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 .
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, 3-6, 8-10, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kanba et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0295933). Regarding Claim 1, Kanba et al., hereafter “Kanba,” show that it is known to have a resistive film heater, comprising: a resistive heating layer comprising lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials having a flake morphology (element 12; 0008, 0020-0021: powder ~ flake morphology); and electrical terminals attached to the resistive heating layer for supplying electrical current therethrough (element 14, 0018).
Regarding Claim 3, Kanba shows the heater of claim 2 above, including one wherein the flakes of electrically conductive carbonaceous materials have an average size of at least 1 µm² (0023).
Regarding Claim 4, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, including one wherein the lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials comprises graphite (0008, 0021).
Regarding Claim 5, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, including one wherein the resistive heating layer further comprises a polymer matrix (0020).
Regarding Claim 6, Kanba shows the heater of claim 5 above, including one wherein a weight ratio of polymer matrix to the lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials is in a range of 1:1 to 1:10 (0020, 0027).
Regarding Claim 8, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, including one further comprising a substrate upon which the resistive heating layer is disposed (0004).
Regarding Claim 9, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, including one further comprising power supply connected to the electrical terminals (0024).
Regarding Claim 10, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, including one further comprising a temperature controller connected to the electrical terminals (0010).
Regarding Claim 29, Kanba shows the heater of claim 1, including one wherein the lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials are in the form of a self-standing film (0008, element 12).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanba, in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0021195). Kanba shows the heater of claim 1 above, but he does not show the electrode materials. Kim et al., hereafter “Kim,” show that it is known to have a graphene-based heater having copper electrodes attached to each end (0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kim’s copper electrodes in Kanba’s heater because there is art-recognized suitability for a copper material electrode in a graphene based heater.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlavianos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0331214), in view of Kanba.
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Vlavianos et al., hereafter “Vlavianos,” show that it is known to have a composite material processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising a vacuum bag for encasing a composite material and a resistive film heater and for maintaining a vacuum environment therein (0076). Vlavianos does not show the claimed details of the resistive film heater. Kanba shows that it is known to have a resistive film heater, comprising: a resistive heating layer comprising lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials having a flake morphology (element 12; 0008, 0020-0021: powder ~ flake morphology); and a power source connected to electrical terminals attached to the resistive heating layer for supplying electrical current therethrough (element 14, 0018, 0024). It would have been obvious to use Kanba’s resistive film heater as that in Vlavianos because such heaters are known to have small heat capacity and excellent wear resistance (Kanba, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Vlavianos shows the apparatus of claim 11 above, including one further comprising a breather material positioned adjacent to the composite material (0079).
Regarding Claim 13, Vlavianos shows the apparatus of claim 12 above, including one further comprising a perforated film positioned between the composite material and the breather material (0079-0080).
Regarding Claim 14, Vlavianos shows the apparatus of claim 11 above, including one further comprising an electrical isolation layer between the composite material and the resistive film heater (element 710).
Regarding Claim 15, Vlavianos shows the apparatus of claim 11 above, including one further comprising a thermal isolation material adjacent to the resistive film heater on a side opposite of the composite material (element 710).
Regarding Claim 17, Vlavianos shows the apparatus of claim 11 above, but he does not show a heater temperature controller. Kanba shows that it is known to have a resistive film heater which comprises a temperature controller connected to the electrical terminals (0010). It would have been obvious to use Kanba’s temperature controller to control the heater in Vlavianos’ apparatus in order to appropriately process the composite material.
Regarding Claim 18, Vlavianos shows a method for processing a composite material using the composite material processing apparatus of Claim 11, the method comprising: encasing the composite material and the resistive film heater within the vacuum bag (step 602); evacuating air from the vacuum bag to form a vacuum environment around the composite material and the resistive film heater (step 604); and passing an electrical current through the electrical interface to the electrical terminals of the resistive film heater to heat the composite material (step 605).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0044603), in view of Kanba. Hutchinson et al., hereafter “Hutchinson,” show that it is known to have a thermoforming system for shaping a thermoplastic material (Title, Abstract), comprising a male die and a female die, at least one of which is equipped with a resistive film heater for heating a surface thereof (Figures 8A-8E; 0109). Hutchinson does not show the claimed details of the resistive film heater. Kanba shows that it is known to have a resistive film heater, comprising: a resistive heating layer comprising lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous materials having a flake morphology (element 12; 0008, 0020-0021: powder ~ flake morphology); and a power source connected to electrical terminals attached to the resistive heating layer for supplying electrical current therethrough (element 14, 0018, 0024). It would have been obvious to use Kanba’s resistive film heater as that in Hutchinson because such heaters are known to have small heat capacity and excellent wear resistance (Kanba, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Kanba does not show claim 1 because he does not show a lignin-based electrically conductive carbonaceous material having a flake morphology. This is not persuasive as he describes a powdered graphite material (0008, 0021), which applicant identifies in claim 4 as a particularly-claimed lignin-based electrically conductive carbonanceous material. Regarding the flake morphology aspect, Kanba discloses a powder which is held to meet the flake requirement, as there is no specific claimed identifier which would distinguish between a flake and a powder.
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 MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights