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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. Thus claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 9 are currently pending. Applicants’ arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection on 04/08/2026 are fully considered and the following second Non-Final Rejection is made herein.
Response to Arguments
Indefiniteness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3 – 4 in the Non-Final Rejection on 04/08/2026. As such, those rejections are withdrawn.
Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections based on Ikeda
Applicant pointed out a calculation error in Ikeda teaching the claimed heat generation portion length (Lh) to maximum diameter ratio (D) (8 ≤ Lh/D).
This is clearly persuasive and is corrected in the current rejection.
Applicant also argues that the combination of Ikeda in view of Suematsu would not render the amended claim 1 because even though Suematsu teaches the amended limitation of claim 1 an entire length LM of the ceramic heater is not greater than 60 mm; and the maximum outer diameter D is 1.5 to 5.0 mm (previously claim 4 and 5), it only teaches the heating length Lh to be 20 mm which fails to teach the ratio.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because: the teaching reference Suematsu is not relied upon to teach the claimed ratio of the heating element Lh/D rather to teach claimed the entire length LM and diameter D. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference (Suematsu) may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Here the primary reference, Ikeda, already teaches claimed ration of the heat generation portion length Lh to maximum outer diameter D, 8 ≤ Lh/D (see the rejection herein) and the teaching reference, Suematsu, is only relied upon to teach the entire length LM and diameter D. Applicant’s recitation of the heating element length Lh = 20 mm does not apply the current obviousness rejection made herein. Further, taking the combined teachings of Ikeda and Suematsu, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate applying the teaching of Ikeda (Lh = 2/3 LM) and apply it to the teaching reference, Suematsu entire length LM = 60 mm, that yields 40 mm and satisfy the claimed ratio (8 ≤ Lh/D). Thus, the examiner submits that the amended claim 1 is obvious over Ikeda in view of Suematsu.
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 should 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) 1 – 3 and 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2009/0020518 A1), hereinafter "Ikeda", in view of Suematsu et al. (US 6,084,220 A) and hereinafter "Suematsu".
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses a ceramic heater (ceramic heater 5, see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b) comprising:
a ceramic base extending in an axial-line direction (a cylindrical ceramic (alumina) core 15 extending in an axial direction, (0072, and see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b)); and
a heat generation portion (a heating section 18 wherein a heating pattern 21 is formed, (0073, see annotated FIGS. 1a - 1b and FIGs 2a - 2b)), wherein
a length Lh in the axial-line direction of the heat generation portion (an axial length (A) of heating section 18 cab be 2/3 of an axial length (L) of the entire ceramic heater which is in a range from 80 to 110 mm, (0032 – 0035 and FIG. 7a) and a maximum outer diameter D of the ceramic heater satisfy a relationship of 8 ≤ Lh/D (the ceramic heater can have an outer diameter (D) between 8 mm and 15 mm, (0032 - 0035)), taking 2/3 of 110mm ≈ 73 mm for axial length (A) and outer diameter (D) = 8mm, yields a ratio (A/D) = 73 mm/ 8 mm = 9.125, thus, the relationship of 8 ≤ Lh/D is satisfied by the disclosed ranges).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ikeda further discloses the ceramic heater according to claim 1, wherein dimensional relationships among sizes like the ceramic heater length and maximum outer diameter can be appropriately selected and designed for efficiency and compactness of the ceramic heater without departing from the scope of the invention, (0014,0020, 0036, 0120 and 0129).
Ikeda does not explicitly teach an entire length LM of the ceramic heater is not greater than 60 mm; and the maximum outer diameter D is 1.5 to 5.0 mm.
However, Suematsu that relates to a ceramic heater (1:05 - 10), also teaches that the size of the ceramic heater can be selected to have an entire length of 60 mm and an outer diameter of 2.6 mm, (8:24 - 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the ceramic heater of Ikeda to have entire length not greater than 60 mm (60 mm) and maximum outer diameter between 1.5 and 5.0 mm (2.6mm) as doing so is considered a mere matter of design choice that amounts to a simple change of size or proportion within a person of ordinary skill in the art that is not patentably distinguishing from the prior art, MPEP 2144.04. IV. Further, POSITA appraised of the smaller lengths and diameters the ceramic heater taught by Suematsu would be motivated to select the lengths and diameters to the ceramic heater Ikeda to be the smaller length of 60 mm and outer diameter of 2.6 mm in order to achieve efficiency and compactness of the ceramic heater as taught in Ikeda.
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 1, wherein the length Lh is not greater than 2/3 of an entire length LM of the ceramic heater (an axial length (A) of heating section 18 cab be 2/3 of an axial length (L) of the entire ceramic heater, Ikeda (0035)).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 1, wherein
the heat generation portion is provided only on a front-end side relative to a position away by 5 mm toward the heat generation portion side from an electrode pad connected to the heat generation portion and placed at an outer surface on a base end side of the ceramic heater (the heating section 18 is provided on the front end side of the ceramic heater wherein an electrode pad (external terminal patterns (19, 20)) are disposed on the outer surface of ceramic heater on the outer wall end side of a heat exchanger 3 and the gap between the inner wall and the outer wall can be between 1 to 5 mm, Ikeda (0045, 0074 and see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b)).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 1, wherein the heat generation portion is formed around an outer circumference of the ceramic base (the heating section 18 is formed around an outer circumference of the ceramic core 15, see Ikeda’s annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b),the ceramic heater further comprising a ceramic sheet wrapped around the outer circumference of the ceramic base and covering the heat generation portion (the ceramic hater 5 further includes a heating cover member 17 comprising a thin ceramic membrane wrapping around circumference of the ceramic core 15 covering the heating section 18, Ikeda (0075 and see FIGS 1a - 2b)).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 7, wherein the heat generation portion is embedded in the ceramic sheet (the heating section 18 has a heating pattern formed embedded in the heating cover member 17, Ikeda (0073, 0075 and please see FIGS. 2a and 2b)).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches a liquid heating device (a heat exchanger unit 1 that stores a water and a ceramic heater 5 that is attached to a heat exchanger container 3 and heats the water, Ikeda (0069 and see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b)) comprising:
a container having an internal space (a heat exchanger container 3, see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b) and an inlet and an outlet communicating with the internal space (inlet through hole 6 and outlet 11, see Ikeda’s annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b); and
one or a plurality of ceramic heaters each stored in the container such that a front-end portion of the ceramic heater faces the internal space (a front-end side of ceramic heater 5 is arranged to face the internal space of the heat exchanger container 3, Ikeda (00073 and see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b)), wherein
in a process in which a liquid to be heated is introduced from the inlet and flows through the internal space to the outlet, the liquid is heated by the ceramic heater (water is introduced to flow via through hole inlet 6 through the internal space of the heat exchanger container 3 to the outlet 11 and the water is heated by the ceramic heater 5, Ikeda (0085 - 0086 and see arrows indicating water flow in annotated FIG. 1a)),
the ceramic heater is attached to the container by a base-end side of the ceramic heater being retained by the container (the ceramic heater 5 that is attached to the heat exchanger container 3 by the back end side (base-end side) of the ceramic heater 5 and a fixing member (flange) 7 secures the ceramic heater 5 to the heat exchanger container, Ikeda (0069, 0090 and see annotated FIGS. 1a and 1b)),
the liquid flows from the inlet along an outer surface of the ceramic heater to the outlet (the water flows from the inlet (through hole 6) along the outer surface of the ceramic heater 5 to the outlet 11, (0085 - 0086 and see the arrows showing the water flow pattern in annotated FIG. 1a)), and
the ceramic heater is the ceramic heater according to claim 1 (ceramic heater 5 is the ceramic heater of claim 1, Ikeda in view of Suematsu and see annotated Ikeda’s FIGS. 1a and 1b).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of in view of Suematsu in further view of Miyata (US 6,448,538 B1) and hereinafter "Miyata"
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Suematsu teaches the ceramic heater according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic heater has an excellent thermal shock resistance, (0128).
Ikeda in view of Suematsu does not explicitly discuss an electric resistance value of the heat generation portion is not less than 12 Ω at 180°C.
However, Miyata that relates to an electric heating element having a structure comprising a ceramic insulating substrate (1:01 - 06), also teaches the electrical heating element is designed to withstand high temperatures up to 500 °C, (16: 10 - 16) and the electrical resistance of the heating element can be selected between 8.5 Ω and 20 Ω for different ceramic substrate materials, (please see Table 1 on 15:25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the ceramic heater taught by Ikeda in view of Suematsu to have an electric resistance value of the heat generation portion to be not less than 12 Ω at 180°C as selecting the appropriate electrical resistance value of a heat generating element at a certain temperature, is considered selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use or purpose that is obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art and not patentably distinguishing from the prior art, MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights