of the plurality of bridges is thicker than a thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks” and “wherein a direction of a thickness is a direction protruding form one surface of the substrate.” Here, the “thickness” that is protruding from one surface of the substrate is recited as “a thickness.” This makes the claim language open ended as to what structure(s) is being referenced. See rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) detailed below.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Kim teaches the plane heating element being disposed on a surface of the substrate such that it has a thickness at least partially protruding from the surface of the substrate. As such, Kim teaches wherein a direction of a thickness is in a direction from one surface of the substrate, as claimed in claim 21.
For such reasons, the Examiner maintains that Kim anticipates claims 21, 28-31, and 39. Therefore, claims 21, 28-31, and 39 are properly rejected under 35 USC 102 (a)(1).
No other arguments regarding the remaining dependent claims are presented. As such, the remaining dependent claims fall with claim 21. The Examiner, therefore, maintains the rejections under 35 USC 103.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification lacks antecedent basis for claim 39 that requires “wherein the plurality of bridges and the plurality of tracks are printed on the one surface of the substrate, a number of times the plurality of bridges is printed is greater than a number of times the plurality of tracks is printed.” Please note, that claim 39 was added in a preliminary amendment on 08/02/2023 after the original filing date of 05/01/2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11672376.
Application 18/141639
US Patent 11672376
21. (Previously Presented) An electric heater comprising:
1. An electric heater comprising:
A substrate;
A substrate;
A plane heating element disposed on one surface of the substrate, wherein the plane heating element includes
and a plane heating element disposed on one surface of the substrate, wherein the plane heating element includes:
a pattern portion including a start point and an end point, wherein the pattern portion includes
…pattern portion including a first start point and a first end point…
a plurality of tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the pattern portion,
a plurality of first tracks spaced apart from each other and having an arc shape increasing from an inside to an outermost aide of the first pattern portion
and a plurality of bridges connecting the plurality of tracks in series
a plurality of first bridges connecting the plurality of first tracks in series
wherein a thickness of a bridge of the plurality of bridges is thicker than a thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks; and
wherein a thickness of a first bridge of the plurality of first bridges is thicker than a thickness of a first track of the plurality of first tracks.
Wherein a direction of a thickness is a direction protruding from one surface of the substrate.
“…the thickness being in a direction from the one surface of the substrate…”
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though claim 1 of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 1 of the ‘376 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘376 Patent anticipates claim 1 of the instant application (see above side by side comparison).
Claims 23-40 of the instant application are similarly patentably indistinct over claims 1-18 of the ‘376 Patent as claims 22-40 are anticipated by, or an obvious variation of, claims 1-18 of the ‘376 Patent.
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.
Claims 21 and 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “wherein a direction of a thickness is in a direction from one surface of the substrate” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “one surface” is the same as that recited in line 3 or a different surface. As the claims are directed to an electric heater, which is a three dimensional object, it stands to reason that such a heater, and components thereof, would have multiple surfaces. As such, it is not reasonably clear if the thickness is defined from the one surface of the substrate onto which the plane heating element is disposed or to a different surface of the substrate, or some other structure.
Additionally, claim 21 also recites “wherein a thickness of a bridge…is thicker than a thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks.” The amended language of “wherein a direction of a thickness is in a direction from one surface of the substrate” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “thickness” is being referenced. As the claim explicitly recites a thickness of a bridge and a thickness of a track and that each claimed structure necessarily has a thickness, it is not reasonably clear which structure(s) have a thickness that protrudes from one surface of the substrate.
Claims 23-40 inherit the above deficiencies due to their respective dependency from claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 28-31, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US2010/0193502).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches an electric heater (Title, Abstract; Figures 1 and 3; 50) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
a substrate (51); and
a plane heating element (61) disposed on one surface of the substrate (para. 0009),
wherein the plane heating element includes:
a pattern portion including a start point and an end point (taken as the points of the heating element that are connected to 71), wherein the pattern portion includes:
a plurality of tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the pattern portion (As shown above. See also paragraph 0010, which states that heating unit 61 includes arc shaped portions 63 having an arc shape and concentrically disposed with respect to each other. Here, as a result of the arc shape and concentric arrangement the length of the tracks increases from the center towards the outermost concentric track.), and
a plurality of bridges (connecting portions 65) connecting the plurality of tracks in series,
wherein a thickness of a bridge of the plurality of bridges is thicker than a thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks (The bridge, or connecting portion 65, connects adjacent tracks together by forming a radius of curvature, or bend, between the adjacent tracks. This bend would be wider, or have a larger lateral thickness, than a single track.); and
wherein a direction of a thickness is in a direction from one surface of the substrate (the plane heating element is disposed on a surface of the substrate such that it has a thickness at least partially protruding from the surface of the substrate.).
Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 21, and further teaches wherein an axis passes through a center of the pattern portion, the pattern portion being symmetrical about the axis, and wherein the start point and the end point are disposed opposite each other about the axis (see Figure 3 of Kim).
PNG
media_image2.png
714
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 29, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 21, and further teaches wherein the plane heating element includes a plurality of the plane heating element (Figure 3 shows distinct heating elements; the first being the inner heating element as detailed in claim 21 above, and the second being the heating element concentric with the first), wherein the plurality of the plane heating element include a first plane heating element and a second plane heating element (as detailed above in Figure 3), the second plane heating element disposed to surround the first plane heating element, wherein the first plane heating element includes:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
a first pattern portion including:
a first start point and a first end point (taken as the points of the heating element that are connected to 71),
a plurality of first tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the first pattern portion (As shown above. See also paragraph 0010, which states that heating unit 61 includes arc shaped portions 63 having an arc shape and concentrically disposed with respect to each other. Here, as a result of the arc shape and concentric arrangement the length of the tracks increases from the center towards the outermost concentric track.), and
a plurality of first bridges (connecting portions 65) connecting the plurality of first tracks in series,
wherein a thickness of a first bridge of the plurality of first bridges is thicker than a thickness of a first track of the plurality of first tracks (The bridge, or connecting portion 65, connects adjacent tracks together by forming a radius of curvature, or bend, between the adjacent tracks. This bend would be wider, or have a larger lateral thickness, than a single track.).
PNG
media_image2.png
714
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 29, and further teaches wherein the second plane heating element includes: a second start point and a second end point, a plurality of second tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the second pattern portion, and a plurality of second bridges connecting the plurality of second tracks in series, wherein a thickness of a second bridge of the plurality of second bridges is thicker than a thickness of a second track of the plurality of second tracks (the second heating element has a similar structural arrangement including a plurality of arc shaped tracks that increase in length from an innermost side to an outermost side (as a result of the arc shape and concentric arrangement), and bridges connecting the tracks in series. For the reasons detailed in claim 29, the second heating element indicated above possesses the claimed structure).
PNG
media_image3.png
714
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 31, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 30, and further teaches wherein an axis passes through a center of the first pattern portion, the first pattern portion and the second pattern portion being symmetrical about the axis.
Regarding claim 39, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 21, and further teaches wherein the plurality of bridges and the plurality of tracks are printed on a surface of the substrate, a number of times the plurality of bridges is printed is greater than a number of times the plurality of tracks is printed.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In this case, the act of printing the tracks and bridges onto the surface of the substrate does not impart a patentable distinction over the bridges and tracks, relative to the substrate, of Kim. In other words, Kim teaches the tracks and bridges disposed on a surface of the substrate, as required in the claims. Additionally, the limitation of “a number of times the plurality of bridges is printed is greater than a number of times the plurality of tracks is printed” is understood, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to refer to the number of printing operations that are required to produce the bridges and tracks. Similarly, the printing of the bridges and tracks do not impart patentability over Kim as Kim teaches the same heating element arrangement being claimed.
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) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2010/0193502) in view of Bower (US2005/0109771).
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 21, and further teaches wherein the plane heating element further includes a pair of electrodes (71) respectively connected to the start point and the end point.
Kim is silent on wherein a thickness of an electrode of the pair of electrodes is thicker than the thickness of any track of the plurality of tracks.
Bower teaches that it is known in the art of resistive (electrical) heaters (para.
0002) for an electric heater (10) to comprise a substrate (160) and a heating element
(100), with the heating element (100) including a pattern portion (serpentine pattern
shown. See also paragraph 0027), and electrodes (electrical conductors 110/120-para. 0028) connected between the pattern portion (para. 0028) and the electrode portion (para. 0029). Here, the pattern portion and electrode portion of Bower are considered to correspond to the same of Kim.
Bower teaches wherein a thickness of an electrode (110/120) of the pair of electrodes is thicker than the thickness of any track of the plurality of tracks (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”).
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 Bower, by modifying the thickness of the electrodes relative to the thickness of the track of Kim, with the electrode being thicker than the track taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative electrode and track arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the electrodes be thicker, or thicker and wider, than the heating element would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
Additionally, in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, changing the relative proportions of the electrode and track would not produce an electric heater that performs differently than that of Kim. In other words, while the temperature profile and heating time may be changed slightly by varying the thickness of the electrode and track, the electric heater of Kim, as a whole, would still perform the same as it would still generate heat upon the application of electrical current.
Regarding claim 24, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 23, and further teaches wherein the thickness of an electrode of the pair of electrodes is thicker than a thickness of the pattern portion (Kim, as modified by Bower, to include thicker electrodes produces an arrangement in which the electrodes are thicker than the heating element tracks of the pattern portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
504
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Bower (annotated)
Regarding claim 25, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 23, and further teaches wherein the plane heating element further includes a pair of connectors connecting between the pattern portion and the pair of electrodes (Both Kim and Bower teach a pair of connectors connecting the electrodes and heating element), wherein a width of a connector of the pair of connectors is thinner than a width of an electrode of the pair of electrodes (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”) [Here, the portion connecting the heating element to the electrodes is thinner than the electrodes].
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 Bower, by modifying the thickness of the connectors relative to the thickness of the electrode of Kim, with the connector being thinner than the electrode taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative connector and electrode arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the connector be thinner than the electrode would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
Additionally, in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, changing the relative proportions of the connector and electrode would not produce an electric heater that performs differently than that of Kim. In other words, while the temperature profile and heating time may be changed slightly by varying the thickness of the connector and electrode, the electric heater of Kim, as a whole, would still perform the same as it would still generate heat upon the application of electrical current.
PNG
media_image6.png
599
822
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 26, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 25, and further teaches wherein an axis passes through a center of the pattern portion, and wherein the pattern portion, the pair of electrodes and the pair of connectors are symmetrical about the axis (see Figure 3 of Kim, above).
Regarding claim 27, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 25, and further teaches the pair of connectors are an auxiliary heating unit capable of generating heat at a same temperature as the pattern portion (Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element-para. 0028. The electrodes and connectors of Kim and Bower both receive electrical current and are conductors. Based on this principle, they would generate heat in accordance with Joule’s First Law. See also MPEP 2112 and 2114).
Claim(s) 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2010/0193502) in view of Bower (US2005/0109771).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 32, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 30, and further teaches wherein the first pattern portion further includes: a pair of first connectors respectively connected to the first start point and the first end point, and a pair of first electrodes respectively connected to the pair of first connectors, (Kim teaches a pair of connectors connecting the electrodes and heating element).
Kim is silent on wherein a width of a first connector of the pair of first connectors is thinner than a width of a first electrode of the pair of first connector.
PNG
media_image5.png
504
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Bower (annotated)
Bower teaches that it is known in the art of resistive (electrical) heaters (para.
0002) for an electric heater (10) to comprise a substrate (160) and a heating element
(100), with the heating element (100) including a pattern portion (serpentine pattern
shown. See also paragraph 0027), and electrodes (electrical conductors 110/120-para. 0028) connected between the pattern portion (para. 0028) and the electrode portion (para. 0029). Here, the pattern portion and electrode portion of Bower are considered to correspond to the same of Kim.
Bower teaches wherein a width of a first connector of the pair of first connectors is thinner than a width of a first electrode of the pair of first connector (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”) [Here, the portion connecting the heating element to the electrodes is thinner than the electrodes].
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 Bower, by modifying the thickness of the connectors relative to the thickness of the electrode of Kim, with the connector being thinner than the electrode taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative connector and electrode arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the connector be thinner than the electrode would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
Additionally, in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, changing the relative proportions of the connector and electrode would not produce an electric heater that performs differently than that of Kim. In other words, while the temperature profile and heating time may be changed slightly by varying the thickness of the connector and electrode, the electric heater of Kim, as a whole, would still perform the same as it would still generate heat upon the application of electrical current.
Regarding claim 33, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 32, and further teaches wherein a thickness of a first electrode of the pair of first electrodes is thicker than a thickness of a first track of the plurality of first tracks.
Bower teaches wherein a thickness of an electrode (110/120) of the pair of electrodes is thicker than the thickness of any track of the plurality of tracks (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”).
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 Bower, by modifying the thickness of the electrodes relative to the thickness of the track of Kim, with the electrode being thicker than the track taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative electrode and track arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the electrodes be thicker, or thicker and wider, than the heating element would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
PNG
media_image7.png
714
822
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Kim (annotated)
Regarding claim 34, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 32, and further teaches wherein the second pattern portion further includes: a pair of second connectors respectively connected to the second start point and the second end point (Kim; connectors connecting the second heating element to the electrodes), and a pair of second electrodes (first and second pairs of electrodes respectively connected to pairs of connectors that connect to the first and second heating elements) respectively connected to the pair of second connectors.
Kim is silent on wherein a width of a second connector of the pair of second connectors is thinner than a width of a second electrode of the pair of second connectors.
However, as detailed above Bower teaches Bower wherein a width of a connector is thinner than a width of an electrode (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”) [Here, the portion connecting the heating element to the electrodes is thinner than the electrodes].
Regarding claim 35, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 34, and further teaches wherein a thickness of a second electrode of the pair of second electrodes is thicker than a thickness of a second track of the plurality of second tracks.
Bower teaches wherein a thickness of an electrode (110/120) of the pair of electrodes is thicker than the thickness of any track of the plurality of tracks (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”).
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 Bower, by modifying the thickness of the second electrodes relative to the thickness of the second track of Kim, with the electrode being thicker than the track taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative electrode and track arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the electrodes be thicker, or thicker and wider, than the heating element would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
Additionally, in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, changing the relative proportions of the electrode and track would not produce an electric heater that performs differently than that of Kim. In other words, while the temperature profile and heating time may be changed slightly by varying the thickness of the electrode and track, the electric heater of Kim, as a whole, would still perform the same as it would still generate heat upon the application of electrical current.
Regarding claim 36, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 34, and further teaches wherein the pair of first electrodes and the pair of second electrodes are disposed on a same side with respect to a center of the first pattern portion (Kim; Figure 3, the electrodes 71 are disposed on a same side relative to a center of the first pattern portion).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2010/0193502) in view of Nakamura (US 7417206).
Regarding claim 37, Kim teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 30, except for wherein the plurality of the plane heating element further includes a third plane heating element disposed to surround the second plane heating element, wherein the third plane heating element includes: a third pattern portion including: a third start point and a third end point, a plurality of third tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the third pattern portion, and a plurality of third bridges connecting the plurality of third tracks in series, wherein a thickness of a third bridge of the plurality of first bridges is thicker than a thickness of a third track of the plurality of third tracks.
Nakamura relates to an electric heater in which a resistive heating element is disposed on a surface of a substrate (Abstract; Figure 4).
PNG
media_image8.png
458
697
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Nakamura (annotated)
Nakamura teaches wherein the plurality of the plane heating element further includes a third plane heating element disposed to surround the second plane heating element (as shown above), wherein the third plane heating element includes:
PNG
media_image9.png
458
692
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Nakamura (annotated)
a third pattern portion including:
a third start point and a third end point (start and end at respective electrodes 6),
a plurality of third tracks having an arc shape, which are spaced apart from each other and are formed to have a length increasing from an innermost side to an outermost side of the third pattern portion (As shown above, the third heater is a series of concentric arc shaped tracks in which the outermost track is longer than an innermost track), and
a plurality of third bridges (bridges connecting adjacent tracks so that the tracks change direction) connecting the plurality of third tracks in series,
wherein a thickness of a third bridge of the plurality of first bridges is thicker than a thickness of a third track of the plurality of third tracks (The bridge, or connecting portion, connects adjacent tracks together by forming a radius of curvature, or bend, between the adjacent tracks. This bend would be wider, or have a larger lateral thickness, than a single track.).
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 Nakamura, by adding around the second and first heating element of Kim, with the third heating element taught by Nakamura for would amount to the mere duplication of heating elements, which has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-B. In this case, adding additional heating elements, of the same form as the first and second heating elements, would provide a means for further tailoring the heating and temperature profile electric heater, thereby allowing for a more uniform temperature distribution across the surface of the substrate.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2010/0193502) in view of Nakamura (US 7417206) and in further view of Bower (US2005/0109771).
Regarding claim 38, the primary combination teaches the electric heater, as applied in claim 37, including a pair of third electrodes connecting respectively the third start point and the third end point (Nakamura, as detailed in claim 37 above).
The primary combination is silent on wherein a thickness of a third electrode of the pair of third electrodes is thicker than a thickness of a third track of the plurality of third tracks.
Bower teaches that it is known in the art of resistive (electrical) heaters (para.
0002) for an electric heater (10) to comprise a substrate (160) and a heating element
(100), with the heating element (100) including a pattern portion (serpentine pattern
shown. See also paragraph 0027), and electrodes (electrical conductors 110/120-para. 0028) connected between the pattern portion (para. 0028) and the electrode portion (para. 0029). Here, the pattern portion and electrode portion of Bower are considered to correspond to the same of Kim.
Bower teaches wherein a thickness of an electrode (110/120) of the pair of electrodes is thicker than the thickness of a track of the plurality of tracks (para. 0028; “ the first and second conductors 110, 120 may be thicker, or thicker and wider than the thickness and/or width of the heating element 100.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kim, as modified by Nakamura, with Bower, by modifying the thickness of the third electrodes relative to the thickness of the third track of modified Kim, with the electrode being thicker than the track taught by Bower, for in doing so would provide an alternative electrode and track arrangement. Here, Bower teaches that the electrodes can have a greater surface area than the heating element, be thicker or thicker and wider than the heating element, or formed from a more conductive material than the heating element (para. 0028). Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that having the electrodes be thicker, or thicker and wider, than the heating element would be an obvious alternative arrangement.
Additionally, in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Here, changing the relative proportions of the electrode and track would not produce an electric heater that performs differently than that of Kim. In other words, while the temperature profile and heating time may be changed slightly by varying the thickness of the electrode and track, the electric heater of Kim, as a whole, would still perform the same as it would still generate heat upon the application of electrical current.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2010/0193502) in view of Kim (US20180160479), hereinafter Kim ‘479.
Regarding claim 40, Kim, as applied to claim 21, teaches a cooking appliance (Figure 1) comprising a case (10) forming an outer appearance, an input unit (24), a power supply (necessarily present in order to supply current to the heaters), and the electric heater of claim 21 (see claim 21, above) provided on the case.
Kim is silent on a display and a controller for controlling the electric heater, the power supply, and the display according to an input from the input unit.
Kim ‘479 relates to electric heaters for cooking appliances (Fig. 1 and para. 0036-0037) and teaches the cooking appliance comprising a case (110) forming an outer appearance (fig. 1), a display (142), an input unit (144/146), a power supply (necessarily present in order to power the electronics and heater), and a controller for controlling the electric heater, the power supply, and the display according to an input from the input unit (circuitry that couples 142, 144, 146 to change an operation of the oven 100-para. 0040).
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 Kim ‘479 by adding to the cooking appliance of Kim, with the display and controller of Kim ‘479, for in doing would provide a conventional means for controlling and operating the cooking appliance.
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