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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025, 02/06/2025, and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a receptacle 90” and “a PCB 92” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “100” has been used to designate both “heater coupon” and “hairdryer”.
Reference character “40” has been used to designate both “metallization surface” and “wiring loom”.
Reference character “42” has been used to designate both “second metallization surface” and “wire guide”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “0” in Figure 1B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words, thus not within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A Layered Ceramic Heater.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The heater coupon 10” (Pg. 11, line 4) should read “the heater coupon 20”.
“The hairdryer 10” (Pg. 12, line 11) should read “the hairdryer 100”.
“The fist end 112” (Pg. 12, line 21) should read “the first end 112”.
“The second end 114” (Pg. 12, line 21) should read “the second end 124”.
“The external surface 142” (Pg. 12, line 25) should read “the filter grille 142”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 13, line 18) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The second end 114” (Pg. 13, line 21) should read “the second end 124”.
“The inner wall 188” (Pg. 14, line 2) should read “the inner wall 118”.
“For receiving and retaining a wire 44a, 44b” (Pg. 14, line 6) should read “For receiving and retaining three neutral wires 44a and a live wire 44b”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 14, line 23) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“Via pads 126” (Pg. 14, line 33) should read “via pads 126, 126a, 126b, and 126c”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 15, line 10) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 15, line 29) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater track 26” (Pg. 15, line 33) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater track 26” (Pg. 16, line 1) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater track 26” (Pg. 16, line 5) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 16, line 7) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 16, line 8) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 16, line 11) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 16, line 18) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“The heater trace 26” (Pg. 16, line 22) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
“To a wire 44, 48” (Pg. 17, line 1) should read “to a heat trace wire 44, or a RTD wire 48”.
“The heater coupon 60” (Pg. 17, line 32) should read “the heater coupon 20, 100”
The heater trace 26” (Pg. 18, line 10) should read “the resistive trace 26”.
The heat shrink 160” (Pg. 18, line 14) should read “the heat shrink 162”.
The heat shrink 160” (Pg. 18, line 16) should read “the heat shrink 162”.
“the heater coupon 20a” (Pg. 18, line 21) should read “the heater coupon 20”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “the layers”, should read “the plurality of layers”.
Claim 4 recites “ceramic sheet”, should read “the ceramic material”.
Claim 9 recites “the heater trace”, should read “the at least one heater trace”.
Claim 11 recites “the heater trace”, should read “the at least one heater trace”.
Claim 12 recites “the heater trace”, should read “the at least one heater trace”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a connector", should read “the connector”.
Claim 17 recites "an external wire", should read “a second external wire”.
Claim 19 recites “ceramic block”, should read “the ceramic block”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Strain relief features” in claim 21. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “features” (Prong A); the term “features” is modified by functional language “strain relief” (Prong B); and the term “features” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “strain relief features” will be interpreted as “an aperture” or “a hook”, and equivalents, as indicated by: “One strain relief feature 168a is an aperture cut within the part of the connector 60” (Pg. 17, lines 22-23) and “another example of a strain relied feature 168b is to form the connection as a hook with the hollow formed as part of the hook providing the strain relief” (Pg. 17, lines 23-25).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the recess” is referring to “the first recess” or “the second recess”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the recess” is referring to “the first recess” or “the second recess”.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a further connector" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to a different third connector, unrelated to the “at least two connectors” referred to in claim 13, or if “a further connector” is one of the “at least two connectors”.
Claim 18 is rejected for its dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the further said connector" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to a different third connector, unrelated to the “at least two connectors” referred to in claim 13, or if “a further connector” is one of the “at least two connectors”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the further said connector" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to a different third connector, unrelated to the “at least two connectors” referred to in claim 13, or if “a further connector” is one of the “at least two connectors”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "third recess" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 depends upon claim 17, and the limitation “a third recess” is introduced in claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the recess” is referring to “the first recess”, “the second recess”, “the third recess”, or “the fourth recess”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the further said connector" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to a different third connector, unrelated to the “at least two connectors” referred to in claim 13, or if “a further connector” is one of the “at least two connectors”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (K.R. 20110042746) in view of Mizuta et al. (U.S. 20150139681), hereinafter Mizuta.
