DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/30/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 21, 22, and 23 have been amended; and no claims have been cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-23 are presently pending in this application.
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 § 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 1-13 and 15-23 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 “flow along opposing sides of the header via the at least one opening proximate the inlet and allow the second portion to rejoin the first portion via the at least one opening proximate the outlet before flowing past the heater” is unclear how the joining of the first and second portions at “the at least one opening proximate the outlet before flowing the past heater” when the heater is situated in between the respective openings at the inlets and outlets. Appropriate correction is required. Furthermore, independent claims 21-23 have been amended to include the same limitations, and as such, the comments presented over claim 1 are equally applicable toward these remaining independent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rave et al. (WO 2021083947) in view of Grenader (WO 2021240495).
With regard to claims 1, 21 and 23, Rave describes a flow-through heater (10) (FIG. 1, 2) assembly comprising: a housing (11) comprising an inlet (21), an outlet (14), and a bore (17) extending between the inlet (21) and the outlet (14); and a heater (23) disposed within the housing (11) and extending between the inlet (21) and the outlet (14), the heater comprising at least one opening (or a distal end portion) proximate the inlet (opening at 23b) and at least one opening (or another distal end portion) proximate the outlet (opening at 23a), the heater (23) further defining an anfractuous path from the inlet (21) to the outlet (14), wherein the openings in the heater are in fluid communication with the bore of the housing (11) (“The three-dimensional matrix is provided as a lattice having a repeating unit cell extending in three directions.”, Abstract; “The objectives are achieved by a heating element comprising: a main body, the main body being a three-dimensional matrix having an open structure defining openings, voids and/or pores extending through the main body. The three-dimensional matrix is provided as a lattice having a repeating unit cell to define at least part of the main body. The main body comprises at least two unit cells positioned adjacent to each other in a first direction, at least two unit cells positioned adjacent to each other in a second direction, and at least two unit cells positioned adjacent to each other in a third direction. The first, second, and third directions are arranged at an angle to each other. Such a configuration maximises the surface area-to-volume ratio of the heating element and in turn enhanced thermal energy transfer. The 3 -dimensional latticework matrix has a regular structure. Accordingly, irregular structures such as foam or non-woven mesh are not 3-dimensional latticework matrixes. The unit cells of the lattice of the 3 -dimensional matrix are accordingly arranged regularly in the main body. The unit cells of the lattice of the 3-dimensional matrix may be arranged symmetrically in the main body. In the lattice of the main body, each of the first, second, and third directions defining the adjacent positions of the unit cells, extend at the same angle to each other. That is, the angle between the first and second directions equals the angel between the second and third directions and the angel between the first and third directions.”, pg. 3, ln. 15-32).
Rave does not teach the heater is configured to divide a fluid through the inlet into a first portion and a second portion to flow along opposing sides of the heater via the at least one opening proximate the inlet and allow the second portion to rejoin the first portion via the at least one opening proximate the outlet before flowing past the heater; however, Grenader teaches the aforementioned limitations at FIG. III in which a sinusoidal heating element is structurally configured as claimed and as detailed hereafter in the illustrated FIGURE:
PNG
media_image1.png
571
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Rave reference, such that the heater is configured to divide a fluid through the inlet into a first portion and a second portion to flow along opposing sides of the heater via the at least one opening proximate the inlet and allow the second portion to rejoin the first portion via the at least one opening proximate the outlet before flowing past the heater, as suggested and taught by Grenader, for the purpose of providing enhanced heating by providing targeted heating of specific fluid flows.
With regard to claim 12, Rave teaches the invention as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the housing comprises internal grooves configured to receive the heater, the internal grooves following the anfractuous path of the heater. However, Grenader teaches the aforementioned limitation of “a heating spiral made of a round resistive conductor is coated with insulating material and placed in a groove between two cylindrical pipes of the heater housing”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Rave reference, to include the housing comprises internal grooves configured to receive the heater, the internal grooves following the anfractuous path of the heater, as suggested and taught by Grendader, for the purpose of providing a securement function of the heating element.
Claims 2, 3, 6-11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rave et al. (WO 2021083947) and Grenader (WO 2021240495) as detailed above, and further in view of Peng (CN 203687153).
With regard to claims 2 and 22, Rave teaches the invention as detailed above, and regarding the limitation of the housing comprises two pieces, the instant patent application teaches upper and lower body halves (40/42). It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to adapt the housing (11) of Rave to have upper and lower body halves as such an adaptation is an obvious modification of MAKING SEPERABLE (see MPEP 2144 .V.C – Making Separable) for the purpose of providing ease of access to the heater situated therein for repair and/or cleaning. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Peng which is related to the same problem to be solved regarding heating is cited herein for its teachings related to a heater housing comprising two pieces: FIG. 5 illustrates two pieces (2) connected by a securing mechanism (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Rave reference, such that the housing comprises two pieces, as suggested and taught by Peng, for the purpose of providing access to the interior of the heater.
With regard to claim 3, Peng teaches the two pieces comprise an upper body half and a lower body half (FIG. 5 of Peng illustrates two pieces whose teachings are applied herein toward Rave to adapt Rave such that the heater body is separable (via a fastener mechanism) into upper and lower portions), each of the upper body half and the lower body half comprising adjacent perimeter edges following the anfractuous path (an interlayer heater is provided within the two pieces (2) and accordingly the perimeter of the structure follows the heater path).
With regard to claim 6, regarding the upper body half and the lower body half (FIG. 5 of Peng illustrates two pieces whose teachings are applied herein toward Rave to adapt Rave such that the heater body is separable (via a fastener mechanism) into upper and lower portions as detailed above) are secured together with mechanical fasteners (5).
With regard to claim 7, Peng teaches the mechanical fasteners extend through the heater (the heater is situated within an interlayer and the hinge is secured with a securement mechanism such as a screw which will necessarily intersect within the body/interlayer of the subject device).
With regard to claim 8, regarding the limitation of each of the upper body half and the lower body half (FIG. 5 of Peng illustrates two pieces whose teachings are applied herein toward Rave to adapt Rave such that the heater body is separable (via a fastener mechanism) into upper and lower portions as detailed above) and the adapted upper portion of Rave includes the inlet 11 and the adapted lower portion of Rave includes the outlet 14.
With regard to claim 9, Peng teaches the upper body half and the lower body half are identical in shape (FIG. 5 illustrates identical shapes).
With regard to claim 10, Rave teaches the heater further comprises integral termination pads (“terminals”: “open structure matrix may comprise ‘ terminals' at opposite ends of the latticework structure, with such terminals enabling connection of the latticework structure to suitable electrical connections/conduits for the application of a voltage to the heating element.”).
With regard to claim 11, with regard to the limitation of the integral termination pads extend laterally from a mid-section of the heater and through a sidewall of the housing, it is submitted that because this limitation is identified in the instant written description as being non-critical to the instant invention (i.e., “The termination pads 70 in this form are integral with the mid-section 72 of the heater 38. However, it should be understood that the termination pads 70 may be a separate component rather than integral, and/or may exit the housing 22 at a different location besides the mid-section 72 of the heater 30 while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure.”, para. [0032] written description of instant patent application) and as Rave teaches termination pads 30a/30b, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention made to adapt the location of termination pads 30a/30b to the as-claimed location as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious rearrangement of parts to achieve lower costs/more efficient design since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. (see MPEP 2144.VI.C).
With regard to claim 15, Rave teaches the heater comprises a variable watt density (“the present heating element is suitable for use with a variety of different energy receiving phases including a variety of fluids, such as gases or liquids, and solid bodies.”).
With regard to claim 16, Rave teaches the heater comprises a material having a sufficient TCR such that the heater functions as a heater and a temperature sensor (“Such electrically conducting material may be selected from the group of: iron-chromium- aluminium alloy, nickel -chromium alloy, copper-nickel based alloy, iron-nickel-chromium alloy, nickel-iron-chromium-aluminium alloy, ceramic material, and intermetallic material.”; the Examiner is taking official notice that common materials for TC heaters include nickel-chromium (NiCr) alloys).
With regard to claim 19, Rave teaches the heater is selected from the group consisting of a polyimide heater, a layered heater, a heat trace heater, a tubular heater, a cartridge heater, and a cable heater (“the present open structure latticework provides a desired stiffness and/or flexural strength relative to a secondary body particularly when formed as a relatively thin wire, strip, filament or tubular type body or element that may have a tendency to deform over time.”).
With regard to claim 20, the limitation of the flow-through heater assembly is formed by an additive manufacturing process is provided limited patentable weight as the claim is directed toward an assembly, and as such, the process of forming structure is not provided patentable weight.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rave et al. (WO 2021083947) and Grenader (WO 2021240495) as detailed above, and further in view of Brewtnall (GB 144569).
With regard to claim 13, Rave teaches the invention as claimed; however, the citations do not teach the anfractuous path defines a sine-wave shape. However, Brewtnall teaches a sine-wave shaped path (see corrugations 6 in FIG. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Rave reference, to include the anfractuous path defines a sine-wave shape, as suggested and taught by Brewtnall, for the purpose of providing an additional amount of a heating surface to provide additional heating of a fluid flow there-through.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rave et al. (WO 2021083947) and Grenader (WO 2021240495) as detailed above, and further in view of Colhour et al. (US 2018/0235028)
With regard to claim 17, Rave teaches the invention as claimed; however, Rave does not teach at least one temperature sensor disposed within the housing. However, Colhour from the same field of endeavor directed toward a resistive heater with temperature sensing power pins and auxiliary sensing junction teaches the aforementioned limitation: “primary sensing junction 416”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Rave reference, to include at least one temperature sensor disposed within the housing, as suggested and taught by Colhour, for the purpose of providing a sensed temperature at a predetermined location.
With regard to claim 18, Colhour teaches the temperature sensor (416) comprises a ribbon extending along a surface of the heater with a junction disposed at a predetermined location (“the controller is configured to switch between a heating mode for directing power to the resistive heating element and a measuring mode for measuring changes in voltage at the primary sensing junction 416 to determine the temperature at the reference area“, para. [0087]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and additionally, assuming the above definiteness rejections were overcome.
With regard to the above claims, at least the limitation(s): of each of the adjacent perimeter edges comprise a circuitous groove and the flow-through heater further comprises an upper o-ring disposed within the circuitous groove of the upper body half and a lower o-ring disposed within the circuitous groove of the lower body half (cl. 4 with cl. 5 allowable for at least the reason of its dependency from cl. 4); each of the upper body half and the lower body half comprising adjacent perimeter edges having a circuitous groove; an upper o-ring disposed within the circuitous groove of the upper body half, a lower o-ring disposed within the circuitous groove of the lower body half, and a heater disposed within the two-piece housing and extending between the inlet and the outlet against each of the upper o-ring and the lower o-ring, the heater comprising at least one opening proximate the inlet and at least one opening proximate the outlet, the heater further defining an anfractuous path from the inlet to the outlet, (cl. 22), is not taught by the cited art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/26 have been fully considered and are addressed hereafter. The subject prior art rejections are newly presented herein in view of the newly presented claim amendments.
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights