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 on or after 22 September, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 14 and 16-17 are canceled by the applicant. Claim 21 is new. Claims 18-20 are not rejoined. Applicant’s amendments have been entered. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 22 September, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
Claim 18 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim and should therefore constitute the rejoinder of Claims 18-20: The examiner disagrees with this assertion. Claims 18-20 are not rejoined as the original grounds of the restriction requirement mailed on April 25, 2025 are still appropriate as the independent claims are not in condition for allowance, and the groups are still of a separate classification, separate status in the art and would require a separate field of search.
The Drawing Objection regarding the limitations of Claim 4 should be withdrawn on the basis of added drawings: The examiner agrees with this assertion. The drawing objection set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Marlier does not anticipate the limitations of the amended independent claims: The examiner agrees that Marlier does not teach the limitations of the independent claims, as amended. As a result, a new ground of rejection is provided in view of Miyairi (US 2021/0041141 A1) which teaches the amended limitations of the claim, in particular that the ducts extend through the housing (Figure 1 Element 15 “a plurality of cells” through which “a gas such as [air] flows from the first end face to the second end face” [0070] through the housing).
Barrow is a non-obvious combination with Marlier: This argument is addressed with the new grounds of rejection in view of Miyairi (US 2021/0041141 A1) which teaches the limitations of the independent claim as amended.
Zhang is a non-obvious combination with Marlier: This argument is addressed with the new grounds of rejection in view of Miyairi (US 2021/0041141 A1) which teaches the limitations of polygonal cross-sectional geometry of the flow ducts and the honeycomb shaped opening structures (shown in Figure 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,5-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyairi (IS 2021/0041141 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
464
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
588
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
510
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
712
790
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Miyairi teaches A heater (“Heater” [0114] Figure 8 Element 200)for heating a heat transfer medium (gas such as [air] flows from the first end face to the second end face” [0070]) the heater comprising: a heating element (“heater element for vehicle compartment heating “ Title), formed with PTC material (“heater element… that uses a PTC material” Figure 1 Element 100 [0013]); a plurality of heat transfer medium flow ducts passing through the heating element (Figure 1 Element 15 “a plurality of cells” through which “a gas such as [air] flows from the first end face to the second end face” [0070]); and a housing accommodating the heating element (“outer peripheral side walls” Figure 1 Element 112 [0072] serve as the housing for the heating element contained within), wherein the heating element is configured and arranged in the housing such that a heat transfer medium to be heated flows through the heat transfer medium flow ducts provided in the at least one heating element (Figure 1 further shows that the housing arrangement and the heating element enables the movement of the medium (air) through its ducts) such that the heat transfer medium to be heated flows around at an outer surface of at least one heating element outer wall (The previous arrangement with the Figure 1 “Heating element Outer Wall” of the invention enable air to pass around the outer surface of the wall).
Regarding Claim 2: Miyairi further teaches that the heat transfer medium flow ducts extend in the heating element essentially parallel to one another between an incoming flow end face and an outflow end face (Figure 1 Element 15 shows “a plurality of cells”, essentially parallel to each other through which “a gas such as [air] flows from the first end face (Figure 1 Element 114) to the second end face (Figure 1 Element 118)” [0070]).
Regarding Claim 3: Miyairi further teaches that at least one of the heat transfer medium flow ducts (Figure 3 Element 115) has a cross-sectional geometry which essentially does not change in a flow duct longitudinal direction and has a cross-sectional dimension essentially not changing in a flow duct longitudinal direction (Figure 3 shows that the cross-sectional geometry of the flow duct and cross-sectional dimension are essentially unchanging in the longitudinal direction).
Regarding Claim 5: Miyairi further teaches that at least two of the heat transfer medium flow ducts are defined by a flow duct partition of the heating element (Figure 1 Element 13 “partition walls” [0063]), which partition separates the at least two of the heat transfer medium flow ducts (Figure 1 further shows that the partition separates at least two flow ducts which reads on the limitation of the claims)
Regarding Claim 6: Miyairi further teaches that the flow duct partition (Figure 1 Element 13 “partition walls” [0063])and the heating element outer wall (Figure 1 Element 112 “Outer Peripheral Side Walls” [0072] that form the housing) provides a heating element structure formed from a block of material (the prior art teaches that the partitions and the outer side walls are “composed of a material containing barium titanate as a main component” [0072] which constitutes a block of material)
Regarding Claim 7: Miyairi further teaches that the flow duct partition and the heating element outer wall have an essentially constant wall thickness in a flow duct circumferential direction (Figure 1 further shows that the partition (element 113) and the outer wall (element 112) each have an essentially constant wall thickness in the flow duct circumferential direction)
Regarding Claim 8: Miyairi further teaches that at least one of the heat transfer medium flow ducts has a polygonal cross-sectional geometry (Figure 1 Element 115 shows the flow ducts possess polygonal cross-sectional geometry).
Regarding Claim 9: Miyairi further teaches that at least some of the heat transfer medium flow ducts form a honeycomb shape opening structure (Figure 1 shows that the plurality of flow ducts form a “honeycomb structure” [0067]).
Regarding Claim 10: Miyairi further teaches that the PTC material comprises barium titanate (“Barium Titanate” [0072])
Regarding Claim 11: Miyairi further teaches that the heater (“Heater” [0114] Figure 8 Element 200) further comprises contact elements provided at the heating element for an electrical contacting of the heating element (The prior art further teaches that the heater and heating are connected through an “electric wire” [0112] Figure 1 Element 19 which reads on the limitations of the claims and provides electrical contact).
Regarding Claim 15: Miyairi further teaches the heater further comprises another heating element to provide at least two heating elements configured and arranged in the housing for a parallel flow (Figure 5 shows the heater with at least two heating elements (Element 100) arranged in the housing for parallel flow)
Regarding Claim 21: Miyairi further teaches a heater (“Heater” [0114] Figure 8 Element 200) for heating a heat transfer medium (gas such as [air] flows from the first end face to the second end face” [0070]), the heater comprising :a heating element (“heater element” Title Figure 1 Element 100) formed with PTC material (“heater element… that uses a PTC material” Figure 1 Element 100 [0013]) and comprising walls with wall inner surfaces and with a heating element outer surface, wherein the inner surfaces define a plurality of heat transfer medium flow ducts passing through the heating element (Figure 1 Element 13 “partition walls” [0063]); and a housing accommodating the heating element (“outer peripheral side walls” Figure 1 Element 112 [0072] serve as the housing for the heating element contained within), wherein the housing comprises a housing inner surface (Figure 1 “Housing Inner Surface”) wherein the heating element outer surface and the housing inner surface at least partially define further transfer medium flow ducts (Figure 1 further shows that the heating element outer surface and housing inner surface define further flow ducts), wherein the heating element is configured and arranged in the housing such that a heat transfer medium to be heated flows through the heat transfer medium flow ducts and such that the heat transfer medium to be heated flows through the further heat transfer medium flow ducts (Figure 1 further shows that the housing arrangement and the heating element enables the movement of the medium (air) through its ducts)
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi (US 2021/0041141 A1) in view of Barrow (US 2006/0108012 A1):
PNG
media_image5.png
182
988
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Miyairi does not teach that least one of the heat transfer medium flow ducts has a cross-sectional geometry changing in a flow duct longitudinal direction
However, Barrow teaches that a heater (“heating element” [0050]) wherein: at least one of the heat transfer medium flow ducts has a cross-sectional geometry changing in a flow duct longitudinal direction (Figure 1b) shows the heat transfer medium flow ducts (Element 13) has a cross-sectional geometry changing in a flow duct longitudinal direction.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miyairi with the limitations of Barrow in order to “facilitate greater control” of the flow [0002]
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyairi (US 2021/0041141 A1) in view of Ester (US 2020/0154526 A1):
Regarding Claim 12: Miyairi does not teach that the heating element is manufactured in a layer application process, with a plurality of PTC material layers following one another.
However, Ester does teach that the heating element is manufactured in a layer application process, with a plurality of PTC material layers following one another (The prior art discloses a heating element with a “plurality of printed heating elements…[wherein] the printed heating elements may include printing using PTC” [0017-0018])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miyairi with the limitations of Ester in order to “reduce or eliminate the exhibition of hot spots or varying patters of heat throughout the heating elements” as well as improve “fault-tolerance” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13: Miyairi does not teach that layer application process comprises a 3D screen printing process.
However, this process presents a product by process limitation. Ester teaches an equivalent process that leads to the same limiting structural limitations of the 3-D printing screen process in which the heating element is manufactured in a layer application process with a plurality of PTC material layers following one another (The prior art discloses a heating element with a “plurality of printed heating elements…[wherein] the printed heating elements may include printing using PTC” [0017-0018] The printing process, as disclosed by Ester, as it produces the same structural limitations of the claimed process, reads on the limitations of the claim)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miyairi with the limitations of Ester in order to “reduce or eliminate the exhibition of hot spots or varying patters of heat throughout the heating elements” as well as improve “fault-tolerance” (Abstract).
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights