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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 is substantially the same limitation as one of the newly added limitations of independent claim 7 from which claim 15 depends. The only difference between claim 15 and claim 7 is that claim 7 (last 2 lines) requires that the connection is “surrounded” by coupling between the heat transfer units, and is not exposed outside. Claim 15 recites these limitations almost verbatim, except recites “completely surrounded… and is not exposed outside” The plain meaning of something being “surrounded” is to be enclosed on all sides, i.e. “completely surrounded” has the same meaning as “surrounded.” Moreover, the connection unit not being exposed outside is also indicative of being completely surrounded. The limitations of claim 15 have the same interpretation as the last two lines of claim 7, and therefore, claim 15 doesn’t further limit claim 7.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morioka (JP H1047581 A), hereinafter Morioka, in view of Van Dijck (US 5002716 A), hereinafter Van Dijck.
Regarding claim 7, 14, and 15, Morioka discloses a block heater assembly comprising:
a plurality of block heaters (Figure 2 shows two adjacent block heaters), each of the block heaters comprising at least one heating element (“heating element 3” all citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference) configured to supply predetermined heat to a gas line (“The present invention relates to pipes, tubes, etc., through which fluids such as gases and liquids flow (hereinafter referred to as pipes). The present invention relates to a pipe heating device for heating a pipe”);
a plurality of heat transfer units disposed between the gas line and the heating element to transfer heat to the gas line, the plurality of heat transfer units comprising a first heat transfer unit and a second heat transfer unit (“a heat equalizing material 5” and “soaking material 5” and “the soaking material and soaking material of the heating device of the present invention are not limited to aluminum, but may be any metal such as copper, gold and silver having a higher heat conductivity than that of the pipe material”);
a connection unit disposed between heat transfer units of the plurality of heat transfer units (“The heat equalizing material 5a in the R portion is attached to the heat equalizing material 5 in a state where the heat equalizing material 5a and the heat equalizing material 5 are overlapped in a state where heat conduction is secured”);
wherein one surface of the connection unit contacts the surface of the gas line (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
254
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morioka does not disclose:
wherein concave portions are disposed at opposite ends of the heat transfer unit,
wherein heat transfer units are coupled to each other through engagement of the concave portions,
wherein the connection unit is press-fitted into a coupling groove on one side of the first heat transfer part and a coupling groove on one side of the second heat transfer part,
wherein a width of the connection unit is equal to a sum of a first width of a coupling recess at the one side of the first heat transfer unit and a second width of a coupling recess at the one side of the second heat transfer unit,
wherein the connection unit overlaps a concave portion formed at the one side of the first heat transfer unit and a concave portion formed at the one side of the second heat transfer unit and is fastened thereto through press-fitting;
wherein each of the concave portion has “[“ or “U” shaped cross section;
wherein the connection unit is completely surrounded by coupling between the first heat transfer unit and the second heat transfer unit and is not exposed outside.
However, Emerson teaches:
wherein convex portions or concave portions are disposed at opposite ends of the heat unit,
wherein heat units are coupled to each other through engagement of the concave portions,
wherein the connection unit is press-fitted into a coupling groove on one side of the first heat part and a coupling groove on one side of the second heat part,
wherein a width of the connection unit is equal to a sum of a first width of a coupling recess at the one side of the first heat unit and a second width of a coupling recess at the one side of the second heat unit, and
wherein the connection unit overlaps a concave portion formed at the one side of the first heat unit and a concave portion formed at the one side of the second heat unit and is fastened thereto through press-fitting;
wherein each of the concave portion has “[“ or “U” shaped cross section;
wherein the connection unit is completely surrounded by coupling between the first heat transfer unit and the second heat transfer unit and is not exposed outside (“A first portion of a heat-recoverable connecting collar 9 comprising a nickel-titanium alloy which exhibits the property of memory, is slid into the annular recess 10, and surrounds the pipe 11 of one insulated pipe 7 while in its expanded, martensitic state. The axial length of the recess 10 is substantially equal to half the axial length of the unrecovered collar 9. The second insulated pipe 8 is brought into abutting contact with the first insulated pipe, such that a second portion of the expanded collar 9 is slid into the annular recess 12, and thus surrounds the pipe 13 of the second insulated pipe 8. The axial length of the recess 12 is substantially equal to half of the axial length of the unrecovered collar 9 so that the ends of the collar abut the insulation at the ends 16 of the annular recesses, 10 and 12” column 6, line 22).
PNG
media_image3.png
330
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Van Dijck’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connection unit of Morioka to include features of the connection unit as is taught in Van Dijck because Van Dijck states “Hitherto, the end portion of an insulated pipe has been bared of insulation to facilitate joining to the bared end portion of another insulated pipe by for example welding, brazing or soldering. It is then necessary to reinsulate the bared pipes in the region of the joint” (column 1, line 28) and “The invention obviates the necessity of reinsulating the joint region of an insulated pipe” (abstract). Therefore, including the features of Van Dijck will obviate the necessity of reinsulating (such as element 2a of Morioka) and thus simplify joining.
Regarding claim 10, Morioka, as modified by Van Dijck, discloses the block heater assembly according to claim 7,
wherein the connection unit is made of a material exhibiting identical thermal conductivity to the plurality of heat transfer units (5 and 5a are “heat equalizing material” or “soaking material” of aluminum, or any metal such as copper, gold and silver having a higher heat conductivity than that of the pipe material).
Regarding claim 11, Morioka, as modified by Van Dijck, discloses the block heater assembly according to claim 10, wherein the connection unit includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), silver (Ag) and tungsten (W) (“the soaking material and soaking material of the heating device of the present invention are not limited to aluminum, but may be any metal such as copper, gold and silver having a higher heat conductivity than that of the pipe material”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fruck (US 4400019 A)
PNG
media_image4.png
402
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Espetvedt (US 3126035 A)
PNG
media_image5.png
540
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Steinhauser (US 20070045275 A1) “The conductors 64 are also adapted, as described in greater detail below, for connection to an adjacent heat trace section 52 or to an adjacent connector 54” paragraph [0052]
PNG
media_image6.png
471
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Song (WO 2011016643 A2)
PNG
media_image7.png
432
505
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Nomoto (US 20110163081 A1)
PNG
media_image8.png
254
509
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762