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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heating ribs that are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the PTC element” appears to be an incomplete limitation. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to read as “the heating ribs Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447).
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) that 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.).
Regarding claim 2, Cmelik 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 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_image1.png
458
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cmelik 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_image2.png
418
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Cmelik 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 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 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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cmelik et al (US 2018/0065447) as applied to claim 1, in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0305093).
Regarding claim 6, Cmelik 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).
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.
Regarding claim 7, Cmelik 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 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 Smith et al (US 2015/0305093) 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 an insulation chamber that is provided between the outer wall of the housing and the fluid channel and that is separated from the fluid channel.
Nonetheless, Smith 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).
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 Smith 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.
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 Smith et al (US 2015/0305093) 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 wherein the housing includes insulation chambers 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 by incorporating the insulation chamber as taught by Smith for the purpose of inhibiting heat loss.
However, Cmelik in view of Smith 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1:
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach he heating ribs are spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the PTC element. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cmelik, in Fig. 1, shows heating ribs spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the PTC element. See the rejection of claim 1.
For claims 10 and 11:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 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 Wagner et al (US 2019/0011151).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach a plurality of insulation chambers provided between the outer wall of the housing and the fluid channel and separated from the fluid channel, the plurality of insulation chambers are separate from each other, adjacent insulation chambers at a corner of the housing are separate and oriented orthogonally to each other.
However, Wagner teaches that insulation chambers can be separate. Furthermore, the claimed arrangement of the insulation chambers would be obvious to one of ordinary skill since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See the rejections of claims 10-11.
Conclusion
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