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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 includes that the pastes comprise “higher than” several percentages. It is unclear if “higher than” only refers to alumina or all of the percentages claimed.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-3, 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith et al. (US 2021/0251045 A1)
As to claim 1, Smith et al. teaches a method for preparing a ceramic strip heater, comprising: (S1) applying an electrode material on each of two ends of an upper surface of an alumina ceramic substrate by printing (Figure 4, para 0029, 0032), followed by drying and sintering to form an electrode (242, 244, 246 in Figure 4, para 0034 applied by printing conductive paste, drying and sintering) ; (S2) applying a heating paste onto the upper surface of the alumina ceramic substrate by printing to connect two electrodes on the two ends of the upper surface of the alumina ceramic substrate, followed by drying and sintering to form a heating filament (resistor paste/traces para 0034 printed, dried and sintered, connections shown in Figure 4, 232, 234); (S3) applying a first glass paste on a lower surface of the alumina ceramic substrate by printing, followed by drying and sintering to form a first glass layer; and (S4) applying a second glass paste on the heating filament by printing, followed by drying and sintering to form a second glass layer, so as to produce the ceramic strip heater. The glass layers are formed in Smith et al. similarly to the heating/resistor and conductive/electrode portions – by printing, drying and sintering in para 0033-0034. Figure 3 shows lower and upper portions, or outer 124 and inner 122 faces of the heater, respectively. The glass layers may be on both according to para 0036 (“outer face 124 and/or inner face 122”) and para 0067. Thus, Smith teaches the elements of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Alternatively, Smith et al. uses glass layers depending on desired electrical insulation (para 0036). It would have been obvious to perform the embodiment in Smith where the glass layers are printed on both lower and upper surfaces of the heater in order to achieve the desired electrical insulation.
As to claim 2, Smith teaches where the conductive portion is AgPt in para 0030.
As to claims 3, 5 and 7 in steps S1-S4, a temperature of the drying is 100-150 ℃, and a temperature of the sintering is 830-880 ℃ in para 0034.
As to claims 8-9, Smith discloses using a mesh in para 0034 for the printing process and thickness of the glass layers in para 0033. Though Smith does not give the particular values for the mesh or thickness, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed mesh size and thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of JP 2021-149049A (hereafter JP; citations taken from attached Google translate document).
As to claim 4, Smith et al. teaches its resistance or heating portion is AgPd. JP teaches the resistance or heating band may also be AgPt on p6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to include AgPt as its resistance or heating portion as JP teaches the art recognized suitability of such. As JP teaches the claimed material, it follows that a physical property, such as resistance coefficient, will naturally occur.
As to claims 10-11, JP shows an apparatus where the coating and related methods are carried out on an industrial structure (Figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to include this type of apparatus as taught by JP in order to produce the heater on an industrial scale.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Lin et al. (US 6222166 B1).
Smith et al. does not teach the composition of the solid glass. Lin et al. teaches a similar heater construct (abstract) where the heater is insulated by a glass layer composed of the claimed materials (col. 5 lines 58-67) and modifies the relative amounts in order to have a glass layer with appropriate properties (col. 2 lines 6-55 et seq., col. 5 line 58- col. 6 line 11) and improved heater performance (col. 3 lines 48-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to include the glass layer as claimed as Lin et al. teaches that the selection and percentages of the glass make up are result effective and depend upon modifying the relative amounts in order to have a glass layer with appropriate properties and improving heater performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights