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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “wherein the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region” of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 6, from which the remaining claims depend, recites the limitation “wherein the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region.”. There is insufficient support for such a limitation in the Specification and Drawings.
Upon discussion with Counsel, Examiner was still not persuaded that such a limitation finds support in the original disclosure. The Specification is devoid of such written description. Moreover, each of figs 3, 4, 6, and 8, depict two cutouts in the central regions, each depicting a taper. Even if all of the various end regions in those figures could be construed as single regions at each end, each with many sub-regions, there would still be tapered regions where the cutouts are. Although figs 10 depict the end regions in detail, figs 10 fail to show what happens at other than the end regions. A negative limitation must find support just as much as a positively recited limitation. Because figs 10 fail to depict what happens in the central regions, they can neither support what happens in the central regions, not what does not happen in the central regions. As such, Examiner cannot say by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicants had possession of the negative limitation they now seek. Claims 6-8 are thus rejected as containing new matter.
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)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Nakamoto et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0100128 (previously cited).
The elements of the rejections of claims 6-8 in the Office Action dated 1/13/26 are repeated herein in their entirety without the following additions:
Regarding independent claim 6, the present amendments add, and Nakamoto et al. further teach:
wherein, as seen in a thickness direction of the heater which is a direction perpendicular to both the longitudinal direction and the conveyance direction (the view in figs 7), the metal plate comprises a single plate or a plurality of divided plates (figs 7, noting that it must be one or the other, as the claim’s breadth spans all plates),
wherein, as seen in the thickness direction, the metal plate includes a width constant region (the region near the center where the width is constant) in which a width of the metal plate in a width direction of the heater perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is constant, and includes a first tapered region (the region at the top of one side) located at a first longitudinal end portion of the metal plate and a second tapered region (the region at the bottom of the other side) located at a second longitudinal end portion of the metal plate opposite to the first longitudinal end portion,
wherein, in each of the first tapered region and the second tapered region, the width of the metal plate in the width direction is defined as a distance between (i) a most-upstream outer edge and (ii) a most-downstream outer edge of the metal plate in the conveyance direction (so defined as claimed),
wherein, in each of the first tapered region and the second tapered region, both the most-upstream outer edge and the most-downstream outer edge each extend, when viewed in the thickness direction, in a direction having a component in the longitudinal direction and a component in the conveyance direction (figs 7), such that that distance gradually decreases toward the corresponding longitudinal end portion (the distances of the tapered regions defined above so decreases), and
wherein the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region (to the extent that “tapered region” is a particular region defined in the claims without a defined spatial extent, all other regions not accounted for above are deemed to be “other regions”, therefore, the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region – they are “other regions” even if they contain tapers).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Yamaguchi, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0338795 (previously cited).
The elements of the rejections of claims 6-8 in the Office Action dated 1/13/26 are repeated herein in their entirety without the following additions:
Regarding independent claim 6, the present amendments add, and Yamaguchi further teaches:
wherein, as seen in a thickness direction of the heater (the view as shown in fig 7B) which is a direction perpendicular to both the longitudinal direction and the conveyance direction, the metal plate comprises a single plate or a plurality of divided plates (fig 7B, noting that it must be one or the other, as the claim’s breadth spans all plates),
wherein, as seen in the thickness direction, the metal plate includes a width constant region (a very thin region around the reference line 220Wc in which the width is constant) in which a width of the metal plate in a width direction of the heater perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is constant, and includes a first tapered region (the region above the width constant region defined above, spanning all the way to the top end, and contiguous with the width constant region, in fig 7B) located at a first longitudinal end portion of the metal plate and a second tapered region (the region below the width constant region defined above, spanning all the way to the bottom end, and contiguous with the width constant region, in fig 7B) located at a second longitudinal end portion of the metal plate opposite to the first longitudinal end portion,
wherein, in each of the first tapered region and the second tapered region, the width of the metal plate in the width direction is defined as a distance between (i) a most-upstream outer edge and (ii) a most-downstream outer edge of the metal plate in the conveyance direction (so defined as claimed),
wherein, in each of the first tapered region and the second tapered region, both the most-upstream outer edge and the most-downstream outer edge each extend, when viewed in the thickness direction (figs 7B and 7A in perspective), in a direction having a component in the longitudinal direction and a component in the conveyance direction, such that that distance gradually decreases toward the corresponding longitudinal end portion (at least some portion of each region has a gradually decreasing distance that meets this limitation, noting that the claim fails to exclude any other decreasing distances within each region, merely that it has one), and
wherein the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region (the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region because the entirety of the plate is spanned by the contiguous first tapered region, width constant region, and second tapered region, leaving room for no other non-overlapping regions).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue: the present amendments:
A) find support in the original disclosure;
B) distinguish Nakamoto by defining the claimed “width”; and,
C) distinguish Yamaguchi by claiming that no other tapered regions exist.
As discussed above, the original disclosure fails to support the newly added negative limitation: “wherein the metal plate includes no tapered region other than the first tapered region and the second tapered region”.
Although Applicants better define width, the widths apply to the claimed first and second tapered regions as claimed. The claims contain no extent as to what constitutes one tapered region or another, or even whether the regions overlap or not. Although Applicants attempt to exclude other tapered regions, even if such were supported by the original disclosure, one can simply call any other region with a taper in it something else to satisfy the limitations. The amendments thus fail to distinguish either Nakamoto or Yamaguchi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
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).
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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights