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 .
The status of the 08/14/2026 claims, is as follows: Claim 12 has been amended; Claims 17, 19, 24-25, and 28 have been withdrawn; Claims 20-23, and 26-27 have been canceled; and claims 1-19, 24-25, and 28 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations are:
In claim 12 (similarly applying to claim 18 lines 1-2):
The limitation “a heating assembly” in line 3
“assembly” is the generic placeholder.
“heating” is the functional language.
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.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a heating assembly" in line 3 of claim 12 and claim 18 has been described in published specification in para. 0061 as the heating assembly 20; fig. 1 that comprises a plurality of heating coils 32.
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 § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuno Batista (US 20230105496, hereinafter Batista’496) in view of Nakano’992 (US 20190124992)
Regarding Claim 1, Batista’496 a heater element (heater; fig. 5) for an aerosol provision device (aerosol-generating article 50; fig. 6), the heater element comprising:
a support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) (“susceptor element 48 may be arranged on a fourth portion of the flexible electrically insulating substrate”, para. 0111); and
heating material (susceptor element 48) that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (alternating magnetic field) (para. 0111), wherein the heating material is disposed on the support (para. 0111).
Batista’496 does not disclose the heating material comprises an electroless plating on the support.
However, Nakano’992 discloses a conductive coating layer is applied to a substrate (porous body) by means of electroless plating process (para. 0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater element of Batista’496 such that the heating material formed on the support is performed by electroless plating as taught by Nakano’992, in order to apply known technique (i.e. electroless plating) to a known device (i.e. aerosol provision device) to yield a predictable result, that is to apply the heater material onto the surface of the substrate such that the heater material generates heat in the presence of the magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 2, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) comprises a non-electrically conductive material (“susceptor element 48 may be arranged on a fourth portion of the flexible electrically insulating substrate”, para. 0111).
Regarding Claim 3, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) comprises a material (polyimide film) with a melting point greater than 300°C (from 250° C. to 350° C) (para. 0006).
Regarding Claim 6, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) comprises a tubular support (para. 0111; fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the heating material (susceptor element 48) is disposed on a radially inwardly facing face of the support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) (para. 0111 and 0102; figs. 2 and 5) (it is noted the susceptor element 48 is laid on the substrate. The substrate is rolled into a tube as shown in figs. 2 and 5 that results in the susceptor element 48 is disposed on the radially inwardly facing face of the support).
Regarding Claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the heater element comprises a plurality of regions of the heating material, the plurality of regions spaced apart on the support.
However, Batista’496 discloses in another embodiment shown in fig. 1 the heater element (heating element 16) comprises a plurality of regions of the heating material (two resistive heating tracks 18), the plurality of regions (two resistive heating tracks 18) spaced apart on the support (flexible electrically insulating substrate) (para. 0102).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating element of Batista’496 to comprise the plurality of regions of the heating material, the plurality of regions spaced apart on the support as further taught by Batista’496, in order to provide plurality of heating zones formed by the plurality of the heating materials to achieve desired heating output to generate aerosol based on the desired application.
Regarding Claim 11, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the heater element defines a chamber (cavity 54) for receiving a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material (aerosol-forming substrate) when the heater element is located within the aerosol provision device (“consolidating cavity 54 wall layer 44 may be arranged directly adjacent the inner layer of the heater comprising the susceptor element”, para. 0111 and also 0112; fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the aerosol provision device (aerosol-generating device 50; fig. 6) comprising a chamber (cavity 54) (para. 0112; fig. 6) and a heating assembly (heater) for applying heat to a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material to generate aerosol from the aerosol-generating material when the consumable is located in the chamber and wherein the heater element (heater; fig. 5) is for selective insertion into the chamber to at least partially line the chamber (“aerosol-generating article 52 comprising aerosol-forming substrate can be inserted into a cavity 54 of the aerosol-generating device 50. The heater as described herein is arranged around the cavity 54 of the aerosol-generating device 50”, para. 0112)
PNG
media_image2.png
458
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Batista’496 the heater element (heater; fig. 5), wherein the heater element is resiliently deformable (“one of these layers may be provided on the flat flexible electrically insulating substrate sheet and subsequently rolled to form the heater.”, para. 0111).
Regarding Claim 18, Batista’496 discloses an aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating device 50) comprising a chamber (cavity 54) (para. 0112; fig. 6), a heating assembly (induction coil 42) for applying heat to a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material (aerosol-forming substrate) to generate aerosol from the aerosol-generating material when the consumable is located in the chamber (para. 0112 and 0048), and the heater element as claimed in Claim 12 (heater; fig. 5) (para. 0111-0112).
