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 amendment filed 14 April 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome most of the previous Specification objections. The examiner fully considered the argument as to why the “incorporation by reference” amendment to the Specification should be permitted for 371 applications, but the examiner was not persuaded.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for an additional 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Claims 3 and 17 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 and if the 35 USC 112 rejections were overcome.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 14 April 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-12, 16, and 21-22 have been amended. Claims 1 and 8 have been cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 10-23 are pending.
Specification
The amendment filed 4 January 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/EP2020/068901 and of the European patent application 19184350.7 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 3 July 2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 4 January 2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite: “heating controller” (line 19 of claim 23). Appropriate correction is required.
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 claim 23, “temperature detecting device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “temperature detection” and “determine an electrical resistance of the at least one heating element.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “computer.”
In claim 23, “heating controller” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “controller” (understood to be a replacement term for “means for control”) and the functional limitations are “heating,” “regulates the temperature in the heating chamber,” and “configured to deliver pulsed heating power.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “PID controller.”
In claim 1, “compensation device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations attributed to the “device” is “compensation” and “configured to compensate for nonlinearities.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “calculator” or “computer” (bottom of page 22).
In claim 12, “temperature detection device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “temperature detection” and “detects a resistance of the at least one electric heating element.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “computer.”
In claim 12, “heating controller” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “controller” (understood to be replacement term for a “means for control”) and the functional limitations are “heating,” “regulates a temperature in the heating chamber,” “controls the temperature of the dental furnace,” and “configured to deliver pulsed heating power.”
Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “PID controller.”
In claim 12, “compensation device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations attributed to the “device” is “compensation” and “nonlinearities are stored in the compensation device” (understood to mean: the compensation device stores nonlinearities).
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations is a “calculator” or “computer” (bottom of page 22).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 and 23 recite: “wherein the dental oven does not include a dedicated current sensor or a dedicated voltage sensor that is structurally separate from the power electronics.” However, there is no mention of a “dedicated current senor” or a “dedicated voltage sensor” in the original Specification. Furthermore, this limitation is a negative limitation. Negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05.i). As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by deleting the last two lines of claims 12 and 23.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 13-22 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 12 and 23. This is a new rejection that is based on the amended portion of the claims.
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 23, 5, 11-12, 14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025).
Regarding claim 23, Miller teaches a dental oven (fig. 1; “Furnace For Dental Prosthesis Or Partial Dental Prosthesis,” title) comprising:
at least one electric heating element (heating element 3, fig. 1) arranged adjacent (“periphery,” para 0024) to a heating chamber (chamber 2, fig. 1);
power electronics (the circuit in fig. 2 except for the heating elements 31, 32, and 33; the “power electronics” are also construed as including the thermosensor 10, fig. 1) configured to supply electrical heating power to the at least one electric heating element (voltage is supplied via the circuit to the heating elements 31, 32, and 33, fig. 2);
a heating controller (“control means,” para 0026; a PID controller is not explicitly disclosed) operatively connected to the power electronics (“these control means include means for the restriction of the power consumption of the furnace,” para 0026) and configured to regulate a temperature in the heating chamber (“regulation via half-wave control,” para 0036; the temperature in the chamber is regulated based on the power that is provided, fig. 5);
a temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) operatively connected to the heating controller (the “means” for monitoring the current consumption and the voltage are operatively connected to the “control means,” para 0026);
wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) is configured to: determine an electrical resistance of the at least one electric heating element from electrical operating values of the power electronics (current and voltage of the heating elements, para 0026; resistance is equal to the voltage divided by current) representing a voltage applied to the heating element (“voltage applied to the heating elements,” para 0026) and a current flowing through the heating element (“current consumption,” para 0026), or a current applied to the heating element and a voltage measured at the heating element (“monitoring and for the restriction of the current consumption and/or of the voltage applied to the heating elements,” para 0026), and deriving a temperature value corresponding to the heating chamber from the determined electrical resistance (“resistance of the heating elements 3 changing in dependence on the temperature,” para 0037; temperature is derived through the resistance, fig. 3);
wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) includes a compensation device (“programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026; construed as being equivalent to a computer) configured to compensate for non-linearities between resistance and temperature of the heating element at operating temperatures above 400 °C (“non-linear, temperature-dependent resistance,” para 0031; fig. 3 shows that the non-linearities in the resistance take place at temperatures above 400° C; compensates by reducing the power at higher temperatures, para 0031 and fig. 5);
wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) is configured to operate without using a temperature sensor (the detection of the temperature is based on “power consumption” instead of a temperature sensor, para 0038 and figs. 3-6);
wherein the dental oven does not include a dedicated current sensor or a dedicated voltage sensor that is structurally separate from the power electronics (the thermosensor 10 is construed as being part of the claimed “power electronics”).
Miller, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
655
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller does not explicitly disclose a direct voltage or a direct current; wherein the heating control is configured to deliver pulsed heating power for detecting the resistance of the at least one electric heating element and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power, with a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, Nomura teaches a direct voltage (“direct-current constant voltage Vs,” para 0065; Vs is construed as a direct voltage, fig. 2) or a direct current (“current then flows from the power source input terminal 58 to the ground through the resistance heater 11,” para 0065; because the voltage Vs is DC voltage, the current through heater 11 in fig. 2 is construed as being DC current); wherein the heating control (PWV controller 51, fig. 2; “feedback control by PID control can be applied,” para 0086; the PWV controller is construed as being a PID controller) is configured to deliver pulsed heating power (fig. 3) for detecting the resistance of the at least one electric heating element (resistance is detected based on the current and the voltage, steps S5 and S7, fig. 4; paras 0083-0084) and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber (“derives the temperature of the resistance heater 11 on the basis of the temperature dependency of the resistance value of the resistance heater 11,” para 0084) in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power (the voltage current measurement in step S5 takes place “in synchronization with the timing of the off-voltage of the PWM signal,” para 0083), with a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s (“the period of the PWM signal becomes 300 μs,” para 0181; based on an off-duty voltage time of “30 μs or more,” para 178; the pulse length is construed as being 0.27 ms or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 ms to 20) and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s (“the time during which the PWM signal is the off-voltage is led to be needed to be 30 μs or more,” para 0178; construed as a range of greater than 0.03 ms, which overlaps with the claimed range between 2 ms and 10 s).
Nomura, figs 3-4
PNG
media_image2.png
176
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
916
674
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 Miller, in view of the teachings of Nomura, by using the circuit, as taught by Nomura in fig. 2, as the “control means” for controlling the power consumption in the dental furnace, as taught by Miller, and by using a DC power source, as taught by Nomura, instead of an AC power source, as taught by Miller, in order to use a temperature control apparatus that suppresses power consumption by using a sampling resister that draws less current and generates less heat than when a combination of variable resisters are used in a divider circuit and that also improves the voltage measurement, such that the amount of errors in the voltage measurements decreases (Nomura, paras 0011-0013 and 0090), because it is an obvious modification to use DC power instead of AC power, 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) and as the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. The Specification discloses that the pulse break can be “e.g., 10 ms long,” page 19.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miller in view of Nomura as set forth above regarding claim 23 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element (current and voltage of the heating elements, para 0026) and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber (“resistance of the heating elements 3 changing in dependence on the temperature,” para 0037) at the beginning of pulse pauses or no-pulse periods of the heating power (“leading edge control,” para 0015; beginning of the half waves where no power is applied). Additionally, Nomura teaches in a measuring period which has a length of less than 10 s and has a length of more than 10 ms (“the time during which the PWM signal is the off-voltage is led to be needed to be 30 μs or more,” para 0178; construed as a range of greater than 0.03 ms, which overlaps with the claimed range between 10 ms and 10 s).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “programming devices,” para 0026) indirectly detects the measuring current (detecting the current through a Hall sensor, para 0011, is construed as indirectly measuring the current) through the at least one electric heating element (para 0031), and an uncompensated output value for the temperature measurement (“voltage,” para 0037, which is construed as being an “uncompensated” value that correlates with the temperature as shown in fig. 6), indirectly via an output signal of a power electronics (“mains power supply,” paras 0014-0015) for the at least one electric heating element (para 0037), which output signal reflects a parameter of the power electronics (“voltage,” para 0037).
Regarding claim 12, Miller teaches a method of operating (“heating the furnace chamber,” abstract) a dental oven (fig. 1; “Furnace For Dental Prosthesis Or Partial Dental Prosthesis,” title), comprising at least one electrical heating element (heating element 3, fig. 1) extending adjacent (“periphery,” para 0024) to a heating chamber and controlled by a heating controller (“control means,” para 0026; a PID controller is not explicitly disclosed), the method comprises the following steps:
power electronics (the circuit in fig. 2 except for the heating elements 31, 32, and 33; the “power electronics” are also construed as including the thermosensor 10, fig. 1) supplies electrical heating power to the at least one electrical heating element (voltage is supplied via the circuit to the heating elements 31, 32, and 33, fig. 2),
the heating controller (“control means,” para 0026) regulates a temperature in the heating chamber (“regulation via half-wave control,” para 0036; the temperature in the chamber is regulated based on the power that is provided, fig. 5) and comprises a temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026),
the temperature detection device detects a resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element (current and voltage of the heating elements, para 0026; although Miller does not explicitly disclose a step for detecting the resistance, resistance is equal to the voltage divided by current) and comprises a compensation device (“programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026; construed as being equivalent to a computer), wherein the compensation device stores deviations (“a previously prepared table in which the strength of heating elements from the material used is set forth in dependence on the temperature,” para 0013; the table is construed as being stored in the control means of para 0026, claims 21 and 31-32) from a proportionality of an increase in the resistance (“R/R_nom,” fig. 3; the ratio is construed as being a proportionality of an increase in the resistance) of the at least one electrical heating element (“heating body,” para 0033) with an increase in the temperature of the at least one electrical heating element or nonlinearities (fig. 3 shows an increase in the resistance with respect to temperature after 1000 °C; “non-linear, temperature-dependent resistance,” para 0031; construed as being “deviations from…proportionality” and as nonlinearities of the resistance with respect to temperature, as shown in the plot in fig. 3), and
wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “Hall sensor,” para 0011; “programming devices for the furnace as well as display means 19,” para 0026) is configured to operate without using a temperature sensor (the detection of the temperature is based on “power consumption” instead of a temperature sensor, para 0038 and figs. 3-6) using electrical operating values of the power electronics representing a voltage applied to the heating element (“voltage applied to the heating elements,” para 0026) and a current (“current consumption,” para 0026) flowing through the heating element, or a current applied to the heating element and a voltage measured at the heating element (“monitoring and for the restriction of the current consumption and/or of the voltage applied to the heating elements,” para 0026), and deriving a temperature value corresponding to the heating chamber from the determined electrical resistance (“resistance of the heating elements 3 changing in dependence on the temperature,” para 0037; temperature is derived through the resistance, fig. 3),
wherein the dental oven does not include a dedicated current sensor or a dedicated voltage sensor that is structurally separate from the power electronics (the thermosensor 10 is construed as being part of the claimed “power electronics”).
Miller does not explicitly disclose the temperature detection device detects a resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element; the heating controller controls the temperature of the dental furnace based on the detected resistance of the at least part of the at least one electrical heating element and based on the compensation device; a direct voltage or a direct current; wherein the heating controller is configured to deliver pulsed heating power, wherein the temperature detection device measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber in no- pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power, with a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no- pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, Nomura teaches the temperature detection device (ADC 56, differential amplifiers 54 and 55, resistor R8, fig. 2; para 0070) detects a resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element (resistance is detected based on the current and the voltage, steps S5 and S7, fig. 4; paras 0083-0084); the heating controller controls the temperature of the dental furnace (fig. 4; para 0078; control of the temperature is determined using feedback and by adjusting the duty ratio) based on the detected resistance (step S7, fig. 4) of the at least part of the at least one electrical heating element and based on the compensation device (“derives the temperature of the resistance heater 11 on the basis of the temperature dependency of the resistance value of the resistance heater 11,” para 0084); a direct voltage (“direct-current constant voltage Vs,” para 0065; Vs is construed as a direct voltage, fig. 2) or a direct current (“current then flows from the power source input terminal 58 to the ground through the resistance heater 11,” para 0065; because the voltage Vs is DC voltage, the current through heater 11 in fig. 2 is construed as being DC current); wherein the heating controller is configured to deliver pulsed heating power (fig. 3), wherein the temperature detection device measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element (step S7) and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber (para 0084) in no- pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power (the voltage current measurement in step S5 takes place “in synchronization with the timing of the off-voltage of the PWM signal,” para 0083), with a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s (“the period of the PWM signal becomes 300 μs,” para 0181; based on an off-duty voltage time of “30 μs or more,” para 178; the pulse length is construed as being 0.27 ms or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 ms to 20) and no- pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s (“the time during which the PWM signal is the off-voltage is led to be needed to be 30 μs or more,” para 0178; construed as a range of greater than 0.03 ms, which overlaps with the claimed range between 2 ms and 10 s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miller, in view of the teachings of Nomura, by using the circuit, as taught by Nomura in fig. 2, as the “control means” for controlling the power consumption in the dental furnace, as taught by Miller, and by using a DC power source, as taught by Nomura, instead of an AC power source, as taught by Miller, in order to use a temperature control apparatus that suppresses power consumption by using a sampling resister that draws less current and generates less heat than when a combination of variable resisters are used in a divider circuit and that also improves the voltage measurement, such that the amount of errors in the voltage measurements decreases (Nomura, paras 0011-0013 and 0090), because it is an obvious modification to use DC power instead of AC power, 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) and as the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. The Specification discloses that the pulse break can be “e.g., 10 ms long,” page 19.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Miller in view of Nomura as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 14. Specifically, Nomura teaches wherein, for the detection of the resistance of the at least one electrical heating element (resistance heater 11, fig. 2; step S7, fig. 4), short current pulses comprising pulses with a duty cycle of less than 20 percent (“10%,” para 0181) are sent through the heating element and during these short current pulses, the temperature detection device (ADC 56, differential amplifiers 54 and 55, resistor R8, fig. 2; para 0070) measures the resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element (the voltage current measurement in step S5 takes place “in synchronization with the timing of the off-voltage of the PWM signal,” para 0083).
Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches wherein the nonlinearities at temperatures above 400° C. are nonlinearities of the resistance of the at least one electric heating element (fig. 3; “non-linear, temperature-dependent resistance,” para 0031; construed as being “deviations from…proportionality” and nonlinearities of the resistance with respect to temperature, as shown in the plot in fig. 3; temperatures above 300 degrees are shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Miller teaches wherein the measuring current (“current,” para 0006) corresponds to the heating current (current is provided to the heating elements) and the measuring voltage corresponds to the heating voltage (“voltage effective at the heating elements,” para 0007), respectively.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of Lorunser et al. (US-20090225806-A1).
Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature detection device detects the current temperature of the at least one electric heating element by determining the resistance of the at least one heating electric element, which also includes impendences, inductive and/or capacitive resistances, or ohmic resistance (although Miller teaches detecting “Ohmic power,” para 0034, Miller does not explicitly disclose detecting “Ohmic resistance”).
However, in the same field of endeavor of dental ovens, Lorunser teaches wherein the temperature detection device (“sensors,” para 0049; heating elements 12a-12f, fig. 4) detects the current temperature of the at least one electric heating element by determining the resistance of the at least one heating electric element (para 0020), which also includes impendences, inductive and/or capacitive resistances, or ohmic resistance (“quotient of the voltage and the current,” para 0020; construed as ohmic resistance).
Lorunser, fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
494
546
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 Miller to include, measuring the resistance, in view of the teachings of Lorunser, by using the voltage and current measurements, as taught by Miller, to calculate a resistance, as taught by Lorunser, in order to ensure optimized activation of the heaters, because the resistance correlates directly with the amount of heat that is released by the heaters, which then correlates indirectly with the temperature of the chamber, and if the voltage and current are known, then the resistance can be easily calculated by dividing the voltage by the current (Lorunser, para 0020).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US20080234875A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of Doljack (US-5369247-A).
Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches wherein the at least one electric heating element (heating element 3, fig. 1) is at least partially made of compounds of MoSi, SiC (“silicon carbide,” para 0009), FeCrAl or FeCrNi.
Miller does not explicitly disclose the at least one electric heating element has a resistance of less than 60 ohms at room temperature.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, Doljack teaches the at least one electric heating element (heater element 12, fig. 1) has a resistance of less than 60 ohms at room temperature (“10 ohms,” column 11, lines 58-63).
Doljack, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
242
250
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 Miller, in view of the teachings of Doljack, by using a resistance that varies from 10 ohms to 3 ohms, as taught by Doljack, for the silicon carbide heating elements, as taught by Miller, in order to use a negative temperature coefficient of resistance (NTCR) temperature sensor where the resistance of the heating element varies by a factor of 3 and the normalized temperature range is greater than 1/4 (Doljack, column 7, lines 2-14; Miller teaches in fig. 3 that SiC heaters have a negative slope, i.e., that they are NTCR sensors, and that they have a normalized temperature range of 3.5, which is greater than the desired .25 taught by Doljack).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Miller in view of Nomura as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 19 (please refer to claim 6 as to why it would be obvious to combine Miller with Doljack). Specifically, Doljack teaches wherein the at least one electric heating element (heater element 12, fig. 1) has a resistance of less than 10 ohms at room temperature (“room temperature” is construed as 75 degrees Fahrenheit; in fig. 12, heater element H2 is at appx 9 Ohms at this temperature).
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of LeMay et al. (US-20160216034-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detection device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “programming devices,” para 0026) emits a measuring current (“current,” para 0006), and measures a voltage drop across the at least one electric heating element (“voltage curve at the heating elements 3,” para 0037; fig. 6), or across a part thereof or across all heating elements as a measuring voltage (“voltage,” para 0007).
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein a product of measuring current and measuring voltage gives a measuring power of less than 10% of the maximum electric heating power of the dental oven.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, LeMay teaches wherein a product of measuring current and measuring voltage (“power=voltage×current,” para 0091) gives a measuring power (“measured power,” para 0092) of less than 10% (“Using a look-up table such as Table II, the calibrated duty cycle for each heating element can be determined for any value of average power via simple linear interpolation,” para 0093; construed such that the measured power can be determined by linear interpolation for a duty cycle of 1% according to Table II; e.g., using linear interpolation for the 40% and 20% duty cycle values for Table II, then the measured power at a 1% duty cycle for Heating Elements 206A-E is 139.25, 147.75, 111.35, 125.2, and 108.75 Watts, respectively) of the maximum electric heating power (“100 % duty cycle,” Table II; construed as the maximum power) of the dental oven (furnace cavity 106, fig. 3).
Lemay, Table II
PNG
media_image6.png
564
910
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 Miller, in view of the teachings of LeMay, by using the method for obtaining power measurements at duty cycles, as taught by LeMay, for the heating elements, as taught by Miller, in order to control the temperature of the furnace cavity by individually adjusting the power delivered by the heating elements, for the advantage of precisely changing the power level to any value between zero and full power that the heating element is able to receive (LeMay, paras 0021 and 0052).
Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a product of measuring current and measuring voltage gives a measuring power of less than 1% of the maximum electric heating power of the dental oven.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, LeMay teaches wherein a product of measuring current and measuring voltage (“power=voltage×current,” para 0091) gives a measuring power (“measured power,” para 0092) of less than 1% (“Using a look-up table such as Table II, the calibrated duty cycle for each heating element can be determined for any value of average power via simple linear interpolation,” para 0093; construed such that the measured power can be determined by linear interpolation for a duty cycle of 1% according to Table II; e.g., using linear interpolation for the 40% and 20% duty cycle values for Table II, then the measured power at a 1% duty cycle for Heating Elements 206A-E is 139.25, 147.75, 111.35, 125.2, and 108.75 Watts, respectively) of the maximum electric heating power (“100 % duty cycle,” Table II; construed as the maximum power) of the dental oven (furnace cavity 106, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miller, in view of the teachings of LeMay, by using the method for obtaining power measurements at duty cycles, as taught by LeMay, for the heating elements, as taught by Miller, in order to control the temperature of the furnace cavity by individually adjusting the power delivered by the heating elements, for the advantage of precisely changing the power level to any value between zero and full power that the heating element is able to receive (LeMay, paras 0021 and 0052).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of Andersen et al. (US-6043465-A).
Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature detection device determines a function that represents the relation of resistance and temperature in the heating chamber.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, Andersen teaches wherein the temperature detection device (cables 14 and 15, fig. 2; column 5, lines 9-24) determines a function that represents the relation of resistance and temperature in the heating chamber (column 5, lines 58-60).
Andersen, fig. 3
PNG
media_image7.png
480
708
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 Miller, in view of the teachings of Andersen, by calculating the resistance based on Ohm’s Law, as taught by Andersen, in the heating control method, as taught by Miller, in order to determine the temperature of the heating element that is based on the resistance value, for the advantage of quickly determining the temperature that can readily provide the temperature of the furnace based on the measured resistance value (Andersen, claim 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US20080234875A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of More (US-6334093-B1).
Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature detection device comprises a test mode in which the temperature detection device detects a resistance value of the at least one electric heating element at a predetermined state of the oven and the temperature detection device detects, the aging of the at least one electric heating element or the need to recalibrate/service the furnace when a deviation of the measured resistance value from a value determined during calibration by more than a predetermined tolerance occurs.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors, More teaches wherein the temperature detection device comprises a test mode (“standard calibration mode,” column 15, line 52) in which the temperature detection device (fig. 1) detects a resistance value (“measurement bridge resistances,” column 44, line 33) of the at least one electric heating element (“thermistors,” column 17, line 45) at a predetermined state of the oven (“each time the system is turned on,” column 15, line 53) and the temperature detection device detects, the aging (“time drift,” column 19, line 21) of the at least one electric heating element (“thermistors,” column 19, line 39) or the need to recalibrate/service the furnace (not explicitly disclosed) when a deviation (“system errors,,” column 10, line 45) of the measured resistance value from a value determined during calibration by more than a predetermined tolerance occurs (column 37, lines 18-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miller, in view of the teachings of More, by using the circuit as taught by More in fig. 1, for the sensors, as taught by Miller, in order to periodically assess the temperature drift and the time drift of system components, because over time these drift components can result in sensor inaccuracies (More, column 2, lines 2-36).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Jussel (US-20080096148-A1).
Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a limit value for the temperature of the dental oven at which a firing program is configured to begin is determined in advance, and wherein the current temperature of the at least one electrical heating element according to the temperature detection device is compared by the heating control with the limit value temperature and the firing program is started when the limit value is reached.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dental ovens, Jussel teaches wherein a limit value (“800° C. or 850° C,” para 0037) for the temperature of the dental oven at which a firing program (TER Nominal profile, fig. 1) is configured to begin is determined in advance (“removed from the preheating furnace in order to be introduced into the firing furnace,” para 0037), and
wherein the current temperature of the at least one electrical heating element according to the temperature detection device is compared by the heating control with the limit value temperature (para 0028) and the firing program is started when the limit value is reached (para 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miller to include, preheating to a temperature between 800° C and 850° C and then heating to a firing temperature, in view of the teachings of Jussel, by using a preheating furnace and then heating in a firing furnace, as taught by Jussel, in the dental furnace of Miller, in order to use a separate dental firing furnace with a smaller muffle than a preheating furnace, because a smaller-muffle furnace heats up faster than a larger-muffle furnace, which shortens the processing time during firing while the larger-muffle furnace is more resilient to the chamber opening facilitating (Jussel, paras 0015 and 0037).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the heating in the furnace of Miller would be modified to include a preheating in a larger-muffle furnace and a firing in a smaller-muffle furnace, as taught by Jussel, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Miller is silent as to the using a preheating furnace and firing furnace, Jussel simply serves to demonstrate that such a configuration would have been used in a routine manner in the invention of Miller.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Nomura (US-20080234875-A1, cited 24 Feb 2025) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of More (US-6334093-B1).
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches wherein the resistance (“temperature-dependent resistance,” para 0012; fig. 3) of the at least one electrical heating element (heating elements 3, fig. 1) is detected and stored (“table,” para 0013).
Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection of the resistance of the at least one electrical heating element is repeated at time intervals of at least 3 months, and the measured difference is stored as an offset reflecting the aging of the at least one electrical heating element and/or connections of the at least one electrical heating element and is also used in the temperature detection.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors, More teaches wherein the detection of the resistance (“measurement bridge resistances,” column 44, line 33) of the at least one electrical heating element (“thermistors,” column 17, line 45) is repeated at time intervals of at least 3 months (“many months of operation,” column 10, line 19; “many” is construed as being at least three), and the measured difference (“difference offset,” column 42, lines 41-42) is stored as an offset reflecting the aging (“component time drift,” column 42, line 19) of the at least one electrical heating element and/or connections of the at least one electrical heating element and is also used in the temperature detection (“compensated for time drift of components,” column 43, lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Miller, in view of the teachings of More, by using the circuit as taught by More in fig. 1, for the sensors, as taught by Miller, in order to periodically assess the temperature drift and the time drift of system components, because over time these drift components can result in sensor inaccuracies (More, column 2, lines 2-36) and as the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. The Specification discloses that the compensation can be “e.g. every 3 months.”.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Miller in view of Nomura as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 18 (please refer to claim 15 for the motivation as to why it is obvious to combine Miller with More). Specifically, More teaches wherein the detection of the resistance of the heating element (“measurement bridge resistances,” column 44, line 33) is at least once repeated at a time interval of at least one week (“many months of operation,” column 10, line 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 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 and if the 35 USC 112 rejections were overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 3
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the heating controller comprises at least two control circuits comprising an internal control circuit which controls the heat output based on a current/voltage characteristic field, and an external control circuit which incorporates the temperature detection device which controls the temperature in the heating chamber based on a measured resistance value of the at least one electric heating element corresponding to a temperature value,” as recited in claim 3.
The closest prior art of record is Donner (US-4114024-A). Donner teaches a heating controller, which incorporates multiple circuits and which has been used previously to cover the limitations of claim 3. However, claim 23 now requires “wherein the heating control is configured to deliver pulsed heating power for detecting the resistance of the at least one electric heating element and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power, with a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.” Although Donner teaches a pulsed output, Donner does not teach “detecting the resistance of the at least one electric heating element and indirectly the temperature in the heating chamber in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power.” Instead, Donner teaches temperature measurements using a thermocouple and a thermistor.
Currently, Nomura (US-20080234875-A1) is being used as a modifying reference to teach the heating controller of claim 23. Although one might argue that it would be obvious to combine Nomura’s circuit with a circuit from Donner, the examiner disagrees. For example, Nomura teaches away from using resistors that divide the input voltage in paragraph 0012. In contrast, Donner teaches this type of voltage-divider circuit. Specifically, Donner teaches using potentiometers that divide the voltage across variable resistors. It would be non-obvious to combine any of Donner’s power-draining circuits with the circuit taught by Nomura, who is focused on minimizing the electric power consumption by only using one circuit to drive the heating resistor.
The examiner relied on the differences between figs. 4 and 6 of the Drawings in the Instant Application to understand claim 3. Specifically, fig. 6 shows the “two control circuits” of claim 3. The examiner further submits that fig. 4 of the Drawings is the type of circuit that is taught by Nomura in fig. 2 (figure 4 is identified as a “prior art” drawing).
Claim 17
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the duty cycle is less than 7 percent,” as recited in claim 17, where “short current pulses comprising pulses with a duty cycle .. are sent through the heating element and during these short current pulses, the temperature detection device measures the resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element,” according to claim 14.
The closest prior art reference is Nomura (US-20080234875-A1) who teaches that the duty ratio should be kept above 10% because when the duty ratio is less than 10%, then controller becomes less responsive and temperature control cannot be achieved (paragraph 0179 of Nomura).
Previously, DiCesare (US-4720623-A) was used to teach claim 17. However, DiCesare teaches control for using AC power. Claim 17 is dependent on claim 12, which requires “direct current” or “direct voltage.” It would be nonobvious to use the control taught by DiCesare when “direct voltage” or “direct current” is used. The examiner was persuaded by the Applicant’s argument on pages 11-12 concerning the DiCesare reference in the arguments filed 14 April 2026.
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 3 and 17.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered.
Specification objection
Page 8 of the arguments references 37 CFR 1.57 as to why an “incorporation by reference” section to the Specification even though the amendment was made after the filing date, which for a 371 application is the filing date of entry into the national phase. However, this section of the MPEP states that “the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, or international application, that was present on the filing date of the application.” In other words, this section of the MPEP does not permit incorporation by reference after the filing date. As explained in the Specification objection above, MPEP 1893.03.b and 608.01.p state that for 371 applications, this amendment cannot be made after the filing date of the Application. For 371 applications, the filing date is the date of entry into the national stage (not the date that the Applicant files with the USPTO). The examiner submits that the guidance in the MPEP is consistent with the rules of the patent cooperation treaty (PCT). Although PCT rules 4.18 and 20.6 permit incorporation by reference, this incorporation must be made within two months of date of entry in the national stage (PCT rule 20.7). The Office is bound by treaty to enforce these rules because the United States is a PCT member. Recommend deleting the phrase “all the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety” from the first paragraph of the Specification.
35 USC 103 rejections
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Page 10 of the arguments references Miller (US20100213185) and states that “Miller’s furnace does not use a dedicated resistance sensor.” Instead, Miller teaches using a Hall sensor to measure current. Presumably, the Hall sensor is not a “dedicated resistance sensor.” The examiner also presumes that the limitation, which the Applicant is arguing, is that the Hall sensor taught by Miller is not a “dedicated current sensor or a dedicated voltage sensor that is structurally separate from the power electronics,” as required in claim 23. In other words, the Applicant appears to argue that the Hall sensor is not a dedicated sensor and that it is separate from the power electronics in Miller’s invention.
Regarding the first argument that the Hall sensor is not a dedicated sensor, Miller teaches that the Hall sensor “preferably serves for the determination of the current consumption by the heating elements” (paragraph 0031). Miller does not teach using the Hall sensor for anything other than measuring the current of the heating elements. Thus, the Hall sensor is dedicated to measuring the current of the heating elements.
Regarding the second argument that the Hall sensor is separate from the power electronics, it is not clear why the Applicant believes this separation to exist. In paragraph 0006, Miller teaches that “means for the monitoring and for the restriction of the current consumption of the furnace are preferably provided.” In paragraph 0026, Miller teaches that there are “control means and programming devices” and “in particular means for the monitoring and for the restriction of the current consumption and/or of the voltage applied to the heating elements 3.” Respectfully submit that if the Hall sensor was not part of the electronics that are used to monitor the current consumption, then the current could not be controlled. The Hall sensor must be integrated into the control means in order for the control means to be able to provide control.
Page 11 of the arguments state that Miller teaches measuring the current in order to protect the heating elements. The examiner agrees that Miller teaches measuring the current in order to protect the heating elements. Specifically, Miller teaches that the “heating elements have a temperature-dependent resistance” (paragraph 0012). The dependence of the heating on temperature is shown in figs. 3-6. Miller teaches measuring the current in order to keep the heating elements from reaching a “maximum heating rate” caused by a “maximum power output” (paragraph 0031). In other words, Miller teaches that if the power can be controlled, then the temperature can be controlled, because the temperature of the heating elements is dependent on the power of the heating elements.
Applicant’s remaining arguments on pages 11-12 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Miller combined with Nomura. In particular, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s argument on page 11 that Miller does not teach “the claimed process of heating pause control” of “using the heating element as a temperature sensor by measuring its resistance during periods of low/no heating.” However, the Nomura reference has been added to the rejection in order to teach this limitation, which has been added to the claims.
Conclusion
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 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 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights