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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita (US 2021/0329743; hereinafter Matsushita ‘743).
Matsushita ‘743 discloses the ceramic heater claimed including the ceramic heater claimed including a plate (10) having a heating element (shown by an outer circumferential heating element 24) and a first passage (shown by a path 27), the heating element comprising a heating element with a plurality of concentric arc portions sand a plurality of connection portions (see Figure 3) and a shaft (40) having a hollow interior, and the plurality of connection portions being spaced apart and facing each other forming a separation area that extends in a radial direction of the plate, and the first passage is formed adjacent (or near) the separation area wherein the first passage does not overlap the heating element in a thickness direction of the plate. Also, see annotated drawing below.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Matsushita ‘743 discloses the plurality of connecting portions which are aligned parallel to each other to form the separation area.
With respect to claim 3, Matsushita ‘743 discloses the plate comprising a first heating part and a second heating which are respectively shown by an upper side and a lower side with the separation area therebetween (also, see annotated drawing above).
With respect to claim 17, Matsushita ‘743 disclose a thermocouple (50) that is located within the hollow portion (i.e., interior) of the shaft and within the first passage (27). Also, see Figure 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2021/0329743; hereinafter Matsushita ‘743) in view of Lin et al (US 2016/0002779).
Matsushita ‘743 discloses the ceramic heater claimed including a plurality of separation areas (see the annotated drawing below) but does not show a plurality of passages.
PNG
media_image2.png
488
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin discloses it is known to provide a ceramic heater having a plurality of passages (535A and 535B) where a temperature sensor such as a thermocouple can be provided thereto (see Figure 5) wherein temperatures in different heating areas such as the inner and outer heating areas can be monitored and measured.
In view of Lin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Matsushita ‘743 with the plurality of separation areas that are respectively formed with a plurality of passages where a temperature sensor such as a thermocouple can be provided in each of the separation areas and passages so that each heating areas including the inner and outer heating areas can be separately monitored and measured to achieve a desired heating distribution across the ceramic heater.
With respect to claim 6, Lin discloses the plurality of passages having different lengths as shown in Figure 5.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2021/0329743; hereinafter Matsushita ‘743) in view of Tsuchida et al (US 10,453,712).
Matsushita ‘743 discloses the ceramic heater claimed including the shaft but does not show the shaft having a wall with a second passage within the wall as claimed.
Tsuchida discloses it is known to provide a shaft (3) having a wall within which a passage (8), as a second passage, is formed within the wall for guiding a thermocouple therethrough.
In view of Tsuchida, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Matsushita ‘743 with the shaft having a passage within the wall of the shaft for routing a thermocouple therein so that the thermocouple can be conveniently guided through the passage while protecting the thermocouple.
With respect to claim 8, Tsuchida further discloses the wall having a fist thickness portion and a second thickness portion that is greater than the first thickness portion wherein the passage (as a second passage) is formed in the second thickness portion. Also, see annotated drawing below.
PNG
media_image3.png
405
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Tsuchida discloses that the second thickness portion is protruded outwardly from the wall portion.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2021/0329743; hereinafter Matsushita ‘743) in view Matsushita et al (US 2021/0242053; hereinafter Matsushita ‘053)
Matsushita ‘743 discloses the ceramic heater claimed including the first passage having an A-th passage portion parallel to a first surface of the plate but does not show a B-th passage portion that is inclined relative to the first surface.
Matsushita ‘053 discloses it is known to provide a passage having a portion that is parallel to a firs surface of a heating plate and another portion that is inclined relative to the first portion as illustrated in Figure 7.
In view of Matsushita ‘053, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Matsushita ‘743 with the first passage having an inclined portion relative to the first surface of the plate so that a temperature measuring portion of the thermocouple is situated close to the surface of the plate wherein a surface heating temperature of the plate can be predictably and more accurately monitored as desired.
With respect to claims 12-14, Matsushita ‘053 discloses the A-th parallel portion is located in a first (lower) plate portion and the B-th inclined portion is located in a second (higher) plate portion than the first plate portion wherein the B-th inclined passage is inclined toward the heating element in a direction to a circumference of the plate as shown in Figure 7.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita ‘743 in view of Tsuchida as applied to claim 7 above and further in view Matsushita et al (US 2021/0242053; hereinafter Matsushita ‘053)
Matsushita ‘743 in view of Tsuchida discloses the ceramic heater claimed including the first passage as disclosed by Matsushita ‘743 and the second passage by Tsuchida wherein the first passage includes an A-th passage portion parallel to a first surface of the plate as further shown by Matsushita ‘743 but does not show a B-th passage portion inclined relative to the first surface in a direction of circumference with a temperature sensing portion located in the B-th passage as claimed.
Matsushita ‘053 discloses it is known to provide a passage having a portion that is parallel to a firs surface of a heating plate and another portion that is inclined relative to the first portion wherein the inclined passage portion is located at an end portion of the first passage in a direction to a circumference of the plate as shown in Figure 7 with a temperature sensing portion (150a) located in the inclined passage portion.
In view of Matsushita ‘053, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Matsushita ‘743 as modified by Tsuchida with the first passage further having an inclined portion relative to the first surface of the plate so that a temperature measuring portion of the thermocouple situated in the inclined portion is positioned close to the surface of the plate wherein a surface heating temperature of the plate can be predictably and more accurately monitored as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed s have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, and the drawing submitted on 8/3/2026 has been accepted.
With regard to Matsushita for the 102 anticipation rejection, Applicant argues that Matsushita discloses a resistance heater 22 that overlaps the thermocouple path 27 and thus claim 1 is not anticipated. This argument is not deemed persuasive. As stated in the ground of rejection, Matsushita discloses a heating element (as shown by a resistance heater 24) having a plurality of concentric arc portions and a plurality of connections portions wherein the connecting portions are spaced part and forming a separation area within which a first passage is formed that does not over with the heating element 24 in a thick direction of the plate. Applicant argues for the resistance heater 22 of Matsushita but it is noted that the resistance heater 22 of Matsushita is not applied but that the resistance heater 24 of Matsushita is applied for the pending claims. Thus, Matsushita meets the claimed invention including claim 1 as stated in the ground of rejection.
With regard to the 103 rejection, it is noted that the Applicant’s arguments are also similarly based on the resistance heater 22 of Matsushita, and thus the Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive for the reasons stated above as the resistance heater 24 of Matsushita is applied to meet the claims as stated in the ground of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights