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 to the claims has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-8, 10-13 are now pending of record.
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 1-8, 10-13 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.
Many terms or phrase is/are awkwardly worded and lack proper antecedent basis and/or unclear and confusing are existed in the pending claims, the following are examples:
The phrase:” providing a flat electrically conductive heating element including a mesh strip including an alternating sequence of mesh section sections including a first mesh section having a first mesh density and a second mesh section having a second mesh density that is distinct from the first mesh density” (claim 1, line 4-8) awkwardly worded should be updated to:
--providing a flat electrically conductive heating element comprises a mesh strip and mesh sections, wherein the mesh strip includes an alternating sequence of the mesh sections, the mesh sections include a first mesh section having a first mesh density, and a second mesh section having a second mesh density, and the first mesh density is distinct from the second mesh section;” --, for clarity of the method claim limitations.
“of the heating element” (claim 1, line 9) lacks proper antecedent basis (LAB), and should be updated to: --"the flat electrically conductive heating element” --, to reflect changes as in line 4 of claim 1.
“out of each side of a mesh section of the first mesh density” (claim 1, lines 10-11) awkwardly worded should be: --"out of each side of the first mesh density of the mesh sections”, for clarity of the method claim limitation.
“the heating element” (claim 1, line 12) lacks proper antecedent basis, should be updated to: --“the flat electrically conductive heating element” --.
“the heating element further comprises:” (claim 2, line 1) LAB should be: --" the flat electrically conductive heating element further comprises” --.
“wherein over-molding the cap comprises:” (claim 3, line 1) should be: --" wherein the over-molding the cap comprises”--
“the heating element such that the heating” (claim 4, line 2) should be: --" the flat electrically conductive heating element such that the flat electrically conductive heating element” --, to reflect the changes above.
“wherein providing the flat electrically conductive heating element including the first mesh section having the first mesh density and the second mesh section having the second mesh density includes providing the first mesh density that is lower than the second mesh density” (claim 5, lines 1-4) should be updated to: -- wherein, the first mesh density is distinct from the second mesh section of the mesh sections includes that the first mesh density is smaller than the second mesh density”--.
“a mesh section of the second mesh density” (claim 6, lines 5-6) should be: --"the second mesh density of the second mesh section”--
“the heating element” (claim 6, line 2; claim 7, lines 2 and 4) LAB should be updated to: --" the flat electrically conductive heating element”—
“comprising: cutting the heater assembly off the mesh strip” (claim 7, line 2-3) LAB should be: -- defining a heater assembly from the mesh strip and simultaneously cutting the defined heater assembly off the mesh strip to form the heater assembly”--
“a mesh” (claim 8, line 2) should be: --” a mesh of the mesh sections “--, to reflect changes as noted above in base claim 1.
“wherein die cutting the mesh off of the mesh strip includes cutting is cut within a mesh section of the second mesh density such that the mesh strip comprises a mesh section of the first mesh density that is limited by mesh sections of the second mesh density on each of two ends of the cut mesh” (claim 10 entirely) awkwardly worded and should be:
--" wherein die cutting the mesh off of the mesh strip to form the heater assembly includes cutting a mesh section of the second mesh density such that the mesh strip comprises a mesh section of the first mesh density that is limited by mesh sections of the second mesh density on each of two ends of the mesh cut off” --, for clarity of the claims.
It is unclear as to what being refereeing to as “at least two electrically conductive contact areas” (see claims 11-13, lines 1-2, respectively) vague and indefinite, since no forming method directed to such “structures areas” as claimed above with” the heater assembly” as result of claim 7 above.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No 11980228, hereinafter the '228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the instant application is fully claimed by the '228. This rejection is set forth from previous Action dated 2/19/26, page 7, ¶ [0002].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of 112 rejection (see above).
Further, the non-statutory double patenting is retained for reason of record (see above). Note that filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Mt 7/13/26
Prosecution Insights