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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers et al. (hereafter Rogers – US 20180313800).
Claim 1 recites “a method.” Rogers teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) a method, comprising:
determining that a temperature of a first coil segment (portion of coil interior to 114) of a plurality of coil segments of a microheater 110 is lower than a temperature of a second coil segment 116 (portion of coil interior to 116) of the plurality of coil segments (para. 0004, determined non-uniform temperature), wherein the first coil segment is closer to an edge of the microheater than the second coil segment (see Fig. 1G), and wherein the microheater is a heating component of a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based device (para. 0002, 0003);
increasing a resistance of the first coil segment by reducing a width of the first coil segment (para. 0047, 0030, Fig. 1G, see varying width of first coil segment); and after reducing the width of the first coil segment, adjusting, based on a difference between the temperature of the first coil segment and the temperature of the second coil segment, a width of the second coil segment (para. 0047).
Regarding Claim 2, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the width of the second coil segment comprises adjusting the width of the second coil segment using a numerical calculation (para. 0008, calculating a resistance of the resistive heater, which is changed by the adjusted width, to determine an average temperature of the resistive heater).
Regarding Claim 4, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, based on a temperature of a wavy structure (see Fig. 1G, 114, 116 form half-circular wavy structures) and the temperatures of the first coil segment and the second coil segment, a diameter of the wavy structure (the diameter would be affected by varying widths), wherein the first coil segment is coupled to an electrical pad 112a, 112b of the microheater through a third coil segment (Fig. 1G), the third coil segment comprises the wavy structure, the wavy structure comprises a plurality of half-circled coil segments (Fig. 1G), and the diameter of the wavy structure is a diameter of each of the plurality of half- circled coil segments (see Fig. 1G, diameter should be equal due to circular shape).
Regarding Claim 6, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 4, wherein the electrical pad is an electrical ground of the microheater (see Fig. 1A, 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein the reduced width of the first coil segment is smaller than the adjusted width of the second coil segment (portions of the first coil segment width are smaller than second coil segment width).
Regarding Claim 8, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the microheater is one micrometer or less (para. 0065, 1,000 Å = 0.1 micrometer).
Regarding Claim 9, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein the microheater comprises one of a fan-shaped, serpentine, concentric, and meander-patterned microheater (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 10, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 1, wherein a material of the microheater comprises one of platinum, polysilicon, copper, gold, silver, and aluminum (para. 0046).
Claim 13 recites “a microheater.” Rogers teaches such a microheater, as will be shown.
Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) a microheater, comprising:
two electrical pads 112a, 112b;
two coil segments 114, 116 directly coupled to the two electrical pads respectively, wherein each of the two coil segments comprises a respective wavy structure (Fig. 1G), and each of the two wavy structures comprises a plurality of half-circled coil segments (Fig. 1G); and
a plurality of coil segments (portions interior to half-circled coil segments) coupled to the two electrical pads through the two coil segments, wherein:
the plurality of coil segments comprises at least a first coil segment and a second coil segment (segments interior to 114, 116, Fig. 1G);
the first coil segment is closer to an edge of the microheater than the second coil segment (Fig. 1G); and
a width of the first coil segment is smaller than a width of the second coil segment (portions of the first coil segment have smaller width than second coil segment).
Regarding Claim 15, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein one of the two electrical pads is an electrical ground of the microheater (Fig. 1A, 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein one of the two electrical pads is configured to couple to a power source (740).
Regarding Claim 17, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein a thickness of the microheater is one micrometer or less (para. 0065, 1,000 Å = 0.1 micrometer).
Regarding Claim 18, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein the microheater comprises one of a fan-shaped, serpentine, concentric, and meander-patterned microheater (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 19, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein a material of the microheater comprises one of platinum, polysilicon, copper, gold, silver, and aluminum (para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 20, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the microheater of claim 13, wherein the microheater is a heating component of a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based device (para. 0002, 0003).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Prausnitz et al. (hereafter Prausnitz – US 20080045879).
Regarding Claim 3, Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) the method of claim 2, wherein the numerical calculation.
However, Rogers does not teach a finite element method (FEM) based numerical calculation.
Prausnitz teaches a method for a microheater wherein Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to determine induction heating power of the microheaters (para. 0075).
Prausnitz further teaches using finite element methods to conveniently estimate heating power of the microheaters.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Prausnitz to the method of Rogers to have a finite element method (FEM) based numerical calculation, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods for microheaters. Doing so would result in convenient estimates of microheater performance, as recognized by Prausnitz.
Claims 11 are 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Shibata et al. (hereafter Shibata – US 4726751).
Claim 11 recites “a method.” Rogers teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Rogers teaches (Figs. 1A-7) a method, comprising:
determining that a plurality of microheaters in a microheater array have temperature variation that is larger than a preset threshold (par. 0004), wherein at least two or more microheaters of the plurality of microheaters in the microheater array are connected in a parallel circuit configuration (see Fig. 1G), and providing the plurality of microheaters as a heating component of a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based device (para. 0002, 0003).
However, Rogers does not teach connecting the plurality of microheaters in a series circuit configuration.
Shibata teaches a method for a heater wherein heating windings are connected in series (col. 3, ln.44-46).
Shibita further teaches if the heating windings are connected in series, increased resistance of one of the heating winding circuits uniformly reduces the power to be supplied to all the winding circuits, lowering the temperature of all the tubular members evenly, whereby the gate balance can be easily maintained as opposed to parallel connections.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Shibita to the method of Rogers to have connecting the plurality of microheaters in a series circuit configuration, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods for heaters. Doing so would result in more uniform heating performance, as recognized by Shibita.
Regarding Claim 12, Rogers, as modified with Shibita in Claim 11 above, teaches (Harman Figs. 1A-7) the the plurality of microheaters comprises a plurality of concentric microheaters (Fig. 1G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach the adjusted diameter of the wavy structure is smaller than the reduced width of the first coil segment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights