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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s Drawing amendments have overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 August 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 25 August 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11 have been amended. Claims 21-26 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are pending.
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, 4-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US-20200267870-A1) in view of Caspers et al. (EP-1799015-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches a heater assembly (fig. 2) for heating an electrical device (“electronics heating module,” para 0030), the heater assembly comprising:
a channel (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2) defining an interior space (slots 118, fig. 2; para 0040); and
a pre-encapsulated heating element (heating cables 202 and 204, fig. 2; the cables 202 and 204 have an outer layer that encapsulates the core 212, fig. 2; the cables are construed as being “pre-encapsulated”) including a resistive heating element (conductive core 212, fig. 2; para 0054) with a pre- encapsulated portion (portions of cables 202 and 204 that are in the channels 114 and 116, fig. 2), the pre-encapsulated portion configured to be received within the interior space of the channel (fig. 2 and para 0053).
Dong, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
1214
1188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dong does not explicitly disclose a pre-encapsulated portion that is pre-encapsulated in a block of potting compound.
However, in the same field of endeavor electrical resistance heaters, Caspers teaches a pre-encapsulated portion (the “heating element 2” in para 0044 is construed as having a portion that is pre-encapsulated in the potting compound shown in fig. 3) that is pre-encapsulated in a block of potting compound (potting compound 6 is construed as being a block, fig. 3; paras 0022-0023 describe how the potting compound is cast and cured).
Caspers, fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
402
528
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 Dong, in view of the teachings of Caspers, by including a potting compound 6 and a base body 4, as taught by Caspers, within the heating cables 202 and 204 prior to their insertion into the slots 118, as taught by Dong, in order to use a potting compound that simultaneously electrically insulates and mechanically secures the heating elements, for the advantage of using a potting compound that compensates for inaccuracies of the heating element and that also increases the thermal conductivity between the heating element and the outer surface of the heating cables (Caspers, paras 0008-0011).
Regarding claim 4, Dong teaches wherein the channel (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2) includes opposing parallel sides (two opposing flat sides that contain the cables 202 and 204, fig. 2) that define the interior space of the channel (slots 118, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Dong teaches wherein the channel (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2) has a U-shaped cross-section (the channels where the cables are located have u-shapes, fig. 1A; para 0030).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dong in view of Caspers as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Caspers teaches wherein the potting compound (potting compound 6, fig. 3) is a thermal transfer compound (“mineral-reinforced silicone potting,” para 0021) that is configured to transfer heat from the resistive heating element to the channel to heat the electrical device (“has particularly good thermal conductivity,” para 0021).
Regarding claim 8, Dong teaches wherein the resistive heating element (conductive core 212, fig. 2) is configured as a heating cable (heating cables 202 and 204, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Dong teaches wherein the heating cable is a self- regulating heating cable or a constant wattage heating cable (para 0052).
Regarding claim 10, Dong teaches wherein the resistive heating element (conductive core 212, fig. 2) is a cartridge heater (para 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Dong teaches wherein the resistive heating element (conductive core 212, fig. 2) comprises a plurality of resistive heating elements (heating cables 202 and 204, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Dong teaches wherein the channel is one of a plurality of channels (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2) and the pre-encapsulated heating element includes a plurality of pre-encapsulated portions (portions of cables 202 and 204 that are in the channel 114 and 116, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Dong teaches wherein each of the plurality of pre- encapsulated portions (portions of cables 202 and 204 that are in the channels 114 and 116, fig. 2) is received within a corresponding channel of the plurality of channels (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2; the top-left portions of cables 202 and 204 correspond with channel 116, fig. 2; the bottom-right portions of cables 202 and 204 correspond with channel 114, fig. 2).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US-20200267870-A1) in view of Caspers et al. (EP-1799015-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kohl et al. (US-20140169776-A1, hereinafter Kohl ‘776).
Regarding claim 2, Dong teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the channel defines a channel width and the pre-encapsulated portion defines a pre-encapsulated heating element width, and a ratio of the pre-encapsulated heating element width to the channel width is between 1.01:1 and 1.05:1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical resistance heaters, Kohl ‘776 teaches wherein the channel (tube 18, fig. 5) defines a channel width (thickness of the tube, i.e., width of walls 16 and 20, fig. 5) and the pre-encapsulated portion (insulator element 22, resistance heating elements 2, and conductor plates 4, fig. 10) defines a pre-encapsulated heating element width (measurement ID + LD + HD, fig. 10), and a ratio of the pre-encapsulated heating element width (“between 0.3 mm and 1.0 mm…between 0.3 mm and 1.0 mm…between 1 mm and 3 mm,” para 0058; construed as a distance of 1.6-5 mm) to the channel width (“0.9 mm and 1.7 mm,” para 0013) is between 1.01:1 and 1.05:1 (construed as a ratio of min: 1.6:1 /1.7:1 to max: 5:1 /.9:1 or ratio from .94:1 to 5.56:1).
Kohl ‘776, fig. 10
PNG
media_image3.png
316
514
media_image3.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 Dong to include, using a tube design with predetermined bending points and the measurements for the tube and heating elements, in view of the teachings of Kohl ‘776, for the cable channels 114/116 that enclose the cables 202, as taught by Dong, in order to use a tube that has predetermined bending points, which provide a force fit when the heating unit is inserted into the tube, for the advantage of not having to use clamping frame to apply force outside the tube, which is not possible when fins are located on the exterior surface of the tube (Kohl ‘776, paras 0008 and 0059; fig. 2) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 3, Dong teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein an interference fit between the pre-encapsulated portion and the channel causes the pre-encapsulated portion to be compressed by the channel so that the pre-encapsulated heating element is secured within the channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical resistance heaters, Kohl ‘776 teaches wherein an interference fit (“force fit,” para 0059) between the pre-encapsulated portion (conductor plates 4 and resistance heating elements 2, fig. 6) and the channel (tube 15, fig. 6) causes the pre-encapsulated portion to be compressed by the channel so that the pre-encapsulated heating element is secured within the channel (“pressure force is exerted by the two wide side walls 20 on the two electrical insulation elements 22,” para 0059; construed as securing the conductor plates and heating elements inside the tube as a result of the pressure from the side walls, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Dong to include, using a tube design with predetermined bending points that applies a force fit, in view of the teachings of Kohl ‘776, for the cable channels 114/116 that enclose the cables 202, as taught by Dong, in order to use a tube that has predetermined bending points, which provide a force fit when the heating unit is inserted into the tube, for the advantage of not having to use clamping frame to apply force outside the tube, which is not possible when fins are located on the exterior surface of the tube (Kohl ‘776, paras 0008 and 0059; fig. 2)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US-20200267870-A1) in view of Caspers et al. (EP-1799015-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Kelch et al. (US-20150240139-A1).
Dong teaches wherein the potting compound is a two- part compound (“the adhesive material may be a liquid adhesive such as a two part epoxy,” para 0064).
Dong/Caspers do not explicitly disclose a two-part polyurethane compound.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of using adhesives to bond components together, Kelch teaches a two-part polyurethane compound (“two-component polyurethane adhesive,” abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Dong/Caspers to include, using a two-component polyurethane adhesive, in view of the teachings of Kelch, instead of the mineral-reinforced silicone potting compound, as taught by Caspers, in order to use a polyurethane adhesive that cures and that has high strength and excellent adhesion to both metallic surfaces and non-metallic materials, and where debonding occurs at temperatures well above the usage temperature of many adhesive bonds (Kelch, paras 0005 and 0008-0009).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US-20200267870-A1) in view of Caspers et al. (EP-1799015-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Base et al. (US-20190120523-A1).
Dong teaches a heater assembly (fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of channels (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2), each channel of the plurality of channels defining a channel width (annotated in fig. 1A below); and
a pre-encapsulated heating element (heating cables 202 and 204, fig. 2; the cables 202 and 204 have an outer layer that encapsulates the core 212, fig. 2; the cables are construed as being “pre-encapsulated”) including a resistive heating element (conductive core 212, fig. 2; para 0054) with a plurality of encapsulated portions (portions of cables 202 and 204 that are in the channel 114 and 116, fig. 2), each of the encapsulated portions being received within a corresponding channel of the plurality of channels (channels 114 and 116, fig. 2; the top-left portions of cables 202 and 204 correspond with channel 116, fig. 2; the bottom-right portions of cables 202 and 204 correspond with channel 114, fig. 2) and defining an encapsulated portion width (width of cables 202 and 204, fig. 2).
Dong, fig. 1A
PNG
media_image4.png
491
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dong does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of encapsulated portions pre-encapsulated in a block of potting compound; the encapsulated portion width being greater than the channel width of the corresponding channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor electrical resistance heaters, Caspers teaches each of the plurality of encapsulated portions (the “heating element 2” in para 0044 is construed as having a plurality of portions that are pre-encapsulated in the potting compound shown in fig. 3) pre-encapsulated in a block of potting compound (potting compound 6 is construed as being a block, fig. 3; paras 0022-0023 describe how the potting compound is cast and cured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Dong, in view of the teachings of Caspers, by including a potting compound 6 and a base body 4, as taught by Caspers, within the heating cables 202 and 204 prior to their insertion into the slots 118, as taught by Dong, in order to use a potting compound that simultaneously electrically insulates and mechanically secures the heating elements, for the advantage of using a potting compound that compensates for inaccuracies of the heating element and that also increases the thermal conductivity between the heating element and the outer surface of the heating cables (Caspers, paras 0008-0011).
Dong/Caspers do not explicitly disclose the encapsulated portion width being greater than the channel width of the corresponding channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrical resistance heaters, Base teaches the encapsulated portion width (H1, fig. 5) being greater than the channel width of the corresponding channel (H2, fig. 5).
Base, fig. 5
PNG
media_image5.png
414
766
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 Dong to include, using elliptical shaped channels, in view of the teachings of Base, for the channels 114 and 116 that contain the heating cables 202 and 204, as taught by Dong, in order to provide an interference fit between the heating elements and the surrounding channels, for the advantage of stabilizing the heating element in a secure holding construct that is resilient to the frequent temperature changes that the heater assembly will be exposed to (Base, paras 0054-0055).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The legal analysis in this section relies on a rationale from In re Garnero and In re Nordt Dev. Co, where the limitation: “pre-encapsulated” implies the following three structural limitations, which are listed in page 8 of the arguments:
“A cured, self-supporting body whose exterior geometry is defined by the block itself rather than by the channel”
“A block that does not conform gaplessly to the channel walls.”
“A discrete article that exists before installation.”
The examiner reviewed In re Garnero and In re Nordt Dev. Co and came to a different conclusion. Specifically, there is no difference between the limitation “pre-encapsulated” and “encapsulated.”
The modification that is based on the prior-art references from In re Garnero proposed adding “at least one additional material with the expanded perlite.” Thus, the limitation “interbonding by interfusion“ was determined to overcome the rejection because the final product would not be “interbonded by interfusion.” Instead, there would be “at least one additional material” in between the perlite. Therefore, what is important to consider is whether the process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product (MPEP 2113.I).
Based on this analysis from In re Garnero, what is important to consider is whether pre-encapsulation results in a final product that is different a final product that is encapsulated. There is no structural between a final product that is “pre-encapsulated” vs. a final product that is “encapsulated.” For example, there is no structural difference between a pill that has been pre-encapsulated at a manufacturing facility vs. the same pill that is encapsulated at a pharmacy. Both pills are encapsulated. The timing of the encapsulation does not result in a different pill.
The critical question from In re Nordt Dev. Co is whether “injected molded” imparted a structural limitation into the claim. In this court decision, it was determined that “injected molded” resulted in a finished product that must have an “integral structure.”
Using the same analysis for the claim under review, the critical question is whether the prefix “pre” imparts a structural limitation into the claim. The prefix “pre” means “before.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not connote any structure into the claim based on the word “before.” This is a non-structural term.
Although the Applicant concludes that “pre” implies the three structural limitations listed above, this analysis is actually improper because the analysis imports disclosure from the Specification into the Claims (MPEP 2111.01.II). Thus, while the Applicant’s arguments are directed to limitations listed above, none of these limitations are within claim 1. As a result, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The examiner notes that while the arguments on pages 7-9 assert how “pre-encapsulated” implies the structural limitations listed above, the arguments on pages 10-15 do not follow from the arguments on pages 7-9 because there is no explanation of how Caspers fails to meet the three structural limitations listed above.
The examiner agrees with the argument on page 10 that “Dong’s PTC conductive core is not a block of potting compound.” The rejection relies on Caspers for teaching the “potting compound.”
The arguments on pages 10-11 confuse what the mappings are for claim 1. In claim 1, the claimed “channel” was mapped to channels 114 and 116 taught by Dong. The claimed “pre-encapsulated heating element” was mapped to the heating cables 202 and 204 taught by Dong. The modification that was proposed to Dong in view of Caspers was to “include a potting compound 6 and a base body 4, as taught by Caspers, within the heating cables 202 and 204 prior to their insertion into the slots 118, as taught by Dong.” Dong teaches slots 118 that are within the channels 114 and 116.
The Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 appears to equate the base body 4 that is taught by Caspers with the claimed “channel.” However, the rejection proposes that the base body 4, as taught by Caspers, is inserted into the cables 202 and 204, which are then inserted into the channels 114 and 116, as taught by Dong. Thus, the channels 114 and 116, taught by Dong, are the claimed “channel” and not the base body 4 that is taught by Caspers.
The arguments on pages 11-12 appear to suggest that the benefits taught by Casper do not apply when the potting compound is cured prior to the insertion of the heating element into the channel. The examiner disagrees. Caspers teaches that the potting compound compensates for inaccuracies of the heating element and that the potting compound increases the thermal conductivity between the heating element and the out surface of the cables. These benefits from the potting compound are provided regardless of when the potting compound is cured.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant appears to propose a different rejection where the potting compound is cured after the heating element is inserted into the channel. However, this is not the rejection that is being proposed by the examiner.
Pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s arguments address the rejection for claim 20. This rejection is also not what was proposed by the examiner. Specifically, the arguments assert that the “closed-sheath, axial-insertion mechanism” that is taught by Base is “incompatible with Dong’s U-shaped channels 114/116.” However, the rejection for claim 20 is to “use elliptical channels, in view of the teachings of Base, for the channels 114 and 116 that contain the heating cables 202 and 204, as taught by Dong.” Thus, the rejection is not based on using elliptical channels with U-shaped channels. Rather, the rejection is based on using elliptical channels instead of U-shaped channels. Further, using elliptical channels instead of U-shaped channels would not require “fundamentally redesigning each reference and reflects impermissible hindsight reconstruction rather than a teach or suggestion in the art,” as argued by the Applicant. As explained in the rejection, Base describes several advantages that result when elliptical channels are used.
Pages 9 and 13-15 of the arguments concern the Kohl reference and state that the thickness walls of the channel cannot be the claimed “channel width.” Instead, the width has to be the width from one channel wall to the other channel wall. Respectfully submit that the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 2, because the claim does not require this limitation. Instead, claim 2 simply recites: “wherein the channel defines a channel width.” There is no mention in claim 2 or any claim of “channel walls.” However, the Specification discloses that the channel width can be a “width between channel walls.” The Applicant can overcome this rejection by defining the channel width as a width between channels.
On page 14, the Applicant states that “the resulting ratio range of ".94:1 to 5.56:1" is thus an artifact of the Office's arithmetic rather than anything Kohl discloses.” The examiner disagrees. Instead, these calculations were based on the measurements taught by Kohl.
On pages 14-15, the Applicant describes Kohl as teaching that a “force fit is then created only after the heating assembly is already inside the tube, by externally deforming the tube in a pressing tool 38.” The examiner agrees with this description of Kohl. However, the examiner disagrees that this description does not then teach the claim limitation: “an interference fit between the pre- encapsulated portion and the channel [that] causes the pre-encapsulated portion to be compressed by the channel.” Instead, respectfully submit that when the pressing tool deforms the tube, this deformation results is “an interference fit,” which can meet the limitations of claim 3.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 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 25 Sep 2026