Claims 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Nuno Batista (US 20230105496, hereinafter Batista’496) and Nakano’992 (US 20190124992) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Batista’894 (US 20220295894)
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the heating material comprises at least one of nickel or cobalt.
However, Batista’894 discloses the heating material (susceptor arrangement) comprises at least one of nickel or cobalt (nickel) (para. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating material of Batista’496 to comprise the nickel as taught by Batista’894 because it is conventionally known to utilize nickel as the material for the susceptor such that it generates heat in the presence of magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the heater element comprises a further heating material attached to the heating material, the further heating material comprising a different material than the heating material, the heating material disposed between the further heating material and the support.
However, Batista’894 discloses the heater element (susceptor arrangement) comprises a further heating material (second susceptor material) attached to the heating material (first susceptor material) (para. 0066), the further heating material comprising a different material (nickel) than the heating material (steel), the heating material (steel) disposed between the further heating material (nickel) and the support (ceramic core or substrate) (para. 0065-0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater element of Batista’496 to comprise the further heating material attached to the heating material, wherein the heating material is disposed between the further heating material and the support as taught by Batista’894, because it is conventionally known to utilize two-layer material as the susceptor such that the two-layer material yield desired heat output to generate aerosol in the presence of the magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 9, Batista’894 discloses the further heating material (second susceptor material) comprises nickel (para. 0066).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Nuno Batista (US 20230105496, hereinafter Batista’496) and Nakano’992 (US 20190124992) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Horrod (WO 2019129553A1)
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the heating material comprises a thickness of no more than 100 microns in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the support.
However, Horrod discloses the heater element (heating element 10/3; figs. 5 and 3), wherein the heating material (coating 3b) comprises a thickness of no more than 100 microns in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the support (support 3a) (thickness of about 10 microns) (p. 11, lines 11-16).
PNG
media_image4.png
208
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating material of Batista’496 (i.e. susceptor element 48) to comprise the thickness of no more than 100 microns in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the support as taught by Horrod, because it is conventionally known to utilize the heating material having such thickness to be applied to the substrate such that heat is effectively generated by the susceptor element 48 in the presence of the magnetic field.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Nuno Batista (US 20230105496, hereinafter Batista’496) and Nakano’992 (US 20190124992) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Batista’565 (US 20200367565)
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the heater element is formable into a first configuration in which the heater element is wound with a first diameter, and formable into a second configuration in which the heater element is wound with a second diameter greater than the first diameter, the heater element movable from the first configuration to the second configuration when inserted into the chamber to at least partially line the chamber.
However, Batista’565 discloses the heater element (elastic susceptor element 26) is formable into a first configuration (prior to being stretched) in which the heater element is wound with a first diameter (diameter of the element 26 prior to being stretched), and formable into a second configuration (after being stretched when substrate 36 is inserted into the susceptor element 26) in which the heater element is wound with a second diameter (diameter of the element 26 after being stretched) greater than the first diameter (para. 0094), the heater element movable from the first configuration to the second configuration when inserted into the chamber (chamber 20) to at least partially line the chamber (para. 0094).
PNG
media_image5.png
512
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating element of Batista’496 to be made of elastic material such that it is movable from the first configuration to the second configuration when inserted in the chamber, wherein the diameter of the heater in the second configuration is greater than the diameter of the heater in the first configuration as taught by Batista’565. Doing so would allow the heater element to stretch and deforms to accommodate the different size of the aerosol-generating article when inserted into the cavity. Advantageously, this may optimize contact between the heater element and the aerosol-generating article, thereby optimizing heat transfer from the heater element to the aerosol-generating article during use (para. 0016 of Batista’565).
Regarding Claim 14, Batista’565 discloses the heater element (elastic susceptor element 26) is expandable by at least partial unwinding when inserted into the chamber (chamber 20) to move from the first configuration (prior to being stretched) to the second configuration (after being stretched) (para. 0094 and 0027) (according to Dictionary, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unwind, “unwind” is interpreted to mean reduce tension. It is noted as the aerosol-generating article 14 is inserted into the chamber 20, the aerosol-forming substrate 36 is received within the elastic susceptor 26. The susceptor 26 relieves the tension as it is being pushed by the substrate 36 by stretching or deforming such that the substrate 36 is in intimate contact with the susceptor 26).
PNG
media_image6.png
414
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses the heater element (heater; fig. 5 of Batista’496), wherein the heater element comprises open longitudinal ends in the first configuration (prior to being stretched) and the second configuration (after being stretched) (para. 0111; figs. 6 and 2 of Batista’496).
PNG
media_image7.png
436
522
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendment to claim 12, therefore claim objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
With respect to claim objection to claim 18, Applicant’s argument on p. 6-7 of the Remarks is found persuasive, therefore the claim objection to claim 18 is withdrawn.
With respect to 112f notification to phrase “heating assembly” in claim 12 and 18: the notification is maintained because the phrase “heating assembly” has met the 3-prong test that invokes 112f notification. The phrase uses generic placeholder, “assembly”, followed by functional language “heating”, and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Because the 112f notification is invoked, the specification is relied upon for the corresponding structure to perform the claimed function, which is disclosed in para. 0061-0063 as heating assembly 20 to comprise induction heating coils that interact with susceptor 34.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Argument: with respect to claim 1 on p. 10-11 of the Remarks “Applicant submits that the claims are not obvious over Batista' 496 in view of
Nakano'992, for at least the following reasons. Batista' 496 discloses a heater in which a heating element is provided on a flexible electrically insulating substrate that is then rolled into a tube. See Batista' 496 at [0004]-[0005]. The heater is arranged around a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate. Id at [0047]-[0048]. Batista' 496 explains that the aerosol-generating article may be a smoking article and that the article and aerosol-forming substrate may be substantially cylindrical, elongate, and rod-shaped. Id at [0054]-[0055]. Batista' 496 further explains that the aerosol-forming substrate preferably comprises homogenized tobacco material, which may be provided in sheets. Id at [0056]-[0057]. Thus, Batista' 496 is directed to heating an inserted smoking article containing a rod-shaped, tobacco-containing aerosol-forming substrate using a heater formed on a flexible electrically insulating substrate.
The Office acknowledges that "Batista' 496 does not disclose the heating material
comprises an electroless plating on the support." Office Action at 10. Therefore, the Office cites
to Nakano'992.
Nakano'992 relates to a liquid vapor device. The porous heating element 7 taught therein
"is a wick cum heater which is equipped with both a function as a wick that directly or indirectly
suctions and retains the aerosol-forming liquid stored in the liquid tank 31 and a function as a
heater that atomizes the retained aerosol-forming liquid by electric heating when the user smokes" See Nakano'992 at [0049]. Nakano'992 further explains that the porous heating element is provided with positive and negative electrodes and generates heat by passing current between those electrodes to atomize the aerosol-forming liquid. Id at [001 l]-[0015].
By contrast, in the Batista' 496 embodiment relied upon by the Office, induction coil 42
generates an alternating magnetic field that heats a separate susceptor element 48. See Batista' 496 at [0111]. Further, Batista' 496 is directed to heating a solid tobacco-containing aerosol-forming substrate, whereas Nakano'992 is directed to atomizing an aerosol-forming liquid. Thus,
Nakano'992 and Batista' 496 employ structurally and operationally different aerosol-forming
materials and heater arrangements: Nakano'992 uses a porous wick/heater that retains liquid and is directly electrically heated by current passing through the element to atomize the liquid, whereas Batista' 496 uses an induction coil to heat a separate susceptor for heating the tobacco-containing substrate. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Nakano'992's porous liquid wick/heater teachings for guidance in modifying the induction-heating arrangement of Batista' 496, and therefore would not have been motivated to make the modification proposed by the Office.”
Examiner’s Response:
The applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive because even though Batista’496 and Nakano’992 employ structurally different heater, the modification relies on the teaching of Nakano’992 specifically electroless plating to attach the heating material (i.e. susceptor 48 of Batista’496) to the support (i.e. flexible insulating substrate of Batista’496). Batista’496 discloses the susceptor 48 is arranged on the flexible substrate (para. 0111), but fails to disclose the electroless plating to attach the heating material to the flexible support.
Nakano’992 discloses employing the electroless plating to attach the conductive coating layer to the flexible substrate (para. 0117 and 0114).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teaching of Nakano’992 i.e. electroless plating to attach the heating material 48 of Batista’496 to the flexible substrate of Batista’496 because electroless plating is conventionally known method to ensure the two surfaces are adhered to each other.
The modification would result in the susceptor 48 of Batista’496 is attached to the support/substrate of Batista’496 by means of electroless plating.
Moreover, the “electroless plating” is a well-known method to deposit a heater layer on a support as disclosed by Nichols (US 20020078951), para. 0037.
Applicant’s Argument: with respect to claim 1 on p. 11 of the Remarks “ Furthermore, Nakano'992 contains only a single reference to electroless plating at
paragraph [0117], where electroless plating is identified as one possible technique for forming a
conductive coating layer on a porous resin body. Nakano'992 then teaches applying a further metal plating to the conductivity-treated porous resin, for example a nickel electroplating layer formed over the conductive coating layer. Id at [0119]-[0121]. Nakano'992 thereafter subjects the structure to heat treatment to remove the porous resin. Id at [0122]. Indeed, Nakano'992 expressly states that the porous resin is preferably a material that can be removed by an incineration process after the metal plating has been performed. Id at [0114].
Thus, Nakano'992 does not teach electroless plating heating material onto a support that
remains part of the finished heater element. Rather, Nakano'992 uses electroless plating only as
an intermediate step to make the surface of a sacrificial porous resin conductive so that additional metal plating can be applied, after which the porous resin is removed. Accordingly, Nakano'992 does not disclose the limitation of present claim 1 requiring that "the heating material comprises an electroless plating on the support," because the porous resin on which Nakano'992 initially forms the electrolessly plated conductive coating does not remain as the support of the finished heating element.”
Examiner’s Response:
The applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive because the modification relies solely on electroless plating of Nakano’992 to attach the susceptor 48 of Batista’496 to the support of Batista’496. Batista’496 discloses the susceptor 48 is arranged on the flexible substrate, para. 0111. Batista’496 does not disclose how the susceptor 48 is attached to the substrate. Nakano’992 discloses the electroless plating to adhere the conductive layer to the porous flexible body i.e. fabric (para. 0117 and 0114). The electroless plating is the known method to adhere the conductive layer to the flexible support/fabric.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the electroless plating of Nakano’992 to attach the susceptor 48 of Batista’496 to the flexible substrate of Batista’496 to ensure the susceptor 48 is adhered to the flexible substrate. Regarding the argument that the electroless plating in Nakano’992 is the intermediate step to make the surface of the porous resin conductive so that the additional metal plating can be applied, after which the porous resin is removed, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because that is not disclosure of Nakano’992 that is relied upon for making the modification. Nakano’992 is solely relied upon for the electroless plating that is applied to attach the conductive layer to the porous flexible substrate, para. 0117.
Applicant’s Argument: with respect to claim 1 on p. 11-12 of the Remarks “Moreover, Nakano'992's electroless-plating teaching is specifically directed to imparting conductivity to a porous resin body used in forming a porous resistive heater. This is materially different from the flexible electrically insulating substrate of Batista' 496. Accordingly, Nakano'992 provides no teaching or suggestion as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would apply its electroless-plating technique, which is used to impart conductivity to a sacrificial porous resin, to the flexible electrically insulating substrate of Batista' 496 to arrive at the claimed heater
element.
In fact, this combination would render the heater arrangement of Batista' 496 unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. MPEP § 2143 explains that a proposed modification is improper where it would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As shown in Fig. 1, Batista' 496 arranges electrical components on the flexible electrically insulating substrate and expressly teaches that resistive heating tracks 18 are electrically isolated from one another by being spatially separated on that substrate. See Batista' 496 at [0 101]-[O103]. Applying a conductive coating layer of the type described in Nakano'992 across the electrically insulating substrate would risk electrically connecting components that Batista' 496 deliberately maintains electrically isolated, thereby defeating the insulating function of the substrate and potentially causing short circuits. Nakano'992 provides no teaching as to how its conductive-coating technique could be applied to Batista' 496 while preserving the electrical isolation required by Batista' 496. Accordingly, the proposed modification would undermine the intended function of Batista' 496' s electrically insulating substrate and further weighs against the proposed combination.
Absent hindsight of the present invention, there is no reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have modified the heater arrangement of Batista' 496 to use electroless plating based on the single, context-specific mention of electroless plating in Nakano'992. The proposed
combination therefore appears to rely on Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap for selecting and
applying that isolated teaching.
Examiner’s Response:
The applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive because Batista’496 discloses substantially every single limitation in claim 1, wherein the susceptor 48/heating material is attached to the flexible substrate/support (para. 0111).
The only teaching of Nakano’992 is relied upon for making the combination is the teaching of electroplating to adhere the conductive coating to the flexible substrate (para. 0117 and 0114). Applying the electroless plating of Nakano’992 to Batista’496 would ensure that the susceptor 48 is adhered to the flexible support much like the conductive layer of Nakano’992 is adhered to the porous flexible body of Nakano’992.
For the above reasons, the rejections to all of the claims are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nichols (US 20020078951) discloses a heater layer is deposited on a ceramic support using electroless plating (para. 0037).
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 extension fee 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 BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights