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
In view of the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request filed on 18 December 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-26 have been restricted and claim 20 is elected by original presentation in the present Office action.
A Drawing objection is maintained in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 December 2025 in the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the disputed portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
A new ground of rejection is provided in the present Office action which are not a result of recent amendments. Therefore, the present Office action is in a non-final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 11 July 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2 and 20 have been amended. Claims 14-19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-26 are new.
Claims 1-13 and 20-26 are pending. Claims 21-26 are restricted.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
I. Claim 20, drawn to a heater assembly, classified in CPC: H05B 3/54.
II. Claims 21-26, drawn to a method of producing a heater assembly, classified in CPC: H05B 3/42.
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as product made and process of making. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed (Group I) can be made by a materially different process such as a heater assembly where a plurality of channels is formed with a channel width, and an encapsulated portion of a pre-encapsulated heating element are formed with a width that is greater than the channel width of the corresponding channel, as require in claim 20. For example, the product of Group I can be made from a flexible heating channel, whereas the method of Group II can be used to produce a product with a non-flexible heating channel.
Claim 20 is elected by original presentation.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
Newly amended figure 8 of the drawings is objected to because the numbers 428, 438, and 448 and their corresponding lines are not black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick, and well-defined (37 CFR 1.84.l / MPEP 608.02.V). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 self- regulating heating cable or 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 heat element (conductive core 212, fig. 2) is 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 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 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 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 in the Pre-Appeal Brief filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Dong combined with Caspers.
Conclusion
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 21 March 2026