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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242.
Regarding independent claim 1, a heater (the embodiment of fig 3B), comprising:
a substrate (350) having a plate shape and extending in a first direction (left and right in fig 3B), the first direction being a length direction of the substrate;
a first heating element (one of 362-367) provided on one surface side of the substrate and extending in the first direction (fig 3B);
a first wiring (one of the wires that lead to the stepped portions of the chosen one of 362-367 from either one of 360b or 360a) provided on the one surface side (fig 3B) of the substrate and overlapping (fig 3B) an end portion (the end “portion” including the stepped portion, and everything else, except for the stepped portion on the other side) of the first heating element in the first direction (fig 3B);
a second heating element (another directly adjacent one of 362-367 to the first heating element) spaced apart from the first heating element in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (¶ 99, they are spaced apart from one another in the second direction, even as later further limited, in the stepped portion) on the one surface side of the substrate (fig 3B), and extending in the first direction (fig 3B); and
a second wiring (one of the wires that lead to the stepped portions of the chosen one of 362-367 from either one of 360b or 360a) provided on the one surface side of the substrate (fig 3B) and overlapping (fig 3B) an end portion (the end “portion” including the stepped portion, and everything else, except for the stepped portion on the other side) of the second heating element in the first direction,
wherein in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction and a thickness direction of the substrate (up and down in fig 3B)), a first portion where the first heating element and the first wiring overlap is adjacent to a second portion where the second heating element and the second wiring overlap (having chosen a directly adjacent another one as the second heating element),
in the first direction, the first portion is spaced apart from the second portion (at the stepped portion),
in the second direction, the first portion faces the second heating element (across the stepped portion), in the second direction, a part of the second heating element is provided at a position overlapping the first heating element (at the stepped portion), but the remaining part of the second heating element does not overlap the first heating element (at other than the stepped portion), and
in the second direction, a part of the first heating element is provided at a position overlapping the second heating element (at the stepped portion), but the remaining part of the first heating element does not overlap the second heating element (at other than the stepped portion).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, satisfying the following formula:
35 x L2 (mm) ≤ L1 (mm) ≤ 2.35 x L2 (mm) + 9.15 (mm),
where a distance between the first portion and the second portion in the first direction is L1 (mm), and a distance between the first heating element and the second heating element in the second direction is L2 (mm) (the extent of the “portions” are chosen so as to meet this limitation, when measuring the distance between the “portions” with respect to the centers of their maximal extent in any direction, noting that the “portions” can be made as large or as small at will so that this limitation is always met).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, wherein a resistance value per unit length of the first heating element is constant (at least in the region without the stepped portions, being made of the same material), and
a resistance value per unit length of the second heating element is constant (at least in the region without the stepped portions, being made of the same material).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, wherein in the first portion, a dimension near the end portion of the first heating element in the second direction changes gradually or changes stepwise toward the end portion of the first heating element (they are stepped portions).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein in the second portion, a dimension near the end portion of the second heating element in the second direction changes gradually or changes stepwise toward the end portion of the second heating element (they are stepped portions).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, an image forming device (fig 1A), comprising the heater according to claim 1 (supra).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242.
Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that no choice of extent of the “portions”, when measuring the distance between the “portions” with respect to the centers of their maximal extent in any direction, would satisfy the following formula:
35x L2 (mm) ≤ L1 (mm) ≤ 2.35x L2 (mm) + 9.15 (mm),
where a distance between the first portion and the second portion in the first direction is L1 (mm), and a distance between the first heating element and the second heating element in the second direction is L2 (mm).
“[W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is] not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, there is no indication that the device of Nishida et al. would perform any differently than the invention, as claimed. As claimed, the device is a heater, with some particular dimension, with no claimed function or effect of the recited dimensions. The device of Adachi et al. is a heater as well, and performs all of the claimed functions of heating. As such, the device of Adachi et al. would not perform any differently than the claimed device. Therefore, the device of claim 2 is patentably indistinct from the device of Adachi et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0179242, in view of admitted prior art
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, wherein a material of the substrate has a thermal conductivity of 10 [W/(m-K)] or more and 250 [W/(m-K)] or less.
Adachi et al. teach the substrate made of aluminum, copper, graphite, or graphene (¶ 87).
Examiner had taken official notice that thermal conductivities of known ceramic substrates of heaters fall within the claimed range. See, e.g.: MASUHIRO, JP 2002-031972 (100 W/(m-K)); MASUHIRO, JP 2002-031976 (150 W/(m- K)); NOZOMI, JP 2015-219343 (25 W/(m-K)); and, YASUHIKO et al., JP 2016-173457 (32 W/(m- K)). Because Applicants failed to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, [including] stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art”, Applicants have admitted the above noticed facts. MPEP 2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide wherein a material of the substrate has a thermal conductivity of 10 [W/(m-K)] or more and 250 [W/m-K)] or less. Such would have been a mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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