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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/28/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 09/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that any field of search for one invention would necessarily overlap with the field of search for the other invention. Hence, it would not be a serious burden on the Examiner to examine
both all presented in this case.
This is not found persuasive because the invention as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function or effect. For example: Claim 1 recites a heater assembly can be a flat panel heater (class 392) and Claim 12 recites a fill port assembly can be valve mechanism (class 137) and would require different fields of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a printed circuit board, pcb, on which are provided electrically conductive tracks” should be changed to “a printed circuit board (PCB) on which are provided electrically conductive tracks”.
Claim 1 recites “the pcb” at line 9 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 1 recites “the pcb” at line 11 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 2 recites “the pcb” at line 3 and at line 4 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 5 recites “the pcb” at line 3 and at line 4 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 6 recites “the pcb” at line 2 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 7 recites “the pcb” at line 2 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 9 recites “the pcb” at line 2 should be changed to “the PCB”.
Claim 10 recites “aluminium foil” should be changed to “aluminum foil”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Van Der Wel (US 20220061152).
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Wel discloses “a heater assembly” (fig.2) comprising “three discrete components assembled in a stack” (400, 100 and 200 are stacked to each other), the three discrete components comprising:
“a printed circuit board, pcb” ([0080], i.e., the conductive track 150 of the FPC 100. [0078], i.e., The FCB comprises a first PCB region 110 and a second PCB region 120), “on which are provided electrically conductive tracks which generate heat when electric power is applied to the tracks” ([0082], i.e., the conductive tracks 150 of the FPC 100 may be extended further from the solid state light source 310 (closer to the support 200) thereby enlarging the heat spreading capacity of the FPC 100. This suggest that the conductive tracks 150 having both electrical conduction and heat spreading functionality so that the current must flow through the tracks (hence, i.e., resistive heating is P = I²R)), “the pcb having a first major surface” (100 has a top surface) and “a second, opposite, major surface” (100 has a bottom surface) and “a periphery” (100 has a side surface) joining “the first and second major surfaces” (a top surface of 100 and a bottom surface of 100);
“a heat reflective plate” (200 includes second support region 220. [0046] In specific embodiments, the second support region further may provide an optical function. The second support region may, e.g., be reflective. The second support region may comprise a minimal reflectivity (ratio of the radiation flux reflected by a surface to the incident radiation flux) of at least 80%, especially at least 85%, such as at least 90%.); and
“a heater assembly housing” (400);
wherein “the heat reflective plate” (200) is sandwiched between “the pcb” (100) and “the heater assembly housing” (400) and where “the heater assembly housing” (400) is configured to fit over “the heat reflective plate” (200) and “the periphery of the pcb” (100) “to form a closely fitted stack of the three discrete components” (stacked of three discrete components 100, 200 and 400).
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Wel discloses “the heat reflective plate has a surface area size and shape to match the size and shape of the surface area defined by the second major surface of the pcb” (fig.2 shows the heat reflective plate 200 has a bottom surface area size and shape to match the size and shape of the surface area defined by the second major surface of the pcb (refers to the back surface of 100)) or defines a surface area smaller than that defined by the second major surface of the pcb.
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Wel discloses “the surface area of the heat reflective plate is sized and shaped such to cover the conductive tracks on the pcb” (the surface area of the heat reflective plate 200 is sized and shaped such to cover the conductive tracks 150 on the pcb 100).
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Wel discloses “a power supply for providing power to the electrically conductive tracks” ([0038] The functional component may especially be functionally connected to a conductive track of the flexible printed circuit board, and may be connected to a further electrical component via the conductive track. The functional component may e.g. be connected to electrical periphery, such as a power supply).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Wel (US 20220061152) in view of Adair et al. (US 20230015765 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Wel discloses the heater assembly housing.
Van Der Wel is silent regarding the material of the heater assembly housing is formed of a flexible resilient material.
Adair et al. teaches “the heater assembly housing is formed of a flexible resilient material” (FIG. 3, the portions of the heater housing 20 comprises a shape memory alloy rather than simply a material with a high coefficient of thermal expansion. Shape memory alloys are alloys that return to a particular shape when heated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Van Der Wel with Adair et al., by replacing Van Der Wel’s material of housing with Adair et al.’s material of housing, to provide structural resiliency and impact resistance.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Wel (US 20220061152) in view of Zapletal (US 6,271,497).
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Wel discloses the heater assembly housing is formed of a material.
Van Der Wel is silent regarding the material of the housing is formed of a heat shrink material.
Zapletal teaches “the housing is formed of a heat shrink material” (col.1 at lines 45-57, i.e., fabrication of housing from silicone rubber). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Van Der Wel with Zapletal, by replacing Van Der Wel’s housing material with Zapletal’s housing material, to provide heat resistance for Van Der Wel’s heater housing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Wel (US 20220061152) in view of Sekrane (US 20080237220).
Regarding claim 10, Van Der Wel discloses “the heat reflective plate is formed of a heat reflective material” ([0046] In specific embodiments, the second support region further may provide an optical function. The second support region may, e.g., be reflective. The second support region may comprise a minimal reflectivity (ratio of the radiation flux reflected by a surface to the incident radiation flux) of at least 80%, especially at least 85%, such as at least 90%), optionally aluminum [0047], i.e., The support may in embodiments comprise aluminum).
Van Der Wel is silent regarding the aluminum comprises aluminum foil.
Sekrane teaches “aluminum foil” ([0069], i.e., a reflector such as an aluminium foil). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Van Der Wel with Sekrane, by replacing Van Der Wel’s aluminum with Sekrane’s aluminum foil, to provide thin, flexible and light weight to reduce cost and easy to carry.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2, 7 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
