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 .
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 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) (hereinafter known as “VN”).
Regarding claim 1, VN discloses a metal heater comprising:
a metal substrate (Timestamp 1:53-3:04 tub made of metal from a can) with a groove (Shown at timestamp 3:11, space within the rectangle formed by the can) formed therein;
a resistive heater disposed within the groove (Shown at timestamp 3:11, space within the rectangle formed by the can);
and a fill metal (Solder being introduced to the metal substrate and the heater at timestamp 5:01) disposed over the resistive heater and filling the groove (The groove is being filled with solder at timestamp 5:04-5:14), wherein the fill metal has a lower melting temperature than the metal substrate (The substrate is shown filled with liquid solder at time stamp 5:15; This is interpreted that the metal that makes the can has a higher melting point than the solder.),
and wherein the fill metal transitions from a solid state to a liquid state during operation of the heater while the metal substrate remains solid (Shown at timestamp 5:04-5:14; The can remains solid while the solder is in liquid form.).
Regarding claim 2, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and VN teaches wherein the resistive heater is selected from the group consisting of layered heaters, cable heaters, tubular heaters, cartridge heaters (Timestamp 00:51), and foil heaters.
Regarding claim 3, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and VN teaches wherein the resistive heater is a cartridge heater (Timestamp 00:51).
Regarding claim 5, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and VN teaches wherein the metal substrate is formed of a metal or a metal alloy (VN timestamp 1:53-3:04 tub made of metal from a can).
Regarding claim 20, VN discloses a method of operating a heater, the method comprising:
supplying power to a metal heater (Timestamp 4:48-5:00, the metal heater comprising:
a metal substrate (VN timestamp 1:53-3:04 tub made of metal from a can) with a groove (Shown at timestamp 3:11, space within the rectangle formed by the can) formed therein;
a resistive heater disposed within the groove (Shown at timestamp 3:11, space within the rectangle formed by the can);
and a fill metal (Solder being introduced to the metal substrate and the heater at timestamp 5:01) disposed over the resistive heater and filling the groove, wherein the fill metal has a lower melting temperature than the metal substrate (The substrate is shown filled with liquid solder at time stamp 5:15; This is interpreted that the metal that makes the can has a higher melting point than the solder.);
and increasing the power such that the resistive heater provides sufficient heat to melt the fill metal (Timestamp 4:52 shows a switch being toggled from off to on which would increase the power sufficient enough to melt the fill metal.), the fill metal transitioning from a solid state to a liquid state during operation of the heater, while the metal substrate remains solid (Shown at timestamp 5:04-5:14; The can remains solid while the solder is in liquid form.),
wherein the fill metal transitions from a solid state to a liquid state during operation of the heater while the metal substrate remains solid (Shown at timestamp 5:04-5:14; The can remains solid while the solder is in liquid form.).
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) 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 1, in view of Dekervel et al (US 20220186386).
Regarding claim 4, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the resistive heater is a cable heater.
Nonetheless, Dekervel in the same field of endeavor being electric resistance heating, teaches wherein the resistive heater is a cable heater (Abstract ---" A method for creating an electric heating source, including a body equipped with one or more housings containing mineral-insulated heating cables.”).
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 metal heater of VN by incorporating the heating cable as taught by Dekervel for the benefit of providing a more uniform temperature and a shorter response time to heating or cooling.
Regarding claim 8, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein further comprising a plurality of grooves and a corresponding plurality of resistive heaters disposed within the plurality of grooves.
Nonetheless, Dekervel teaches further comprising a plurality of grooves (Fig. 4 #190 housings) and a corresponding plurality of resistive heaters (Fig. 4 #191-192 heating elements) disposed within the plurality of grooves (Fig. 4 #190 housings).
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 metal heater of VN by incorporating the plurality of grooves and a corresponding plurality of resistive heaters as taught by Dekervel for the benefit of providing a more uniform temperature and a shorter response time to heating.
Regarding claim 9, VN teaches the metal heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the groove defines an arcuate-shaped interior profile.
Nonetheless, DEKERVEL teaches wherein the groove (Fig. 4 #190 housings) defines an arcuate-shaped interior profile (The housings appear to be round to fit the round profile of the heating elements.).
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 metal heater of VN by incorporating the groove defines an arcuate-shaped interior profile as taught by Dekervel for the benefit of supporting a circular workpiece.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 1, in view of WEBB et al (US 2020/0136283).
Regarding claim 6, VN teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the fill metal is indium.
Nonetheless, WEBB in the same field of endeavor being electric resistance heating, teaches wherein the fill metal is indium ([0084] lines 2-3 ---"The solder compound may comprise one or more of silver, tin, bismuth, indium and copper.”).
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 heater of VN by incorporating the indium fill metal as taught by WEBB for the benefit of having a filler material that is lead free.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) in view of WEBB et al (US 2020/0136283) as applied to claim 6, further in view of DEKERVEL et al (US 2022/0126386).
Regarding claim 7, VN in view of Webb teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), but does not teach further comprising a cover plate secured to the metal substrate and disposed over the fill metal.
Nonetheless, DEKERVEL teaches further comprising a cover plate (Fig. 4 #112 counter-plate) secured to the metal substrate (Fig. 4 #111a support surface) and disposed over the fill metal (Fig. 5 #82 solder).
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 heater of VN in view of WEBB by incorporating the cover as taught by WEBB for the benefit of protecting the fill metal and heating element from environmental damage or contaminants.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 1, in view of White et al (US 2007/0090516).
Regarding claim 10, VN teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further comprising a plurality of resistive heaters disposed within a single groove.
Nonetheless, White teaches further comprising a plurality of resistive heaters (Fig. 2 #224 plurality of conductive elements) disposed within a single groove.
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 heater of VN by incorporating the plurality if resistive heaters as taught by White for the benefit of continuing to produce heat in the event that one or more of the plurality of heating elements fails.
Regarding claim 11, VN in view of White teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10), but does not teach further comprising at least one spacer disposed between adjacent resistive heaters of the plurality of resistive heaters.
Nonetheless, White teaches further comprising at least one spacer (Fig. 2 #222 dielectric) disposed between adjacent resistive heaters of the plurality of resistive heaters.
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 heater of VN in view of White by incorporating the spacer as taught by White for the benefit of electrically isolating the heating wires.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 1 in view of Kumazama et al (US 4,558,695).
Regarding claim 13, VN teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further comprising at least one additional groove filled by the fill metal, wherein the at least one additional groove does not contain a resistive heater.
However, Kumazama shows that it is possible to fill a groove that does not contain a heating element (Col. 4 lines 16-21 ---" Then, a third step is taken in which the flattened tube 6 is caused to pass through a bath of molten solder so that the flat surface of the tube having the grooves 26 therein is directed upwardly, with a result that a deposit of solder 34 as the brazing material stays in the grooves 26 without fail, as shown in FIGS. 8 and 9.”).
Nonetheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have at least one additional groove filled by the fill metal without having a resistive heater, since applicant has not disclosed that having at least one additional groove being substantially filled by the fill metal without having a resistive heater solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with having at least one additional groove substantially filled by the fill metal and having a resistive heater.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 1 in view of Olaru et al (US 2004/0258792).
Regarding claim 14, VN teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further comprising a plurality of layers of resistive heaters disposed within a corresponding plurality of grooves, wherein the fill metal is disposed over the plurality of resistive heaters and substantially fills the plurality of grooves.
However, Olaru shows that multiple heating elements may be disposed in a groove ([0047] ---"[0047] FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of manifold 1 with two heater elements 2 and 3 stacked in manifold groove 5, according to one embodiment of the present invention. First heating element 2 is stacked on top of second heating element 3 in manifold groove 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a plurality of heating elements within a groove, since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 V. B.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ChannelCreativeVN et al (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV_5tLEbiVo) as applied to claim 20, in view of WEBB et al (US 2020/0136283).
Regarding claim 21, VN teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), but does not teach wherein the fill metal is indium.
Nonetheless, WEBB teaches wherein the fill metal is indium ([0084] lines 2-3 ---"The solder compound may comprise one or more of silver, tin, bismuth, indium and copper.”).
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 heater of VN by incorporating the indium fill metal as taught by WEBB for the benefit of having a filler material that is lead free.
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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761