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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/16/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 10-11 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 12 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-3 and 5-12 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 line 6 recites a misspelling of the term wall. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) in view of Bohlender et al (US 2013/0163969).
Regarding claim 1, Cmelik discloses an electric heating device comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) forming a receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing) and a fluid channel (The space between the Fig. 2 #3 fluid inlet and #4 fluid outlet);
and a PTC element (Fig. 2 #19 heater) held in the receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing),
wherein the housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) is formed by a uniform extruded profile (Examiner considers the limitation “the housing is formed by a uniform extruded profile” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113);
wherein the housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) includes heating ribs (Fig. 1 #5 deflector) projecting into the fluid channel, the heating ribs (Fig. 1 #5 deflector) are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the PTC element (Fig. 1 shows the deflectors spaced apart in a longitudinal direction.).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
440
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Cmelik does not disclose heating ribs projecting into the fluid channel in a direction transverse to a flow direction through the fluid channel.
Nonetheless, Bohlender in the same field of endeavor being fluid heating devices teaches heating ribs projecting into the fluid channel in a direction transverse to a flow direction through the fluid channel ([0077] lines 1-6 ---" FIGS. 12 to 15 illustrate a further aspect of the present invention in that the corrugated-rib elements 64 provided one behind the other in the flow direction in a layer L are provided in a direction transverse to the flow direction S but offset to one another in their corresponding installation level within the layer structure 46.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Cmelik by incorporating the heating ribs projecting into the fluid channel in a direction transverse to a flow direction as taught by Bohlender for the benefit of creating a turbulent flow which leads to an improved thermal transfer. (Bohlender [0010])
Regarding claim 2, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Cmelik teaches wherein the receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing) is dimensioned such that the PTC element (Fig. 2 #19 heater) holds electrically conductive strip conductors (Fig. 2 #12 contact element) abutting thereon and an insulation (Fig. 2 #20 insulation), provided between the strip conductors (Fig. 2 #12 contact element) and the receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing), under pretension.
Regarding claim 3, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Cmelik teaches wherein the PTC element (Fig. 2 #19 heater) abuts against an inner surface of the housing that decouples the heat under an internal stress generated by the housing (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
458
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Cmelik teaches wherein the housing forms at least two fluid channels enclosing the receptacle between them (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Cmelik teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) is formed from extruded aluminum ([0141] lines 1-3 ---"The housing 2 may be formed of steel, aluminum or plastic and, for example, have a wall thickness of 1 to 4 mm.”) or an extruded aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 9, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Cmelik teaches wherein the housing is formed as a profile part with complex geometry by being molded in a press die and then being cut to a designated length (Examiner considers the limitation “the housing is formed as a profile part with complex geometry by being molded in a press die and then being cut to a designated length” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) in view of Bohlender et al (US 2013/0163969) as applied to claim 1, in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0305093).
Regarding claim 6, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the housing includes a housing outer wall and an insulation chamber that is provided between the housing outer wall and the fluid channel and that is separated from the fluid channel.
Nonetheless, Smith in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches wherein the housing includes a housing outer wall (Fig. 1 #206 outer side) and an insulation chamber (Fig. 1 #220 insulating region) that is provided between the housing outer wall (Fig. 1 #206 outer side) and the fluid channel (Fig. 1 #300 inner housing) and that is separated from the fluid channel (Fig. 1 #300 inner housing).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Cmelik in view of Bohlender by incorporating the housing outer wall and insulation chamber as taught by Smith for the benefit of inhibiting heat loss.
Regarding claim 7, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the housing includes insulation chambers are provided between all housing outer walls and the fluid channels.
Nonetheless, Smith teaches wherein the housing includes insulation chambers (Fig. 1 #220 insulating region) are provided between all housing outer walls and the fluid channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Cmelik in view of Bohlender by incorporating the insulation chamber as taught by Smith for the benefit of inhibiting heat loss.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) in view of Bowden et al (US 4,651,762), and Wagner et al (US 2019/0011151).
Regarding claim 10, Cmelik discloses an electric heating device comprising: a housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) forming a receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing) and a fluid channel (The space between the Fig. 2 #3 fluid inlet and #4 fluid outlet);
and a PTC element (Fig. 2 #19 heater) held in the receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing),
wherein the housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) is formed by a uniform extruded profile (Examiner considers the limitation “the housing is formed by a uniform extruded profile” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
However, Cmelik does not disclose wherein the housing includes a housing outer wall and a housing boundary wall that is unitary with the housing outer wall and that is spaced apart from the housing outer all via a plurality of insulation chambers that are provided between the housing outer wall and the housing boundary wall, the plurality of insulation chambers being separated from the fluid channel by the housing boundary wall, and the plurality of insulation chambers being separated from each other.
Nonetheless, Bowden in the same field of endeavor being fluid heating devices teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 1 #10 double walled container) includes a housing outer wall (Fig. 1 #14 outer wall) and a housing boundary wall (Fig. 1 #16 inner wall) that is unitary (Col. 4 lines 13-18 ---"The apparatus occupies a unitary container which is either a single wall container 80 as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 7, or which comprises a double walled container 10 as shown in FIG. 1 having an outer wall 14 and an inner wall 16 spaced therefrom.”) with the housing outer wall (Fig. 1 #14 outer wall) and that is spaced apart from the housing outer all via a plurality of insulation chambers that are provided between the housing outer wall and the housing boundary wall, the plurality of insulation chambers being separated from the fluid channel by the housing boundary wall.
PNG
media_image6.png
432
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Cmelik by incorporating the housing outer wall and insulation chamber as taught by Smith for the benefit of inhibiting heat loss.
However, Cmelik in view of Bowden does not teach a plurality of insulation chambers separated from each other.
Nonetheless, Wagner in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches that insulation chamber (Fig. 6 #s15b-15c two partial areas of an insulating core) can be separated from each other.
PNG
media_image7.png
210
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separate insulation chambers, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) in view of Bowden et al (US 4,651,762) and Wagner et al (US 2019/0011151).
Regarding claim 11, Cmelik discloses an electric heating device comprising: a housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) forming a receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing) and a fluid channel (The space between the Fig. 2 #3 fluid inlet and #4 fluid outlet);
and a PTC element (Fig. 2 #19 heater) held in the receptacle (Fig. 2 #11 heating element housing),
wherein the housing (Fig. 2 #2 housing) is formed by a uniform extruded profile (Examiner considers the limitation “the housing is formed by a uniform extruded profile” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
However, Cmelik does not disclose a housing forming a receptacle and a fluid channel, the housing having outer walls and boundary walls that are unitary with the outer walls; wherein the housing includes insulation chambers provided between the housing outer walls and the boundary walls, the insulation chambers being separated from the fluid channel by the boundary walls.
Nonetheless, Bowden teaches a housing (Fig. 1 #10 double walled container) forming a receptacle and a fluid channel, the housing (Fig. 1 #10 double walled container) having outer walls (Fig. 1 #14 outer wall) and boundary walls (Fig. 1 #16 inner wall) that are unitary (Col. 4 lines 13-18 ---"The apparatus occupies a unitary container which is either a single wall container 80 as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 7, or which comprises a double walled container 10 as shown in FIG. 1 having an outer wall 14 and an inner wall 16 spaced therefrom.”) with the outer walls (Fig. 1 #14 outer wall);
wherein the housing (Fig. 1 #10 double walled container) includes insulation chambers (Spaces between the Fig. 1 walls #s 14 and 16) provided between the housing outer walls (Fig. 1 #14 outer wall) and the boundary walls (Fig. 1 #16 inner wall), the insulation chambers (Spaces between the Fig. 1 walls #s 14 and 16) being separated from the fluid channel by the boundary walls (Fig. 1 #16 inner wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating device of Cmelik by incorporating the insulation chamber as taught by Bowden for the benefit of inhibiting heat loss.
However, Cmelik in view of Bowden does not teach wherein adjacent insulation chambers are located at a corner of the housing and are separate from each other and are oriented orthogonally to each other.
Nonetheless, Wagner in the same field of endeavor being electric heating devices teaches that insulation chamber (Fig. 6 #s15b-15c two partial areas of an insulating core) can be separated from each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separate insulation chambers, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange adjacent insulation chambers at a corner of the housing and orthogonal to each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) in view of Bohlender et al (US 2013/0163969) as applied to claim 1, in view of Campbell et al (US 5,310,524).
Regarding claim 20, Cmelik in view of Bohlender teaches the heating device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the heating ribs are unitary with the housing.
However, Campbell in the same field of endeavor being fluid heating devices teaches the ribs may be unitary with a housing (Col. 8 lines 30-32 ---"Strength ribs 276 are integrally molded with upper and lower outer surfaces 264, 266 and provide support to canister 142.”).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heating ribs being unitary with the housing, since it has been held that forming one piece of an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-7, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bohlender et al (US 2013/0163969) for claim 1 and Bowden et al (US 4,651,762) for claims 10-11.
For claim 1:
Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach ribs arranged in a direction transverse to a flow direction through the fluid channel. Examiner respectfully agrees with Applicant.
However, newly cited prior art Bohlender teaches ribs arranged in a direction transverse to a flow direction through the fluid channel. See the rejection of claim 1.
For claims 10 and 11:
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach a housing having unitary outer and inner walls having insulating chambers in between the inner and outer walls. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art Bowden teaches a housing having unitary outer and inner walls having insulating chambers in between the inner and outer walls. See the rejections of claims 10-11.
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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights