DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the previous Specification objections. However, new Specification objections have been provided in the present Office action.
New Claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome most of the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, there is still one 35 USC 112(b) rejection that has not been addressed and new 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 November 2025 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.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 21 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 7-8, 12, and 16 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-22 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
There is no mention of a “a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no- pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.” (claims 1 and 12) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “a measuring period which has a length of less than 10 s and has a length of more than 10 ms” (claim 5) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “a resistance of less than 60 ohms at room temperature” (claim 6) in the Specification.
There is no mention of a “heating voltage” (claim 7) in the Specification.
There is no mention of a “wherein the calibration step of the temperature detection device (22) covers temperatures between room temperature and 1900 degrees Celsius over an entire temperature range” (claim 8) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “the uncompensated output value for the temperature measurement, indirectly via an output signal of a power supply unit for the at least one electric heating element (16), which output signal reflects a parameter of the power supply unit” (claim 11) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “short current pulses comprising pulses with a duty cycle of less than 20 percent are sent through the heating element and during these short current pulses, the temperature detection device (22) measures the resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element” (claim 14) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “wherein the duty cycle is less than 7 percent” (claim 17) in the Specification.
There is no mention of “wherein the at least one electric heating element (16) has a resistance of less than 10 ohms at room temperature” (claim 19) in the Specification.
There is no mention of a “heating voltage” (claim 21) in the 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
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite: “heating controller” (line 16) and “temperature detection device” (line 17). 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 1, “temperature detecting device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “temperature detecting” and “measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element.”
In claim 1, “heating control” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “control” (understood to be a replacement term for “means for control”) and the functional limitations are “heating,” “regulates the temperature in the heating chamber,” “controls the output connect,” 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” or equivalents thereof (bottom of page 22).
In claim 12, “temperature detection device” or “temperature detecting device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “temperature detection/detecting” and “measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element.”
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” or equivalents thereof (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 1-3, 5-8, and 10-22 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 1 recites: “wherein the temperature detecting device (22) measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element.” Similarly, claim 12 recites: “wherein the temperature detecting device (22) measures the resistance of the at least one electric heating element.” Although the Specification discloses that the heating element can be a “measuring resistor.” a heating element would not be sufficient structure for measuring the resistance of the heating element (i.e., the heating element cannot measure itself). Therefore, the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “temperature detecting device” is for “measuring the resistance of the at least one electric heating element” or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “temperature detecting device” or “temperature detection device” in claims 1 and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a look-up table, in which non-linearities…detected in a calibration step are stored…wherein the calibration step of the temperature detection device covers temperatures between room temperature and 1900 degrees Celsius over an entire temperature range.” A single claim, which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p). In this instance, it is unclear if infringement occurs based on the mere presence of a look-up table for non-linearities or instead a look-up table for non-linearities, where a method is required for performing a calibration step to detect the non-linearities. For the purpose of the examination, the claim will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as not requiring a calibration step.
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, 5, 11, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A).
Regarding claim 1, Miller recites a dental oven (fig. 1; “Furnace For Dental Prosthesis Or Partial Dental Prosthesis,” title) comprising
a temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” para 0026) comprising at least one electric heating element (heating element 3, fig. 1) which extends adjacent (“periphery,” para 0024) to a heating chamber (chamber 2, fig. 1) and is controlled by a heating control (circuit in fig. 2),
wherein the heating control (fig. 2; a PID controller is not explicitly disclosed) regulates the 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 an output connection for the at least one electric heating element (output connections with heaters 31, 32, and 33, fig. 2),
wherein the temperature detecting device comprises a compensation device (“control means and programming devices,” para 0026; construed as a computer) configured to compensate for nonlinearities at 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) detected by the temperature detecting device (“monitoring,” para 0026),
wherein the heating control (fig. 2) controls the output connection (connections with heaters 31, 32, and 33, fig. 2; para 0038) based on a detected resistance of the at least one electric heating element (Specification has an inclusive definition for “based” such that other variables can be used, e.g., current and voltage, page 4, lines 9-13; half-wave control is applied based on the detection of current and voltage of the heating elements, paras 0006-0007 and 0026) or a part of the at least one electric heating element or all heating elements (para 0016) and based on the compensation device (“means for the monitoring,” para 0026),
wherein the temperature detection device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” 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 temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” 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).
Miller, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
655
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miller does not explicitly disclose an input connection for detecting the temperature of the at least one electric heating element, wherein the input connection is electrically connected to the temperature detecting device, a heating control; the temperature detecting device measures the resistance 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, in the same field of endeavor of dental heating elements, Masreliez teaches an input connection for detecting the temperature of the at least one electric heating element (input connection between Temperature Sensing Circuit 34 and Switch 32, fig. 4), wherein the input connection is electrically connected to the temperature detecting device (Temperature Sensing Circuit 34, fig. 4; “the voltage potential at junction 22 is sensed to determine the temperature of the tip,” column 3, line 68 to column 4, line 1); the temperature detecting device measures the resistance in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power (the temperature is measured when the temperature sensing circuit 34 is connected to the switch 32, fig. 4) with a pulse length and no-pause length (“duty cycle,” column 2, line 36; the “pulse length” is construed as the time when the switch 32 is connected to AC power 30 and the “no-pause length” is construed as the time when the switch 32 is connected to Temperature Sensing Circuit 34, fig. 4).
Masreliez, fig. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
306
536
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 Miller, in view of the teachings of Masreliez, by using a temperature-sensing circuity that measured temperature based on a duty cycle of each half-cycle of an AC power supply, as taught by Masreliez, using the half-wave control on the AC voltage, as taught by Miller, in order to use a control process by controlling the duty cycle, for the advantage of accurately controlling the temperature until the temperature smoothly reaches an operating temperature without causing overheating or excessive excursions of the temperature (Masreliez, column 2, lines 28-43).
Miller/Masreliez do not explicitly disclose a heating control; a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ovens heated by electrical resistance, DiCesare teaches a heating control (“portional, integral and derivative controller,” column 2, lines 20-21); a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s (“60 Hz,” column 4, line 2; construed as period of 1/60 seconds or .0167 seconds; for the half-wave control taught by Miller and Masreliez, the “pulse length” and “no-pause length” would each vary between 0 and 16.7 milliseconds based on the duty cycle; construed as overlapping with the claimed ranges).
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 using a PID controller that regulates based on a 60 Hz frequency, in view of the teachings of DiCesare, in order to use a PID controller that provides optimal performance for regulating for the half-wave control of the alternating current power supply, as taught by Miller, that is based on a duty cycle of providing AC power/temperature detection, as taught by Masreliez, because 60 Hz is the standard frequency for alternating current in the United States, which is easily and readily accessible to most Americans 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 Masreliez and DiCesare as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” 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, DiCesare teaches in a measuring period which has a length of less than 10 s and has a length of more than 10 ms (“60 Hz,” column 4, line 2; construed as period of 1/60 seconds or .0167 seconds; for the half-wave control taught by Miller and Masreliez, the “pulse length” and “no-pause length” would each vary between 0 and 16.7 milliseconds based on the duty cycle; construed as overlapping with the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and 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 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 Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 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 detecting 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 detecting 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_image3.png
494
546
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 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Donner (US-4114024-A).
Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating control 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 detecting 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dental ovens, Donner teaches wherein the heating control (fig. 2) comprises at least two control circuits (circuit through thermocouple 57 and circuit through thermistor T58, fig. 5) comprising an internal control circuit (circuit through thermistor T58, fig. 5) which controls the heat output based on a current/voltage characteristic field (“voltage,” column 8, line 13), and an external control circuit (circuit through thermocouple 57) which incorporates the temperature detecting device (incorporated together through the circuits in figs. 2 and 5-6) which controls the temperature in the heating chamber (column 8, lines 6-8) based on a measured resistance value (the heater is controlled based on the voltage of the error signal, fig. 2; Specification has an inclusive definition for “based” such that other variables can be used, i.e., voltage, page 4, lines 9-13) of the at least one electric heating element (heater, fig. 2; coil 17, fig. 6) corresponding to a temperature value (voltage representing the temperature through the feedback line EF, figs. 2 and 5).
Donner, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
270
608
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, in view of the teachings of Donner, by using the feedback circuit, as taught by Donner in fig. 2, to control power applied to the heaters, as taught by Miller in fig. 2, and by using the thermocouple and thermistor, as taught by Donner, instead of the thermosensor, as taught by Miller, in order to use a closed-loop, feedback system for controlling the temperature of the dental oven, for the advantage of accurately controlling the rate of temperature in the oven such that voltage variations are minimized, resulting in consistent results for firing ceramic materials (Donner, column 1, lines 7-11 and column 2, lines 51-56).
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 Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 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 Masreliez, DiCesare, and Doljack 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 Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of LeMay et al. (US-20160216034-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Miller teaches wherein the temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and 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 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 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).
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Andersen et al. (US-6043465-A).
Regarding claim 8, Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature detecting device (22) comprises a look-up table, in which non-linearities of the at least one electric heating element (16) detected in a calibration step are stored wherein the calibration step of the temperature detection device (22) covers temperatures between room temperature and 1900 degrees Celsius over an entire temperature range.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of accurate use of temperature sensors for electrical resistance heating systems, Andersen teaches wherein the temperature detecting device (cables 14 and 15, fig. 2; column 5, lines 9-24) comprises a look-up table (lookup table 900, fig. 3), in which non-linearities (resistance is “near linear” with respect to temperature, column 6, lines 38-40; construed such that “resistance vs temperature” values are nonlinear) of the at least one electric heating element (heating element 19, fig. 2) detected in a calibration step (“calibration adjustment,” column 7, line 44) are stored (claims 4 and 11) wherein the calibration step of the temperature detection device covers temperatures between room temperature and 1900 degrees Celsius over an entire temperature range (“between room temperature and 3000° Centigrade,” column 4, lines 28-29; column 5, lines 45-50; construed such that the look-up table values can cover the entire range from range temperature to 3000° C).
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 using a lookup table to record the resistance vs. temperature values, as taught by Andersen, that are based on fig. 3, 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 as a result of using a lookup table that can readily provide the temperature of the furnace based on the measured resistance value (Andersen, claim 4).
Regarding claim 22, Miller teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature detecting 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 detecting 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).
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 Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) as applied to claim 1 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 detecting device comprises a test mode in which the temperature detecting device detects a resistance value of the at least one electric heating element at a predetermined state of the oven and the temperature detecting 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 detecting device comprises a test mode (“standard calibration mode,” column 15, line 52) in which the temperature detecting 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 detecting 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).
Claims 12, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Lorunser et al. (US-20090225806-A1), Masreliez (US-5043560-A), and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A).
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 (chamber 2, fig. 1) and controlled by a heating controller (circuit in fig. 2), the method comprises the following steps:
the heating controller (fig. 2; a PID controller is not explicitly disclosed) 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 (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” para 0026),
the temperature detection comprises a compensation device (“means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and para 0026; “control means and programming devices,” par 0026; construed as a computer),
storing deviations from a proportionality of an increase in the resistance of the at least one electrical heating element 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) in the compensation device (“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)
wherein the temperature detection device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007) 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 temperature detecting device (heating element 3, fig. 1; “means” for measuring the “current” and “voltage,” paras 0006-0007 and 0026; “control means and programming devices,” 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).
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 heating control; the temperature detecting device measures the resistance 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, in the same field of endeavor of dental ovens, Lorunser teaches the temperature detection device (“sensors,” para 0049; heating elements 12a-12f, fig. 4) detects a resistance of at least a part of the at least one electrical heating element (para 0020); the heating controller (control apparatus 22, fig. 1) controls the temperature (“temperature,” para 0020; para 0051) of the dental furnace based on the detected resistance of the at least part of the at least one electrical heating element (para 0020) and based on the compensation device (based on the “temperature distribution” determined by the controller, paras 0051 and 0055).
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 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).
Miller / Lorunser do not explicitly disclose a heating control; the temperature detecting device measures the resistance 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, in the same field of endeavor of dental heating elements, Masreliez teaches an input connection for detecting the temperature of the at least one electric heating element (input connection between Temperature Sensing Circuit 34 and Switch 32, fig. 4), wherein the input connection is electrically connected to the temperature detecting device (Temperature Sensing Circuit 34, fig. 4; “the voltage potential at junction 22 is sensed to determine the temperature of the tip,” column 3, line 68 to column 4, line 1); the temperature detecting device measures the resistance in no-pulse periods or pulse pauses of the heating power (the temperature is measured when the temperature sensing circuit 34 is connected to the switch 32, fig. 4) with a pulse length and no-pause length (“duty cycle,” column 2, line 36; the “pulse length” is construed as the time when the switch 32 is connected to AC power 30 and the “no-pause length” is construed as the time when the switch 32 is connected to Temperature Sensing Circuit 34, fig. 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 Masreliez, by using a temperature-sensing circuity that measured temperature based on a duty cycle of each half-cycle of an AC power supply, as taught by Masreliez, using the half-wave control on the AC voltage, as taught by Miller, in order to use a control process by controlling the duty cycle, for the advantage of accurately controlling the temperature until the temperature smoothly reaches an operating temperature without causing overheating or excessive excursions of the temperature (Masreliez, column 2, lines 28-43).
Miller/Masreliez do not explicitly disclose a heating control; a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ovens heated by electrical resistance, DiCesare teaches a heating control (“portional, integral and derivative controller,” column 2, lines 20-21); a pulse length of 10 ms to 20 s and no-pause length of between 2 ms and 10 s (“60 Hz,” column 4, line 2; construed as period of 1/60 seconds or .0167 seconds; for the half-wave control taught by Miller and Masreliez, the “pulse length” and “no-pause length” would each vary between 0 and 16.7 milliseconds based on the duty cycle; construed as overlapping with the claimed ranges).
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 using a PID controller that regulates based on a 60 Hz frequency, in view of the teachings of DiCesare, in order to use a PID controller that provides optimal performance for regulating for the half-wave control of the alternating current power supply, as taught by Miller, that is based on a duty cycle of providing AC power/temperature detection, as taught by Masreliez, because 60 Hz is the standard frequency for alternating current in the United States, which is easily and readily accessible to most Americans 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 Lorunser, Masreliez, and DiCesare as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches most of claim 14 (please refer to claim 12 for the motivation as to why it is obvious to combine Miller with Lorunser). Specifically, Miller teaches wherein, for the detection of the resistance (not explicitly disclosed) of the at least one electrical heating element (“monitoring” the voltage and current, para 0026), short current pulses comprising pulses with a duty cycle are sent through the heating element (“half-wave control,” para 0032, construed such that the AC power pulses in half waves with a duty cycle of 50%), 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 (the half waves where power is applied; construed such that monitoring takes place during these half-wave periods).
Miller does not explicitly disclose a duty cycle of less than 20 percent.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ovens heated by electrical resistance, DiCesare teaches a duty cycle of less than 20 percent (“When the triac firing pulse appears, the triac will turn on and conduct current for the remainder of that half cycle,” column 4, lines 22-24; “max delay is the period of one half cycle (i.e., 8.3 ms@60 Hz),” column 4, lines 1-2; construed such that the phase delay can be adjusted to more than 6 ms which would produce a duty cycle of 2.3/16.6=13.8%).
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, using a phase delay of 6 ms, in view of the teachings of DiCesare, for the half-wave control of the alternating current power supply, as taught by Miller, because the phase delay can be used as a results-effective variable based on a comparison between the desired power and the measured power, thereby controlling the power level supplied to the heater resulting in minimal variations in temperatures (DiCesare, column 1, lines 51-54 and column 4, lines 9-16) and as the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. The Specification discloses that the pulse break can be “the measurement time can then be completed, for example, 20% of the pulse break.”
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Miller in view of Lorunser, Masreliez, and DiCesare as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, DiCesare teaches wherein the duty cycle is less than 7 percent (“When the triac firing pulse appears, the triac will turn on and conduct current for the remainder of that half cycle,” column 4, lines 22-24; “max delay is the period of one half cycle (i.e., 8.3 ms@60 Hz),” column 4, lines 1-2; construed such that the phase delay can be adjusted to more than 7.2 ms which would produce a duty cycle of 1.1/16.6=6.7%).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20100213185-A1) in view of Lorunser et al. (US-20090225806-A1), Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A), 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 Lorunser et al. (US-20090225806-A1), Masreliez (US-5043560-A) and DiCesare et al. (US-4720623-A) 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 Masreliez, DiCesare, and More 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).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered.
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.
II. Miller, Lorunser, and DiCesare
Pages 10-11 state that Miller is concerned with “power management” and not with “temperature management.” However, the examiner disagrees that these two types of management are mutually exclusive in Miller. Instead, Miller teaches power management in order to prevent thermal “damage to the heating elements” (paragraph 0007), i.e., power management results in temperature management.
Pages 10-11 appear to distinguish over Miller because the Applicant’s invention uses DC power instead of AC power. The examiner agrees with the Applicant. However, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require using a “direct current” voltage. The Applicant can overcome the prior art references by requiring a “direct current” power source of power in the claims.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Miller and DiCesare combined with Masreliez.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US-10101088-B2) teach a sintering furnace for dental components.
Becker et al. (US-11090486-B2) teach a dental heating method by pulsing energy.
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 1/9/2025