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 Status
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 12 has been newly added.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending and examined as follows:
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application DE10 2021 113 148.0, however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (m)(2).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the several carriers of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 control device in claim 9.
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. The written specification defines the control device as a printed circuit board 30 (paragraph 0031, lines 9-11).
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the PTC element" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim limitation “at least one PTC element” in lines 2-3 refers to an open ended range of elements and it is unclear which element “the PTC element” of that range is being referred to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the PTC heating devices" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim limitation “a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) heating device” in lines 2-3 which refers to a single device and it is unclear which element “the PTC heating devices” refers to.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-8,11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giffels et al (US 2014/0050466).
With regards to claim 1, Giffels et al discloses an electric heating apparatus (electric heating device, Title) comprising a PTC heating device comprising at least one PTC element and electric conductor tracks which are connected to the PTC element in an electrically conductive manner (heating resistors can be a ceramic PTC element held in a frame 5 which are fastened to a contact plate 7, paragraph 0024, lines 1-8, Fig. 4); a housing which receives the heating device and on which inlet and outlet openings for a fluid to be heated are exposed (tube housing 1 which receives the PTC element through cavity 4 and the housing 1 has openings 3 which are an inlet and outlet, Fig. 1); and a helically-shaped tube which is provided in the housing, which connects the inlet opening to the outlet opening, and which is coupled to the heating device in a thermally conductive manner (screw 2 provided in housing 1, which connects the openings 3 and is thermally coupled to the PTC elements through cavity 4, Fig. 1-3); wherein the helically-shaped tube has turns formed therein which collectively form a helix (screw 2 is helically shaped, Fig. 1-3); wherein the PTC heating device projects radially inward and between adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube (the heating resistors 6 can be electrically contacted on one side via the screw 2 and on the other side by a contact plate 7 and inserted through interior 4 and extend inward and between turns of screw, Fig. 3,4).
With regards to claim 3, Giffels et al discloses wherein at least one PTC element is coupled to adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube in a thermally conductive manner (PTC element has heating resistors 6 that are adjacent to the screw 2 and its turns when it is inserted in cavity 4, Fig. 1-3).
With regards to claim 4, Giffels et al discloses wherein an electrical insulation is provided on an inner circumferential surface of the helically-shaped tube, and wherein the PTC element is provided opposite the insulation on an outer circumference of the helically-shaped tube (the rear face of the contact plate 7 facing away from the heating resistors 6 is electrically insulated with respect to the screw 2 by an insulation layer, paragraph 0024, lines 4-6).
With regards to claim 5, Giffels et al discloses a carrier from which several heating devices project at locations between adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube (frame 5 carries heating resistors 6 at various locations adjacent to turns of the screw 2 while being held in cavity 4, Fig. 3,4).
With regards to claim 6, Giffels et al discloses wherein the carrier carries several heating devices provided one above the other in an axial direction of the helically-shaped tube (frame 5 carries heating resistors 6 at various locations adjacent to turns of the screw 2 in an axial direction while being held in cavity 4, Fig. 3,4).
With regards to claim 7, Giffels et al discloses wherein several carriers are provided and are distributed in a circumferential direction of the helically-shaped tube (frame 5 carries heating resistors 6 at various locations adjacent to turns of the screw 2 in a circumferential direction while being held in cavity 4, Fig. 3,4).
With regards to claim 8, Giffels et al discloses wherein the carrier accommodates a conductor assembly which is connected in an electrically conductively manner to the heating devices held by the carrier (frame 5 has contact plates 7 which connect to an electric source, Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 11, Giffels et al discloses wherein the heating device is provided subject to a pretension between adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube (screw 2 will have its own pitch and tension, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 12, Giffels et al discloses wherein the PTC heating device abuts against the helically shaped tube (screw 2 has a cavity 4 in which the heating resistor are arranged, paragraph 0023, lines 102).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giffels et al as applied to claim 1, in view of Obst et al (US 9,167,629).
With regards to claim 9, Giffels et al does not disclose a control device which controls the heat output of the electric heating apparatus, which is provided within the housing, and which is electrically connected to the conductor assembly.
Obst et al teaches a control device which controls the heat output of the electric heating apparatus, which is provided within the housing, and which is electrically connected to the conductor assembly (a control circuit accommodated in the electronics housing 36 is embedded such that between the outer body 18 and the heating element 20, paragraph 0068, lines 1-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Giffels et al and Obst et al before him or her, to modify the electric components of Giffels et al to include the control circuit of Obst et al because the combination allows for increased controllability of a heating device.
With regards to claim 10, Obst et al teaches wherein the control device comprises at least one power switch which generates waste heat and which is connected to the helically-shaped tube in a thermally conductively manner (a current measurement can then also take place with a suitable design via a switching or regulating element which controls the respective heating circuit, paragraph 0063, lines 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach amended features of claim 1 including “wherein the PTC heating device projects radially inward and between adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube”. Giffels et al discloses an electric heating apparatus (electric heating device, Title) wherein the PTC heating device projects radially inward and between adjacent turns of the helically-shaped tube (the heating resistors 6 can be electrically contacted on one side via the screw 2 and on the other side by a contact plate 7 and inserted through cavity 4 and extend inward and between turns of screw, Fig. 3,4). The cavity 4 is integrated with the screw 2 therefore parts of the heating resistor 6 contacts the screw 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761