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
Claim 12 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are cancelled.
In view of amendment, filed on 03/19/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 12/22/2025.
Rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Galindo et al. (EP 3,809,600)
New Grounds of Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galindo et al (EP 3,809,600).
Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose a method of manufacturing a heat-able panel comprising adding conducting particles as additive by means of plastic and thermoplastic transformation processes (¶ [0032]), the temperature conducting particles can be carbon black, graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes, or their combination (¶ [0025]); the conductive particles in the form of powder and the thermoplastic material in the form of pellets are first introduced in a heated container of a co-rotating twin-screw extruder (¶ [0033]); once the conductive particles and the thermoplastic material have been introduced in the container, they are hot mixed, melting the thermoplastic material in the extruder, to achieve a homogeneous mixture (¶ [0034]); once a homogeneous mixture is achieved, said mixture of molten plastic with the conductive particles is passed through an extruder head configured for generating filaments of thermoplastic material with conductive particles added as additive (¶ [0037]); once cooled, these filaments of thermoplastic material with added additive are cut using a shear to obtain pellets of said material (¶ [0038]); in order not to lose electrical conductivity, processing must be optimized, assuring slow cooling of the material at the head outlet. The calender rollers must be at a high temperature, assuring that the carbon nanotubes have enough time to be distributed into the polymer die and form the conductive network (¶ [0039]).
Further, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose in a subsequent manufacturing process, said pellets are melted to obtain the sheet of heat-able panel by means of a new extrusion, drawing, roller lamination, or a combination of these manufacturing processes, all these processes being hot processes to facilitate the molding of the sheet. With these manufacturing processes, the geometry of the sheet can be adaptable to any geometry depending on the shape and size requirements (¶ [0040]).
Moreover, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) teach with this process a PTC plastic sheet is achieved by means of manufacturing processes as a result of the dispersion of the conductive particles, which are achieved by applying certain specific processing conditions (¶ [0040]).
Therefore, as to claim 1, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) discloses a method of manufacturing a PTC heating element (see the above cited portion of ¶ [0045]), the method comprising: (a) preparing a mixed powder of a polymer powder, a carbon nanotube-containing powder and thermally conductive composite particles (see the above cited portions of ¶ [0025], ¶ [0032]- ¶ [0034]); (b) forming the mixed powder into a pellet-shaped body (see the above cited portions of ¶ [0037] - ¶ [0038]); and (c) extruding the pellet-shaped body to produce a wire-type heating element (¶ [0040]: pellets are melted to obtain the sheet of heatable panel be means of a new extrusion, the geometry of the sheet can be adaptable to any geometry depending on the shape and size requirements, therefore, the disclosure anticipates the geometry of the sheet can be in a wire shape and the produced heating element can be called wire heating element).
Further, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) teach percentages of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) from 3% to 10% by weight have been mixed (¶ [0056]). It can be concluded that when the mixed powder comprises 3% by volume of a carbon nanotube powder, the remaining of % 97 of the mixed powder will be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder. Therefore, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the mixed powder comprises 97% by volume of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder and 3% by volume of an aluminum/carbon nanotube composite powder. ¶ [0056]
Also, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the conductive particles added as additive to the thermoplastic material of the sheet are carbon nanotubes and have a concentration comprised between 5 and 10% with respect to the total weight of the sheet. ¶ [0026] It can be concluded that when the volume of a carbon nanotube powder is between 5% and 10%, the remaining of the composite powder will be 90% to 95% by volume of aluminum. Therefore, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the aluminum/carbon nanotube composite powder comprises 70% to 99.8% by volume of aluminum and 0.2% to 30% by volume of carbon nanotubes.
Galindo et al (EP ‘600) is silent on explicitly disclosing the thermally conductive composite particles comprise 69 to 95% by weight of aluminum hydroxide, 4 to 30% by weight of boron nitride, and 1 to 2% by weight of an organosiloxane compound represented by (R2SiO)x (wherein R is a substituted or unsubstituted methyl group, and x is 1 to 20), as claimed in claim 1.
However, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the thermally conductive composite particles, as taught by Galindo et al (EP ‘600), so to be comprised of 69 to 95% by weight of aluminum hydroxide, 4 to 30% by weight of boron nitride, and 1 to 2% by weight of an organosiloxane compound represented by (R2SiO)x in order to provide a capability for controlling the electrical resistance of the heating part with an increase in the temperature of the heating system so when the desired temperature is reached, it stabilizes and no temperature peaks are generated, making it a safe heating system. See Galindo et al (EP ‘600): ¶ [0023].
As to claim 2, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the polymer powder is (i) fluorine-based resins, olefin-based resins and styrene-based resins, or (ii) a thermosetting resin selected from polyimide resins. (¶ [0028]: the thermoplastic materials of the sheet can be polyolefins, polyesters, polyamides, thermoplastic elastomers, polysulfones, polyetherimides, or a combination of all the foregoing)
Regarding claim 3, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the thermoplastic materials of the sheet can be polyolefins, polyesters, polyamides, thermoplastic elastomers, polysulfones, polyetherimides, or a combination of all the foregoing. (¶ [0028]). Further, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the heatable panel additionally comprises polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, natural fabrics, and a combination of all the foregoing. (Page 8, lines 23-26). However, is silent on explicitly disclosing the polymer powder comprises a resin selected of polytetrafluoroethylenes (PTFEs) and polyvinylfluorides (PVFs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to select the powder polymer in the mixed powder for forming a PTC heating element, as taught by Galindo et al (EP ‘600), so to be a fluorine-based resin selected of polytetrafluoroethylenes (PTFEs) and polyvinylfluorides (PVFs) in order to provide a compound with a more suitable structural and mechanical characteristics for a proper dispersion of the conductive particles obtaining a final part with the desired conductive properties. See Galindo et al (EP ‘600): ¶ [0028] and ¶ [0013].
As to claim 5, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the carbon nanotube-containing powder is a powder of a composite material obtained by complexation of a carbon nanotube and a metal. (¶ [0029]: since it is a polymeric compound, the composite layer can adopt several forms by means of thermoforming, obtaining a lightweight final compound; further, Page 7, lines 40-41 and 57)
As to claim 6, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) teach the metal is any one metal or an alloy of two or more metals selected from the group consisting of Cu, and Ag. (¶ [0031]: the conductive materials of the metallic electrodes can be copper or silver, although other metallic materials that can be mechanically attached to the sheet to be reused can be selected)
Regarding claim 7, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the conductive materials of the metallic electrodes can be copper or silver, although other metallic materials that can be mechanically attached to the sheet to be reused can be selected (¶ [0031]), however, is silent on explicitly disclosing the metal is also aluminum or an alloy of aluminum.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to select the metal for the carbon nanotube-containing powder mixture, as taught by Galindo et al (EP ‘600), to be an aluminum or an alloy of aluminum in order to provide a capability for controlling the electrical resistance of the heating part with an increase in the temperature of the heating system so when the desired temperature is reached, it stabilizes and no temperature peaks are generated, making it a safe heating system. See Galindo et al (EP ‘600): ¶ [0023].
As to claim 10, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) teach in step (b), the pellet-shaped body is produced by charging the mixed powder into a mold and applying heat and pressure to the mixed powder. (¶ [0026]: these processes being hot processes to facilitate the molding of the sheet, although it can also be performed by means of injection into plastic dies or compression molding)
As to claim 11, Galindo et al (EP ‘600) disclose the pellets-shaped body is produced by kneading and extruding the mixed powder. (¶ [0040]: since the sheet is formed by a thermoplastic material and particles added as additive, firstly the mixing of both components is performed, so that they are blended together in the state of pellets and powder, and heated to melt the plastic material, where it is stirred inside an extruder applying a specific mechanical energy of at least 0.5 kWh/kg.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/19/2026, with respect to previously rejected claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the above new ground of the rejections.
Applicant’s argument is mainly focused on that the newly added limitations to claim 1 is not covered by the disclosure of Galindo et al (EP ‘600). However, the arguments are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections. As it has been discussed above in the body of the rejection, even though Galindo et al (EP ‘600) is silent on explicitly disclosing the thermally conductive composite particles comprise 69 to 95% by weight of aluminum hydroxide, 4 to 30% by weight of boron nitride, and 1 to 2% by weight of an organosiloxane compound represented by (R2SiO)x (wherein R is a substituted or unsubstituted methyl group, and x is 1 to 20). However, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the thermally conductive composite particles, as taught by Galindo et al (EP ‘600), so to be comprised of 69 to 95% by weight of aluminum hydroxide, 4 to 30% by weight of boron nitride, and 1 to 2% by weight of an organosiloxane compound represented by (R2SiO)x in order to provide a capability for controlling the electrical resistance of the heating part with an increase in the temperature of the heating system so when the desired temperature is reached, it stabilizes and no temperature peaks are generated, making it a safe heating system. See Galindo et al (EP ‘600): ¶ [0023].
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights