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 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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0056891, in view of well known prior art, Uekawa et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2003/0042241, DeJong et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0226228, and, Tomohito, JP 2017-125946.
The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-7 in the Office Action dated 6/23/25 are repeated herein in their entirety with the following modifications:
Regarding independent claim 1, the present amendments incorporate former claims 5 and 6 without modification. The reasoning of the rejections of claim 5 and 6 are incorporated into the rejection of present claim 1. Applicants have admitted that there are no errors in the rejections of former claims 5 and 6, as presently incorporated into claim 1.
Present claim 1 adds the limitation: the biasing member comprises a resistance heating element as the heater, and a glass protective layer covering the surface of the resistance heating element.
Hashiguchi et al. clearly further teach the biasing member comprises a resistance heating element (15b) as the heater, and a glass protective layer (15f) covering the surface of the resistance heating element (fig 7). Examiner cites no new evidence in support of this rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: the applied references fail to teach the newly added limitations.
The only newly added limitations are that “the biasing member comprises a resistance heating element as the heater, and a glass protective layer covering the surface of the resistance heating element.” As indicated above, Hashiguchi et al. clearly further teach such limitations.
With respect to the incorporated elements from former claims 5 and 6, Applicant presents merely conclusory arguments. This is a complete reply under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), which “distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action”. Because Applicants have failed to present any evidence or argument in support of the conclusory argument that the combination fails to teach the content of former claims 5 and 6, Examiner construes that as an admission that there are no errors in the rejections of former claims 5 and 6. The admitted reasoning of the rejections of former claims 5 and 6 are incorporated into the rejection of present claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights