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 12/23/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-23 are presently pending in this application.
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, 8-10, 12-15, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 4,505,107) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a heating system for heating of a fluid, said heating system comprising:
- a supply connection in fluid communication with a supply of fluid to be heated (Shown in the figure below);
- a structured body (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor) arranged for heating of said fluid during use of the heating system,
- at least one inlet port (Shown in the figure below) through which the fluid to be heated can flow from the supply connection and into the at least one channel,
- at least one outlet port (Shown in the figure below) through which heated fluid can flow out of the at least one channel,
and - at least two conductors (Fig. 1 #19 lead wires) configured to electrically connect the structured body to at least one electrical power supply (Fig. 1 #17 common power source), wherein the at least two conductors (Fig. 1 #19 lead wires) are electrically connected to the structured body at a first end and at a second end (Shown in the figure below), respectively, of an electrically conductive path within the structured body (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor), wherein the structured body (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor) is configured to direct an electrical current to run along the conductive path from the first end to the second end thereof,
and wherein said electrical power supply (Fig. 1 #17 common power source) is configured to be used to heat at least part of said structured body to a temperature of below 400°C by passing an electrical current through said structured body during use of the heating system (The power supply is capable of being power on then powered off before the heating element reaches 400°C.), wherein the heating system is based on electric resistance heating (The structured body is a ceramic heating resistor which is indicative of electric resistance heating.).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yamaguchi does not disclose said structured body is built-up of two or more macroscopic structures of electrically conductive material wherein the two or more macroscopic structures are mutually joined together by an electrically conducting connection, wherein at least one of the macroscopic structures comprising at least one channel through which the fluid can flow.
Nonetheless, Ferguson who is in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches said structured body (Fig. 5B) is built-up of two or more macroscopic structures (Fig. 5B #502 cermet heating layers) of electrically conductive material wherein the two or more macroscopic structures are mutually joined together by an electrically conducting connection (Fig. 5B #520 conductive metallic contact plates), wherein each of the two macroscopic structures comprises at least one channel (Fig. 5B #508 microchannels) through which the fluid can flow before the macroscopic structures are joined (Examiner considers the limitation “before the macroscopic structures are joined” 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).
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 system of Yamaguchi by replacing the structured body of Yamaguchi with the structured body as taught by Ferguson for the benefit of rapid thermal response and higher operating temperatures. ([0038] of Ferguson)
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure (Examiner considers the limitation “the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure” 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; Col. 2 lines 61-63 ---"The ceramic heating resistor 14, which is formed by normal extrusion of e.g. SiC or MoSi.sub.2, has the form of a lattice to provide satisfactory exhaust gas passages.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure is manufactured by a method comprising the following steps: - preparing a paste by mixing at least: - a powder comprising metal, - a binder in an amount of 2 to 8 weight% of the paste, - liquid, such as water, in an amount of 5 to 25 weight% of the paste, - transferring the paste to an extruder, - extruding the paste into a green body by using an extrusion pressure (P) of more than 50 bar, - drying the green body, and - sintering or oxidizing the dried green body to bond the powder together and thereby form the macroscopic structure (Examiner considers the limitation “the macroscopic structure is manufactured by a method comprising the following steps…” 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).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor) comprises a plurality of longitudinally extending channels (Fig. 1 shows the Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor to have channels.).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor) is made from a non-corrosive material or is provided with a coating, such as a coating of non-corrosive material, at least on surfaces being in contact with the fluid during use of the heating system.
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the connections between the at least two conductors and the structured body are established by sintering (Examiner considers the limitation “the connections between the at least two conductors and the structured body are established by sintering” 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).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure wherein the macroscopic structures have been joined by sintering (Examiner considers the limitation “the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure wherein the macroscopic structures have been joined by sintering” 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; Col. 2 lines 61-63 ---"The ceramic heating resistor 14, which is formed by normal extrusion of e.g. SiC or MoSi.sub.2, has the form of a lattice to provide satisfactory exhaust gas passages.”).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the first end and the second end of the electrically conductive path to which the at least two conductors are electrically connected are located at an end of the structured body comprising the inlet port (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 13), and Yamaguchi teaches and - the structured body comprises electrically insulating regions (Fig. 4 #20 ceramic insulator) so that the conductive path runs in a meandering manner between the first end and the second end of the conductive path.
However, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson does not teach wherein: - the conductors are arranged at opposite sides of the heating system and both extend in the same direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the structured body.
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 the conductors arranged at opposite sides of the heating system and both extending in the same direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the structured body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C. (Evidence of this configuration is taught by Schlipf et al (US 2011/0280554) and shown in the figure below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
539
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches further comprising an outer housing (Fig. 1 #11 barrel-shaped casing) enclosing at least a part of the structured body and forming a fluid tight enclosure extending from the inlet port to the outlet port.
Regarding claim 21, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the arrangement of the structured body and an arrangement of the at least two conductors are configured so that the orientations of the electrically conductive path and of the flow of fluid to be heated are substantially parallel during use of the heating system.
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 the arrangement of the structured body and an arrangement of the at least two conductors being configured so that the orientations of the electrically conductive path and of the flow of fluid to be heated are substantially parallel during use of the heating system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C. (Evidence of this configuration is taught by Schlipf et al (US 2011/0280554) and shown in the figure below.)
Regarding claim 22, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the first end and the second end of the electrically conductive path to which the at least two conductors (Fig. 1 #19 lead wires) are electrically connected are located at opposite ends of the structured body Shown in Fig. 1.).
Regarding claim 23, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the arrangement of the structured body (Fig. 1 #14 ceramic heating resistor) and an arrangement of the at least two conductors (Fig. 1 #19 lead wires) are configured to provide heating of the whole volume of the macroscopic structure during use of the heating system.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 4,505,107) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bikovsky et al (US 2003/0230565).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity in a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port.
Nonetheless, Bikovsky who is in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity in a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port (Abstract ---" The first and second adjacent elements are accommodated in spaced-apart planes, are electrically insulated from each other, and have different resistance and different surface areas as compared to each other.”).
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 system of Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson by incorporating the varied resistivity as taught by Bikovsky for the benefit of providing uniform heat transfer. ([0018] of Bikovsky)
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the varying electric resistivity has been obtained by a method of manufacturing comprising the following steps: - preparing a plurality of pastes comprising: - at least a first paste having a first composition, and - at least a second paste having a second composition, - transferring the plurality of pastes into a supply chamber of a processing equipment, - shaping a green body from the plurality of pastes by forcing the pastes from the supply chamber through a die of the processing equipment, and - sintering or oxidizing the green body to obtain the macroscopic structure having a varying electric resistivity along a longitudinal direction of the macroscopic structure, the longitudinal direction corresponding to the direction of movement of the pastes through the die, and the varying electric resistivity resulting from the first composition being different from the second composition (Examiner considers the limitation “the varying electric resistivity has been obtained by a method of manufacturing comprising the following steps…” 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).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein: - the first paste comprises metal powder with a first alloy composition, ceramic powder, and a first binder, - the second paste comprises metal powder with a second alloy composition and a second binder, and wherein the first alloy composition and the second alloy composition both consist of at least one chemical element, and wherein the chemical elements are chosen so that, for each of the chemical elements being present in an amount higher than 0.5 weight% in each of the alloy compositions, that chemical element is comprised both in the first and second alloy composition, and - for the chemical elements being present in the first alloy composition in amounts of up to 5.0 weight%, the amount of that chemical element differs by at most 1 percentage point between the first and second alloy compositions, and - for the chemical elements being present in the first alloy composition in amounts of more than 5.0 weight%, the amount of that chemical element differs by at most 3 percentage point between the first and second alloy compositions (Examiner considers the limitations of claim 7 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 4,505,107) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim , further in view of Kralik et al (US 5,434,388).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity transverse to a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port.
Nonetheless, Kralik who is in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity transverse to a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port (Col. 6 lines 19-27 ---" FIG. 8 is a circuit diagram of a construction in which the heating element 10 is subdivided into two interconnected portions 17a, 17b. They are made from resistance materials having a different temperature characteristic of the resistor. They can both have a positive or negative behaviour of the resistance coefficient (PTC or NTC), these then having varying levels, or it is possible to have a combination of PTC and NTC, or use a substantially temperature-neutral material.” and Col. 6 lines 35 -41 ---" On heating the two resistance values vary in such a way that with a corresponding opposite winding of the parts of the trip coil associated with the portions 17a and 17b there is a powerful disconnection pulse, which does not occur in a lower temperature range due to the opposing action of the two excitation coil halves.”).
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 system of Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson by incorporating the varied resistivity as taught by Kralik for the benefit of providing protection against excessive temperatures. (Col. 6 lines 41-45 of Kralik)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 4,505,107) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Bikovsky et al (US 2003/0230565).
Regarding claim 20, Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Yamaguchi teaches wherein the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure (Examiner considers the limitation “the macroscopic structure is a sintered or oxidized powder metallurgical structure” 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 and Col. 3 lines 27-29 ---" The ceramic heating resistor 14 may alternatively be formed from a mixture of TiC and Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 as an effective material.”).
However, Yamaguchi does not teach wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity in a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port.
Nonetheless, Bikovsky who is in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches wherein the macroscopic structure has a varying electric resistivity in a direction extending from the inlet port to the outlet port (Abstract ---" The first and second adjacent elements are accommodated in spaced-apart planes, are electrically insulated from each other, and have different resistance and different surface areas as compared to each other.”).
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 system of Yamaguchi in view of Ferguson by incorporating the varied resistivity as taught by Bikovsky for the benefit of providing uniform heat transfer. ([0018] of Bikovsky).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aske et al (US 1,484,616) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534).
Regarding claim 1, Aske discloses a heating system for heating of a fluid, said heating system comprising:
- a supply connection (Fig. 1 #9 left pipeline) in fluid communication with a supply of fluid to be heated;
- a structured body (Fig. 5 heating element) arranged for heating of said fluid during use of the heating system,
- at least one inlet port (opening in Fig. 1 #9 left pipe) through which the fluid to be heated can flow from the supply connection and into the at least one channel,
- at least one outlet port (opening in Fig. 1 #9 right pipe) through which heated fluid can flow out of the at least one channel, and
- at least two conductors (Fig. 6 #s 7-8 lead wires) configured to electrically connect the structured body to at least one electrical power supply (Page 1 lines 70-78 ---“…a battery.”),
wherein the at least two conductors (Fig. 6 #s 7-8 lead wires) are electrically connected to the structured body (Fig. 5 heating element) at a first end and at a second end, respectively, of an electrically conductive path within the structured body (Fig. 5 heating element), wherein the structured body (Fig. 5 heating element) is configured to direct an electrical current to run along the conductive path from the first end to the second end thereof (The lead wires are connected to a battery and the heating element. It is understood that current will flow between both lead wires through the heating element.),
and wherein said electrical power supply is configured to be used to heat at least part of said structured body to a temperature of below 400°C by passing an electrical current through said structured body during use of the heating system (The battery is capable of being connected then disconnected before the heating element reaches 400°C., wherein the heating system is based on electric resistance heating (The lead wires connected to a battery and the heating element suggests resistance heating.).
However, Aske does not disclose said structured body is built-up of two or more macroscopic structures of electrically conductive material wherein the two or more macroscopic structures are mutually joined together by an electrically conducting connection, wherein at least one of the macroscopic structures comprising at least one channel through which the fluid can flow.
Nonetheless, Ferguson who is in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches said structured body (Fig. 5B) is built-up of two or more macroscopic structures (Fig. 5B #502 cermet heating layers) of electrically conductive material wherein the two or more macroscopic structures are mutually joined together by an electrically conducting connection (Fig. 5B #520 conductive metallic contact plates), wherein at least one of the macroscopic structures comprising at least one channel (Fig. 5B #508 microchannels) through which the fluid can flow.
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 system of Yamaguchi by replacing the structured body of Aske with the structured body as taught by Ferguson for the benefit of rapid thermal response and higher operating temperatures. ([0038] of Ferguson)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aske et al (US 1,484,616) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534).
Regarding claim 16, Aske discloses a method of heating a fluid to a temperature of below 400°C, the method comprising:
connecting the at least two conductors (Fig. 6 #s 7-8 lead wires) to the at least one power supply (Page 2 lines 70-78 ---“…a battery.”);
switching on the at least one power supply (Page 2 lines 70-78 ---“…a battery.” Switching on the power supply is considered to be making a closed loop connection between the terminals of the battery through the heating element.);
and supplying fluid from the supply of fluid to be heated through the at least one inlet port and through the at least one channel of the macroscopic structure (Page 3 lines 7-12).
However, Aske does not disclose providing the heating system according to claim 1.
Nonetheless, Aske in view of Ferguson, both are in the same field of endeavor being resistive heating, teaches providing the heating system according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
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 method of Aske by incorporating the heating system as taught by Aske in view of Ferguson for the benefit having a heating device to heat a fluid.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aske et al (US 1,484,616) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim 16, in view of Yoon et al (US 2020/0378650).
Regarding claim 17, Aske in view of Ferguson teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the fluid is a liquid, which is heated to a temperature of below 1000C.
Nonetheless, Yoon in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches wherein the fluid is a liquid, which is heated to a temperature of below 1000C ([0082] ---" Also, when the boiling occurs in the flow stagnant section, it is impossible to generate hot water having a temperature of about 50° C. or more due to safety reasons.”).
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 method of Aske in view of Ferguson by incorporating the fluid as a liquid and the heating temperature as taught by Yoon for the benefit of generating hot water at a temperature to prevent safety concerns. ([0082] of Yoon)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aske et al (US 1,484,616) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim 16, in view of Harada et al (US 5,200,154).
Regarding claim 18, Aske in view of Ferguson teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the fluid is a gas that is heated to a temperature of between 200 and 400°C.
Nonetheless, Harada in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches wherein the fluid is a gas that is heated to a temperature of between 200 and 400°C (Col. 5 lines 44-49 ---" The performance of this system at the beginning of the operation of an engine was tested by introducing into this system an exhaust gas whose temperature was raised at a same rate from 100.degree. C. to 420.degree. C. for two minutes and was then maintained at 420.degree. C. for one minute (warming-up test) and by measuring the conversion for CO, HC and NOx.”).
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 method of Aske in view of Ferguson by incorporating the gas and heating temperature as taught by Harada for the benefit of removing waste materials from the gas.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aske et al (US 1,484,616) in view of Ferguson et al (US 2003/0209534) as applied to claim 16, in view of Salyer et al (US 2011/0083459).
Regarding claim 19, Aske in view of Ferguson teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach further comprising transferring the heated fluid from the at least one outlet port to a storage for storing the heated fluid as an energy reservoir.
Nonetheless, Salyer in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches further comprising transferring the heated fluid from the at least one outlet port to a storage (Fig. 3 #66 liquid to liquid heat exchanger) for storing the heated fluid as an energy reservoir.
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 method of Aske in view of Ferguson by incorporating the heat exchanger as taught by Salyer for the benefit of using excess heat to heat a source of water outside of the heat exchanger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach newly amended limitation “wherein each of the two macroscopic structures comprises at least one channel through which the fluid can flow before the macroscopic structures are joined.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The newly amended limitation is a product by process limitation. The result of the process is two macroscopic structures having at least one channel through which the fluid can flow. The cited prior art teaches two macroscopic structures having at least one channel through which the fluid can flow. The process through which the macroscopic structures are formed would not effect the performance of the heating system.
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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761