PNG
media_image1.png
635
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Jo)
PNG
media_image2.png
693
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Jo)
PNG
media_image3.png
306
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Jo)
Regarding claim 1, Jo discloses a heater coupon (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “temperature sensor-embedded ceramic heater” [0006]) comprising a ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]; “an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 450 μm (first sheet), an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 600 μm (second sheet), and an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 800 μm (third sheet) were prepared” [0009]) having a first surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface”) and a second surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “Second Surface”), at least one heater trace (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element pattern 150” [0007]) formed within the ceramic block (“the tungsten electrode can completely adhere to the ceramic substrate… tungsten electrode is sintered in a reducing atmosphere so that it can be used as a heater” [0008]) and a connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element connection electrode 151” [0006]) for electrically connecting the at least one heater trace (“The temperature sensor lead wire (140a) and the heating element lead wire (140b) are joined to the connection electrode (151, 161)” [0007]) to an external wire (Annotated Fig. 1, “heating element wire 140b” [0007]) wherein the connector comprises a first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 3, “First Connecting Arm”) for connecting with respect to the first surface of the ceramic block.
Jo does not expressly disclose a connector comprising a second connecting arm for connecting with respect to the second surface of the ceramic block.
PNG
media_image4.png
311
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Mizuta)
PNG
media_image5.png
486
614
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Mizuta)
Mizuta is directed a heater coupon (Annotated Fig. 4, “heater 5” [0045]) comprising a ceramic block (Annotated Fig, 6, “dielectric substrate 9” [0048]). Mizuta discloses a connector (Fig. 4, “connector 13” [0054]) comprising a first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “First Connecting Arm”) for connecting with respect to the first surface and a second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “Second Connecting Arm”) for connecting with respect to the second surface (Annotated Fig. 6, “Second Surface of Ceramic Block”) of the ceramic block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted Jo’s connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element connection electrode 151” [0006]) with Mizuta’s connector (See Mizuta’s Fig. 4, “connector 13” [0054]), because the substitution of one known connector for another would have yielded predictable results of electrically connecting the ceramic block to an external wire. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Jo discloses further, wherein the connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element connection electrode 151” [0006]) is be located at an end of the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006] ). (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111) is formed at one end of the third sheet (130) for receiving a temperature sensor lead wire (140a) and a heating element lead wire (140b) at a position corresponding to the temperature sensor connection electrode (161) and the heating element connection electrode (151)” [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Jo discloses further, wherein the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) is formed from a plurality of layers (Annotated Fig. 1, “first to third sheets 110, 120, 130” [0006]) of ceramic material (“an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 450 μm (first sheet), an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 600 μm (second sheet), and an alumina green sheet with a thickness of 800 μm (third sheet) were prepared” [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Jo discloses further, wherein the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) is provided with a first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “second inlet hole (111) [0007]) for accommodating the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111) is formed at one end of the third sheet (130) for receiving a temperature sensor lead wire (140a) and a heating element lead wire (140b) at a position corresponding to the temperature sensor connection electrode (161) and the heating element connection electrode (151)” [0007]).
Jo does not expressly disclose wherein the ceramic block is provided with a second recess for accommodating the second connecting arm.
PNG
media_image6.png
492
705
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Mizuta)
Mizuta discloses a second recess (Annotated Fig. 5, “Second Recess” [0052]) for accommodating the second connecting arm (“FIG. 3(c) shows the end portion of the heater supporting member 6, which faces the heater 5 and has a cutaway… The cutaway portion of the heater supporting member 6 is positioned so that the electrode 10f, for example, is exposed through the cutaway. The electrodes 10f and 10r are connected to the connector 13 which has a pair of spring contacts” [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to place a recess on a second surface of the ceramic block, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Jo discloses further, wherein the first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) extends from the first surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface”).
Regarding claim 7, Jo discloses further, wherein the first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) is of a depth such that the at least one heater trace (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element pattern 150” [0007]) is exposed to the connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element connection electrode 151” [0006]) and in particular the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 3, “First Connecting Arm”) or the second connecting arm. (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111) is formed at one end of the third sheet (130) for receiving a temperature sensor lead wire (140a) and a heating element lead wire (140b) at a position corresponding to the temperature sensor connection electrode (161) and the heating element connection electrode (151)… The temperature sensor lead wire (140a) and the heating element lead wire (140b) are joined to the connection electrode (151, 161)” [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Jo discloses further, wherein the first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) has a wall (Annotated Fig. 1, “Wall of First Recess”) and a tab (Annotated Fig. 1, “Tab of First Recess”), the wall defining a depth of the recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) within the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) and delimiting an area of the tab (Annotated Fig. 1, “Area of the Tab of First Recess”) and the tab providing a surface to which the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 3, “First Connecting Arm”) can be attached.
Regarding claim 9, Jo discloses further, wherein the first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) extends from the first surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface”) to the heater trace (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element pattern 150” [0007]). (Also see Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface to Heater Trace”).
Regarding claim 10, Jo does not expressly disclose, wherein the second recess has a wall and a tab, the wall defining a depth of the recess within the ceramic block and delimiting an area of the tab and the tab providing a surface to which the second connecting arm can be attached.
Mizuta discloses wherein the second recess (Annotated Fig. 5, “Second Recess” [0052]) has a wall (Annotated Fig. 5, “Wall”) and a tab (Annotated Fig. 5, “Tab”), the wall defining a depth of the recess and delimiting an area of the tab (Annotated Fig. 5, “Area of the Tab”) and the tab providing a surface to which the second connecting arm can be attached. Examiner note: In addition to structural limitations, claim 10 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed tab surface of the second of the apparatus. The functional limitations are: “to which the second connecting arm can be attached.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to place a recess with a wall and a tab on a second surface of the ceramic block, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04.
PNG
media_image7.png
534
471
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 (Mizuta)
PNG
media_image8.png
480
745
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 (Mizuta)
Regarding claim 11, Jo does not expressly disclose, wherein the second recess extends from the second surface to the heater trace.
Mizuta discloses wherein the second recess (Annotated Fig. 5, “Second Recess” [0052]) extends from the second surface (Annotated Fig. 5, “Second Surface”) to the heater trace (Annotated Figs. 6 and 7, “heat generating member 8” and “electrode 10r” [0052]). (“FIG. 3(c) shows the end portion of the heater supporting member 6, which faces the heater 5 and has a cutaway… The cutaway portion of the heater supporting member 6 is positioned so that the electrode 10f, for example, is exposed through the cutaway. The electrodes 10f and 10r are connected to the connector 13 which has a pair of spring contacts” [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to place a recess extending from the second surface to the heater trace on the second surface of the ceramic block, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Jo discloses further, wherein the first recess (Annotated Fig. 2, “a second inlet hole (111)” [0007]) extends from the first surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface”) and the heater trace (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element pattern 150” [0007]) is exposed to the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 3, “First Connecting Arm”). (“The heating element pattern (150) is manufactured by printing a high melting point metal paste, such as tungsten, molybdenum, platinum, etc., either alone or in combination, and firing it in a reducing atmosphere at 1400 to 1600°C so that the sensor resistance is 50 to 200 Ω at room temperature, and the heating element connection electrode (151) is formed by nickel plating on the metal paste” [0007]).
PNG
media_image9.png
346
613
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 (Mizuta)
Regarding claim 13, Jo discloses further wherein at least two connectors (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element connection electrode 151” and “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]) are provided.
Jo does not expressly disclose wherein the at least two connectors are electrically isolated from each other.
Mizuta discloses wherein at least two connectors (Annotated Figs. 6-8 and Mizuta’s Fig. 4, “two connectors 13” [0052]) are provided and the at least two connectors are electrically isolated from each other (“However, the two electrodes 10, which are on the other lengthwise ends of the heater supporting member 6 from the electrodes 10f and 10r are connected to two connectors 13, which are independent from each other. That is, in terms of the electrical circuit, the heating unit 2 in this embodiment is structured to use three connectors to enable the two heat generating members 8 to be independently controlled from each other” [0052]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jo to incorporate the teachings of Mizuta to have at least two connectors provided that are electrically isolated from each other. Doing so allows for independent control of the connectors, as recognized by Mizuta (“However, the two electrodes 10, which are on the other lengthwise ends of the heater supporting member 6 from the electrodes 10f and 10r are connected to two connectors 13, which are independent from each other. That is, in terms of the electrical circuit, the heating unit 2 in this embodiment is structured to use three connectors to enable the two heat generating members 8 to be independently controlled from each other” [0052]). Independent control of the connectors allows for more precise control over heating and temperature monitoring.
Regarding claim 16, Jo further discloses wherein the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) additionally comprises an integrated thermal sensor (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor pattern 160” [0006]) such as an RTD (resistive temperature detector) (Annotated Fig. 2, “The temperature pattern (160) is manufactured by printing a high melting point metal paste, such as tungsten, molybdenum, platinum, etc., either alone or in combination, and firing it in a reducing atmosphere at 1400 to 1600°C so that the sensor resistance is 60 to 1000 Ω at room temperature” [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Jo further discloses wherein the integrated thermal sensor (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor pattern 160” [0006]) is connected to an external wire (Annotated Fig. 1, “temperature sensor lead wire 140a” [0007]) via a further connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]).
Regarding claim 18, Jo further discloses, wherein the further connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]) comprises a first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 2, “First Connecting Arm of Further Connector”) for connecting with respect to the first surface (Annotated Fig. 1, “First Surface”) of the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]).
Jo does not expressly disclose wherein the further connector comprises a second connecting arm for connecting with respect to the second surface of the ceramic block.
Mizuta discloses wherein the further connector (Mizuta’s Fig. 4, one of the “two connectors 13” [0052]) comprises a second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “Second Connecting Arm”) for connecting with respect to the second surface (Annotated Fig. 6, “Second Surface of Ceramic Block”) of the ceramic block (Annotated Fig. 6, “dielectric substrate 9” [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted Jo’s connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]) with Mizuta’s connector (See Mizuta’s Fig. 4, “connector 13” [0054]), because the substitution of one known connector for another would have yielded predictable results of electrically connecting the ceramic block to an external wire. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Jo further discloses, wherein ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) has a third recess (Annotated Fig. 1, “first inlet hole 121” [0007]) for accommodating the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 2, “First Connecting Arm of Further Connector”) of the further said connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]).
Jo does not expressly disclose wherein ceramic block has a fourth recess for accommodating the second connecting arm of the further said connector.
PNG
media_image10.png
269
762
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9 (Mizuta)
Mizuta discloses a fourth recess (Annotated Fig. 9, “Fourth Recess”) for accommodating the second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “Second Connecting Arm”) of the further said connector (Mizuta’s Fig. 4, one of the “two connectors 13” [0052]). (Annotated Figs 7, 8, and 9, “However, the two electrodes 10, which are on the other lengthwise ends of the heater supporting member 6 from the electrodes 10f and 10r are connected to two connectors 13, which are independent from each other” [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to place a fourth recess on the second surface of the ceramic block, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, Jo further discloses, wherein third recess (Annotated Fig. 1, “first inlet hole 121” [0007]) has a wall (Annotated Fig. 1, “Wall of Third Recess”) and a tab (Annotated Fig. 1, “Tab of Third Recess”), the wall defining a depth of the recess within the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]) and delimiting an area of the tab (Annotated Fig. 1, “Area of the Tab of Third Recess”) and the tab providing a surface to which the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 2, “First Connecting Arm of Further Connector”) of the further said connector (Annotated Fig. 2, “temperature sensor connection electrode 161” [0007]) can be attached.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jo (K.R. 20110042746) in view of Mizuta (U.S. 20150139681), further in view of Birt (G.B. 2153190).
Regarding claim 4, Jo further discloses wherein the at least one heater trace (Annotated Fig. 2, “heating element pattern 150” [0007]) is printed (“The heating element pattern (150) is manufactured by printing a high melting point metal paste“ [0007]) onto one of the layers of ceramic sheet (Annotated Fig. 2, “second sheet 120” [0006]) that form the ceramic block (Annotated Figs 1 and 2, “heater body 100” [0006]). (“The second sheet (120) is laminated on the upper surface of the first sheet (110), and a heating element pattern (160) is printed on the upper surface, and a heating element connection electrode (151) is formed on one side of the heating element pattern (160)” [0006]).
Jo does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one heater trace is screen printed onto one of the layers of ceramic sheet.
Birt is directed to a heater in which a heater track that is screen printed on an electrically insulative ceramic material. Birt discloses wherein the at least one heater trace (Fig. 2, “heater track 4” [Pg. 2, lines 10-11]) is screen printed (“screen printing a metallic heater track onto said coated substrate” [Pg. 1, lines 42-43]) onto one of the layers of ceramic sheet (“electrically insulative ceramic material” [Pg. 1, lines 36-48]). (“According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a method of construction of a heater for a water vessel comprising the steps of coating a metallic substrate with an electrically insulative ceramic material, firing said coated substrate at a first temperature, screen printing a metallic heater track onto said coated substrate, firing said screen printed substrate at a second temperature, coating said screen printed substrate with said electrically insulative ceramic material, and firing said coated screen printed substrate at a third temperature” [Pg.1, lines 36-48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the Jo’s printing (“The heating element pattern (150) is manufactured by printing a high melting point metal paste“ [0007]) with the Birt’s screen printing (“screen printing a metallic heater track onto said coated substrate” [Pg. 1, lines 42-43]) because the substitution of one known printing method for another would have yielded predictable results of printing the heater trace on a ceramic layer. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (K.R. 20110042746) in view of Mizuta (U.S. 20150139681), further in view of Kuch (U.S. 3020510).
Regarding claim 14, Jo in view of Mizuta further discloses wherein a connector (Mizuta’s Fig. 4, “connector 13” [0054]) further comprises a crimp connected to both the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “First Connecting Arm”) and the second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 4, “Second Connecting Arm”). (“The connector terminal 14 is in connection to a lead 17 which is made up of a bundle of fine wires and is crimped to one end of the terminal 14. It is in connection to the control chip (unshown) through the lead 17” [0057]; “The connector terminal 14 is shaped so that its cross section appears roughly U-shaped. It is made of stainless steel, titanium alloy, or the like material, and is plated. It is provided with a pair of spring contacts, more specifically, spring contacts 16f and 16r (first and second spring contacts, respectively), which extend into the space of the connector 13” [0056])
Jo in view of Mizuta does not expressly disclose wherein a connector further comprises a solder cup connected to both the first connecting arm and the second connecting arm.
PNG
media_image11.png
554
542
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10 (Kuch)
Kuch is directed to electrical connectors. Kuch discloses wherein a connector (Annotated Fig. 10, “Connector”) further comprises a solder cup (Annotated Fig. 10, “solder cups 22” ” [Col. 4, lines 7-11]) connected to both the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 10, “First Connecting Arm”) and the second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 10, “Second Connecting Arm”). (“The ends of the posts 20 protrude or project slightly from the lower surface of the plate 21 and are scooped out so as to provide solder cups 22 in order to facilitate the making of soldered connections between the posts 20 and wire conductors” [Col. 4, lines 7-11])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the Jo in view of Mizuta’s crimp (“The connector terminal 14 is in connection to a lead 17 which is made up of a bundle of fine wires and is crimped to one end of the terminal 14. It is in connection to the control chip (unshown) through the lead 17” [0057]) with the Kuch’s solder cup (Annotated Fig. 10, “solder cups 22” ” [Col. 4, lines 7-11]), because the substitution of one known method of making an electrical connection for another would have yielded predictable results of connecting a connector to a wire. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (K.R. 20110042746) in view of Mizuta (U.S. 20150139681), further in view of Hashimoto (J.P. H0878142).
Regarding claim 15, Jo does not expressly disclose wherein the ceramic block is provided with a through thickness slot between the at least two connectors.
PNG
media_image12.png
479
523
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Hashimoto)
Hashimoto is directed to a ceramic heater. Hashimoto discloses wherein the ceramic block (Fig. 1, “ring 2” [0016]) is provided with a through thickness slot (Fig. 1, “slit 3” [0016]) between the at least two connectors (Fig. 1 “electrode portions 5” [0016]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jo in view of Mizuta to incorporate the teachings of Hashimoto to have a through thickness slot between at least two connectors. Doing so allows for an additional pathway for heat to dissipate, reducing the risk of the ceramic block from cracking, thus extending the life of the ceramic heater as a whole.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (K.R. 20110042746) in view of Mizuta (U.S. 20150139681), further in view of Saijyou (J.P. S5942785).
Regarding claim 21, Jo in view of Mizuta does not expressly disclose, wherein the first connecting arm and the second connecting arm comprise strain relief features.
PNG
media_image13.png
622
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 11 (Hashimoto)
Saijyou is directed to an electrical connector that penetrates an insulating base and connects to wires. Saijyou discloses wherein the first connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 11, “First Connecting Arm 12” [0001]) and the second connecting arm (Annotated Fig. 11, “First Connecting Arm 12” [0001]) comprise strain relief features (Annotated Fig. 11, “hook pieces 17” [0001]). (“The hook pieces 17,17 and projections 18,18 prevent the wire 35 from coming out of the housing 1o and act as a strain relief means for the connection between the wire J6 and the contact 26” [0001]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mizuta in view of Jo to incorporate the teachings of Saijyou to have hook strain relief features. Doing so allows for a connector that has first and second arms that can grasp and connect to the necessary surface, and a connector that will not deform, as recognized by Saijyou (“The cover is provided with protrusions that engage with each of the four wire receiving portions of the housing and lock and hold the strain relief means provided at their entrances. As a result, the wire connected to the pressure contact piece can be reliably grasped and held by the strain relief means, and the strain relief will not deform due to external force applied to the wire, thus not adversely affecting the contact performance between the pressure contact piece and the wire” [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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 at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 06/24/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights