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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 30 March 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing objection. As a result, the Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
A new 35 USC 101 rejection and a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 10 and 19-20 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.
Claims 21 and 23-24 are allowed.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 30 March 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-21, and 23-25 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
In claims 8, 10, and 18, the generic placeholder is “at least one feature” and the functional limitation attributed to the claimed at least one feature is “arranged to co-operate with a feature of a separate component of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part.”
Structure that is “read into” the claims from the Specification is “a groove” and “a fitting” (para 0087 of the Specification).
In claims 9 and 19, the generic placeholder is “a component” and the functional limitation attributed to the claimed component is “arranged in heat-conducting relation.”
Structure that is “read into” the claims from the Specification includes “a temperature sensor or fuse” (paras 0052-0053 of the Specification).
In claims 10 and 19, the generic placeholder is “a separate component” and the functional limitations attributed to the claimed separate component is “the tube is clamped…by the separate component” and “locked to the injection-moulded part.”
Structure that is “read into” the claims from the Specification is a “cap,” “a groove,” and “a fitting” (paras 0087 and 0095 of the Specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is a “use” claim that is drawn to the use of a method without setting forth any steps to achieve a changed use (MPEP 2173.05.q).
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 15 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 15 attempts to claim a method without setting forth any method steps. Instead, the claim requires the use of the conduit that is recited in claim 1 for retrograde contamination. As a result, the claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kertesz et al. (US-20050084255-A1) in view of Blue et al. (US-9364981-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kertesz teaches a conduit (figs. 1-2) for a liquid dispenser (“Fluid line,” title; can be used to dispense “cooling water in a motor vehicle,” para 0013), comprising:
a tube (pipe 1, fig. 2) for carrying liquid, wherein the tube has a wall with a continuous circumference and a wall thickness (pipe 1 has a continuous circumference and a wall thickness, fig. 2);
a carrier (sleeve 2, fig. 2) made of electrically insulating material (“glass fibers,” para 0017; glass fibers are construed as being an electrically insulating material), wherein the carrier is separate and distinct from the tube; and
a heating device (heating conductor 3, fig. 2) for heating at least a section of the tube (para 0036),
wherein the heating device includes a resistive heating part (wire 4, fig. 1) including a wound heating wire wound around the carrier (as shown in fig. 1),
wherein the heating wire is provided with an electrically insulating coating (“the heating wire is arranged helically in elongated insulating material,” para 0019; “The heating wire 4 and the glass fiber bundle are surrounded by a translucent flexible plastic layer which, in turn, is electrically insulating,” para 0035) completely covering the heating wire wound around the carrier (“surrounding,” para 0019; “surrounded,” para 0035; disclosure of surrounding is construed as completely covering), with the electrically insulating coating contacting the carrier (outer plastic layer of the conductor 3 makes contact with the sleeve 2, fig. 1),
wherein the heating device includes a part for fixing the heating device to the tube (“the sleeve can also be surrounded by a protective sleeve which is composed of thermoplastic material,” para 0023; the protective sleeve is construed as the claimed “part”),
wherein the part for fixing the heating device to the tube is a part injection- moulded (“injected,” para 0023; “injection-moulded” is not explicitly disclosed) over the tube along at least a section of a length of the tube in order to fix the heating device to the tube (“a portion of the conductor can be pulled laterally out of the first-mentioned sleeve and the first-mentioned sleeve can be cut to the desired length before the protective sleeve is mounted, so that the conductor is exposed after the protective sleeve has been mounted,” para 0023; construed such that the protective sleeve covers the portion of the sleeve 2 and conductor 3 shown in fig. 1, the protective sleeve does not cover the plug 5 or the wire 4 shown in fig. 1),
wherein the part (“protective sleeve,” para 0023) for fixing the heating device to the tube is separate and distinct from i) the electrically insulating coating (para 0019; the protective sleeve covers the conductor 3, fig. 1), ii) the carrier (sleeve 2, fig. 1), and iii) the tube (pipe 1, fig. 1),
wherein the carrier (sleeve 2, fig. 2) is arranged between the tube (pipe 1 is inside the sleeve 2, fig. 2) and both of a) the injection moulded part (the protective sleeve covers the sleeve, para 0023) and b) the wound heating wire having the electrically insulating coating (conductor 3 covers the sleeve 2, fig. 2),
wherein the carrier has a continuous circumference (sleeve 2 has a continuous circumference, fig. 2) arranged around the tube such that the carrier is located between i) the heating wire wound around the carrier and the ii) tube (sleeve 2 is between the conductor 3 and the pipe 1, fig. 2), and
wherein only material of the tube contacts the liquid to be dispensed, in use (fluid flows through the inner diameter of the pipe 1, fig. 2).
Kertesz, figs 1-2
PNG
media_image1.png
1210
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kertesz does not explicitly disclose a part injection- moulded.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Blue teaches a part injection- moulded (overmolded component 16, fig. 3; “injection overmolding,” column 10, line 66; figs. 7-8 demonstrate the injection overmolding process).
Blue, fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
182
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Blue, by using injection overmolding, as taught by Blue, to inject the protective sleeve, as taught by Kertesz, in order to use an overmolding method for a braided sleeve that ensures a leak-proof engagement such that the integrity of the underlying tube underneath the braided sleeve is maintained during the overmolding process (Blue, column 12, line 59 to column 13, line 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kertesz teaches wherein the injection- moulded part is arranged around the tube (“the sleeve can also be surrounded by a protective sleeve which is composed of thermoplastic material and is arranged, injected or extruded onto the sleeve,” para 0023; the protective sleeve surrounds the sleeve 2, which surrounds the pipe 1, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Kertesz teaches wherein the heating device (heating conductor 3, fig. 2) is an electrical heating device (paras 0013 and 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Kertesz teaches wherein the resistive heating part (wire 4, fig. 1) is comprised in the part injection-moulded onto the tube (para 0023).
Regarding claim 8, Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the injection-moulded part includes at least one feature arranged to co-operate with a feature of a separate component of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Blue teaches wherein the injection-moulded part (overmolded component 16, fig. 3) includes at least one feature (portion of the component 16 that the fastener 25 fits into, fig. 3; this portion is construed as being a groove) arranged to co-operate with a feature of a separate component (mechanical faster 15, fig. 3; “crimp ring, a clamp, or a snap,” column 6, lines 58-59; construed as being a fitting) of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part (“creates a physical bond in order to ensure securing engagement,” column 6, lines 54-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Blue, by using a crimp ring, a clamp, or a snap, as taught by Blue, to secure the protective sleeve to the sleeve 2, as taught by Kertesz, in order to use an additional securing engagement between the overmolded component and the braided material, in case this area undergoes a higher amount of mechanical stress (Blue, column 6, lines 40-58).
Regarding claim 11, Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing the conduit according to claim 1 for a liquid dispenser including the steps of: providing the tube for carrying a liquid; and fixing the heating device for heating at least a section of the tube to the tube, wherein the step of fixing the heating device includes placing at least the tube in a mould and injection-moulding a part of the heating device over at least a section of a length of the tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Blue teaches a method of manufacturing (“injection overmolding,” column 10, line 66; figs. 7-8 demonstrate the injection overmolding process) the conduit according to claim 1 for a liquid dispenser (please see the rejection for claim 1 above) including the steps of: providing the tube (tube 18, fig. 3) for carrying a liquid; and fixing the heating device for heating at least a section of the tube to the tube (mold 40 fixes the mold portions 54 and 56 to the sleeve over the tube 18, fig. 7), wherein the step of fixing the heating device includes placing at least the tube in a mould (fig. 7) and injection-moulding a part of the heating device over at least a section of a length of the tube (fig. 8; column 8, lines 46-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Blue, by using injection overmolding, as taught by Blue, to inject the protective sleeve, as taught by Kertesz, in order to use an overmolding method for a braided sleeve that ensures a leak-proof engagement such that the integrity of the underlying tube underneath the braided sleeve is maintained during the overmolding process (Blue, column 12, line 59 to column 13, line 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kertesz teaches a dispenser for dispensing liquids (“Fluid line,” title; the fluid line can be used to dispense “cooling water in a motor vehicle,” para 0013), including the conduit (figs 1-2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kertesz in view of Blue as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Blue teaches wherein the conduit forms a dispensing outlet (annotated in fig. 3 below).
Blue, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
342
1070
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kertesz teaches wherein the heating device (heating conductor 3, fig. 2) is an electrical heating device (paras 0013 and 0036).
Regarding claim 17, Kertesz teaches wherein the resistive heating part (wire 4, fig. 1) is comprised in the part injection-moulded onto the tube (para 0023).
Regarding claim 18, Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the injection-moulded part includes at least one feature arranged to co-operate with a feature of a separate component of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Blue teaches wherein the injection-moulded part (overmolded component 16, fig. 3) includes at least one feature (portion of the component 16 that the fastener 25 fits into, fig. 3; this portion is construed as being a groove) arranged to co-operate with a feature of a separate component (mechanical faster 15, fig. 3; “crimp ring, a clamp, or a snap,” column 6, lines 58-59; construed as being a fitting) of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part (“creates a physical bond in order to ensure securing engagement,” column 6, lines 54-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Blue, by using a crimp ring, a clamp, or a snap, as taught by Blue, to secure the protective sleeve to the sleeve 2, as taught by Kertesz, in order to use an additional securing engagement between the overmolded component and the braided material, in case this area undergoes a higher amount of mechanical stress (Blue, column 6, lines 40-58).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kertesz et al. (US-20050084255-A1) in view of Blue et al. (US-9364981-B1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Briet (US-5248171-A).
Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating device further includes a component arranged in heat-conducting relation to at least one of the injection-moulded part and the tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Briet teaches a component (insert I, fig. 4; “pressure or temperature sensor,” column 4, line 41) arranged in heat-conducting relation to at least one of the injection-moulded part (not explicitly disclosed) and the tube (“in contact with tube 10,” column 4, lines 42-43).
Briet, fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
226
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Briet, by using a temperature sensor, as taught by Briet, to monitor the temperature of the fluid flowing through the pipe 1, as taught by Kertesz, in order to monitor the fluid temperature, which can provide feedback of the heating levels to confirm that the thermal heating is being carried out properly.
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kertesz et al. (US-20050084255-A1) in view of Blue et al. (US-9364981-B1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Eckman et al. (US-5930459-A).
Regarding claim 14, Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further including a fitting connecting the conduit to one of a manifold and a further conduit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Blue teaches further including a fitting (annotated in fig. 3 below)
Blue, fig. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
342
1039
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Blue, by using injection overmolding, as taught by Blue, to inject the other side of the protective sleeve, as taught by Kertesz, in order to use an overmolding method for both sides of a braided sleeve that ensures a leak-proof engagement such that the integrity of the underlying tube underneath the braided sleeve is maintained during the overmolding process (Blue, column 12, line 59 to column 13, line 2).
Kertesz/Blue do not explicitly disclose a fitting connecting the conduit to one of a manifold and a further conduit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Eckman teaches a fitting (flange 32, fig. 4) connecting the conduit (fluid heater 100, fig. 3) to one of a manifold and a further conduit (“designed to fit within the inner diameter of a mounting aperture through the sidewall of a storage tank,” column 3, lines 41-42).
Eckman, fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
276
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Eckman, by using the fitting, as annotated in fig. 3 of Blue above, to connect with a storage tank, as taught by Eckman, in order to connect with a water storage tank so that water can be supplied through the fluid line using a water-tight seal (Eckman, column 3, line 45).
Regarding claim 25, Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein adjacent turns of the heating wire having the electrically insulating coating touch each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Eckman teaches wherein adjacent turns of the heating wire (“first pair of helices 42 and 43 of the first resistance wire,” column 4, lines 60-61) having the electrically insulating coating (“separate plastic coatings,” column 5, line 15) touch each other (within the helices 42 and 43, the wires touch each other, fig. 7, i.e., four wires touch each other in helices 42 and 43).
Eckman, fig. 7
PNG
media_image7.png
322
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Eckman, by placing wires in contact each other, as taught by Eckman in fig. 7, for the conductor 3, as taught in fig. 1 of Kertesz, in order to use a dual resistance wire configuration, which can provide a dual wattage of heating, providing twice as much heating power in comparison to a single wattage, so long as their conductive coils remain insulated from each other (Eckman, column 4, line 66-column 5, line 15; column 10, lines 13-16).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kertesz et al. (US-20050084255-A1) in view of Blue et al. (US-9364981-B1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peel (US-20160146376-A1).
Kertesz teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a method, comprising the step of: using the conduit according to claim 1 to counter retrograde contamination in the liquid dispenser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of water heaters, Peel teaches a method (“Valve disinfecting method,” title), comprising the step of: using the conduit (fixture 3, fig. 3) according to claim 1 (please see the rejection for claim 1 above) to counter retrograde contamination in the liquid dispenser (prevents “splash back” by “eradicating micro-organisms,” paras 0003 and 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kertesz, in view of the teachings of Peel, by using the fluid line, as taught by Kertesz, in a faucet, as taught by Peel, because although hot water cleans and disinfects waterways, there may be times when the waterway between the water source and the faucet only comes into contact with cold water, but by using a water heater, the heating can remove micro-organisms from the cold water that might cause infection during washing or showering if not removed (Peel, paras 0003, 0006, and 0047).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19-20 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the injection-moulded part includes at least one feature arranged to co- operate with a feature of a separate component of the heating device to lock the separate component to the injection-moulded part, and wherein the component arranged in heat-conducting relation to at least one of the injection-moulded part and the tube is clamped to the at least one of the injection-moulded part and the tube by the separate component locked to the injection- moulded part,” as recited in claim 10.
The “at least one feature” and the “feature of a separate component” are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as being the equivalents of a groove and a fitting. The “component arranged in heat-conducting relation” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as being a senor or a fuse.
The closest prior art of record is Briet (US-5248171-A). Briet teaches a sensor that is in a heat-conducting relation. However, Briet does not teach that the sensor is clamped in a groove within the injection-moulded part.
Other references that were considered include Blue (US-9364981-B1), Rosenfeldt (US-8591241-B2), and Borgmeier (US-8925573-B2). All of these references teach using clamps in injection molded parts. However, none of these references teach a “component arranged in heat-conducting relation to at least one of the injection-moulded part and the tube is clamped to the at least one of the injection-moulded part and the tube by the separate component locked to the injection- moulded part,” where a component is a sensor or a fuse, as understood in view of the Specification, to be a sensor or a fuse.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 10 and 19.
Claims 21 and 23-24 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the carrier is arranged between the tube and both of a) the injection moulded part and b) the wound heating wire, wherein the carrier has a continuous circumference arranged around the tube such that the carrier is always located between i) the heating wire wound around the carrier and the ii) tube, wherein only material of the tube contacts the liquid to be dispensed, in use, and wherein the carrier is formed as a spool having outwardly extending flanges at both ends, with the flanges having a continuous circumference around the tube,” as recited in claim 21.
The closest prior art of record is Kertesz (US-20050084255-A1). Kertesz teaches a sleeve 2, which “has a continuous circumference arranged around the tube” and a pipe 1, “wherein only material of the tube contacts the liquid to be dispensed.” However, the sleeve 2 is not “formed as a spool having outwardly extending flanges at both ends.” Instead, the sleeve has a cylindrical shape that fits over the pipe.
Another reference that was considered is Loktev (US-20040256375-A1). Loktev teaches an electrical insulation 30, which can be construed as the claimed “carrier” and an inner conduit 10, which can be construed as the claimed “tube.” However, similar to Kertesz, Loktev teaches that the electrical insulation 30 is not “formed as a spool having outwardly extending flanges at both ends.” Instead, the insulation 30 has a cylindrical shape that fits over the tube.
The examiner was persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments filed 30 March 2026 regarding the Eckman reference (US-5930459-A), which does not disclose “wherein only material of the tube contacts the liquid to be dispensed.”
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in claim 21.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Kertesz combined with Blue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaRochelle et al. (US-5791377-A) teach an electrically heated conduit.
Johnson et al. (US-20100046934-A1) teach an electrically heated conduit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights