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
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 15-19 have been cancelled.
Claim 4 was previously cancelled.
Claims 8, 12-14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 21-30 have been added.
Claims 8, 12-14, and 20-30 are still pending in this application, with claims 8 and 14 being independent.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/27/2025 objections to claims 15, 16, and 20.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/27/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 9, 17, and 19.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/27/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-3 and 5-20.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/27/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 8, 14, and 20, and 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 12 and 13.
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 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 16:
the limitation “means of access” is being interpreted as a door or hatch, and equivalents thereof [p. 14: “The elements make possible an ortho generator design which comprises a door or hatch allowing access to the interior of the unit without disturbing the flow path or the tubing in and out of the shell.”].
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 8 “There may be shock resistant ceramic spacers positioned between the spirals 15 an 20 in the interface 25” should be “There may be shock resistant ceramic spacers positioned between the spirals 15 [[an]]and 20 in the interface 25”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “around the mid-point of the any of the…” in lines 3-4 should be “around the mid-point of ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show shock resistant ceramic spacers as described in the specification [p. 8: “There may be shock resistant ceramic spacers positioned between the spirals 15 an 20 in the interface 25.”]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 8, 12-13, 26-28 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 8:
the term “shock resistant” in lines 10-12 (“at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral”), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what levels of shock resistance are required to fall within the scope of the claim. For the purposes of this office action, since the written description does not clearly redefine the term, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as requiring that a ceramic spacer is positioned between the spirals, wherein the spacer is at least able to resist shocks corresponding to normal use.
the term “loosely” in claim lines 10-12 (“at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, since the drawings do not show the at least one shock resistance ceramic spacer and its loose/rigid connection to a corresponding structure (see fig. 1, showing interface 25 between initial spiral 15 and return spiral 20 wherein shock resistance ceramic spacers may be positioned (p. 8), and since the specification does not provide sufficient details (pp. 8-9: “The spacers may be kept loose or rigid (rigid spacers are generally not found in coil configurations but may be with twin reverse spiral configuration)”) describing any connection of the spacer, Examiner will interpret the claim as requiring any movement of the spacer relative to any portion of a spiral of the heating element.
Claim 12:
the limitation “multiple electrically charged elements” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis, and should be “multiple electrically charged heating elements”
Claim 13:
the limitation “the at least one multiple electrically charged heating element” in lines 3-4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
the limitation “a misalignment” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is to be distinct from the misalignment in claim 12, line 7.
Therefore, claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements is rotationally offset perpendicular to the fluid flow around [[the]]it’s mid-point 30° to 60° in comparison with the positioning of any other multiple electrically charged heating element ”
Claim 22:
the term “shock resistant” in lines 2-3 (“at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral”), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what levels of shock resistance are required to fall within the scope of the claim. For the purposes of this office action, since the written description does not clearly redefine the term, Examiner will interpret claim 22 as requiring that a ceramic spacer is positioned between the spirals, wherein the spacer is at least able to resist shocks corresponding to normal use.
the term “loosely” in claim lines 2-3 (“at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, since the drawings do not show the at least one shock resistance ceramic spacer and its loose/rigid connection to a corresponding structure (see fig. 1, showing interface 25 between initial spiral 15 and return spiral 20 wherein shock resistance ceramic spacers may be positioned (p. 8), and since the specification does not provide sufficient details (pp. 8-9: “The spacers may be kept loose or rigid (rigid spacers are generally not found in coil configurations but may be with twin reverse spiral configuration)”) describing any connection of the spacer, Examiner will interpret the claim as requiring any movement of the spacer relative to a spiral of the heating element.
Claim 24:
the limitation “the multiple electrically charged elements” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis, but will be interpreted as “the multiple electrically charged heating elements”
Claim 25:
the limitation “the at least one multiple electrically charged heating element” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 12-13 and 26-28 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 20-21, 23, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gammerler (US 10206424 B1).
Regarding claim 14,
Gammerler discloses:
A gas heater comprised of an array of multiple electrically charged heating elements [see fig. 1; col. 2, lines 13-16: “The heating coil is optionally a single ribbon coil or a double-back ribbon coil. Alternatively, the heating element is multiple coils configured as one above the other”], each of the multiple electrically charged heating elements being comprised of
an element material [i.e., ribbon coil] configured in a twin reversed spiral orientation
where the element material is comprised of elongated stock that is non-round in cross section [col. 9, lines 10-25: “Heating element 3 designs included a double back ribbon coil, as seen in FIG. 12. Resistance ribbon 86 was coiled into a spiral to a center, where reverse coil 87 results in the coil coiling back upon itself. This results in the two ends of the resistance ribbon 86 extending from the coil, forming first double back supply line 88a and second double back supply line 88b. The designs were formed to generate a temperature range of about 600° F. to about 1000° F. with between about 18 and about 22 Amps. Furthermore, the ribbon must retain sufficient energy such that an airstream resulting from use of a hookah does not result in the heating element dropping below 600° F. Accordingly, the resistance ribbon used has a thickness and width of 0.0285 inchesx0.1875 inches (0.72 mmx4.7 mm).”] and
wherein the element material is wound inwardly in an initial spiral in a single plane [i.e., the initial spiral starting at first double back supply line 88a] to a mid-point of each of the multiple electrically charged heating elements where the element material reverses course forming a spiral reversal [i.e., the ribbon 86 reverses course at reverse coil 87], comprising a radius between the initial spiral and a secondary spiral [i.e., see fig. 12, showing a spacing (or ‘a radius’, if correspondingly measured relative to the mid-point of the circular spiral) between the initial spiral of ribbon 86, and the return portion of ribbon 86 after reverse coil 87], and is then wound in the secondary spiral outwardly in an opposite direction and in the single plane of the initial spiral until the material reaches the outside of the initial spiral [i.e., the ribbon 86, after reversing course, terminates at second double back supply line 88b];
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements each comprises a flat configuration forming a flat oriented surface comprised of a pattern bent in the elongated stock [see figs. 1, 12]
wherein each of the multiple electrically charged heating elements are positioned so that the flat oriented surface is perpendicular to a fluid flow [see figs. 1, 12, and 13];
a housing [i.e., support structures], wherein the housing is comprised of
a body [figs. 1, 10, 13, 14: chimney 10],
an intake end cap [i.e., an upper opening of chimney 10, for allowing air to flow in] and
an exhaust end cap attached to the body [i.e., a lower opening of chimney 10, for allowing air to flow out]
wherein the body, the intake end cap and the exhaust end cap are configured to confine and cover the array [see fig. 1, 8, 10, showing support structures encasing and mounting the heating element, specifically a chimney 10 for removing heat (abstract) and brackets 61a, 61b, made of heat-resistance materials (i.e., refractory material), e.g., steel and ceramic; col. 3, lines 10-36; col. 9, lines 20-42: “…material capable of withstanding temperatures needed to vaporize the combustible material, such as glass, ceramic, or steel.”].
Regarding claim 20, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
Gammerler further teaches:
an exhaust line projecting out of the exhaust end of the gas heater [see fig. 13, showing a channel of pipe 125 as an exhaust line for smoke] wherein the exhaust line comprises
an outer liner [fig. 13: body 120],
an inner liner within the outer liner [i.e., an outer surface of pipe 125],
an exhaust line refractory surrounding and in contact with the inner liner [i.e., the material of the pipe, surrounding the channel and any hot smoke flowing therein]
whereby the exhaust line refractory delineates an air gap between the exhaust line refractory and the outer liner whereby the inner liner, the outer liner, the refractory and the air gap provide thermal insulation for the exhaust line [see fig. 13, showing an air gap between body 120 and channel 125, thereby providing thermal insulation to the touch of any users of the hookah].
Regarding claim 21, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
Gammerler further teaches:
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements further comprise a shorting link [fig. 1: heating coil connector 9] positioned in electrical contact between a first multiple electrically charged heating element and a second multiple electrically charged heating element providing an electrical communication between the first multiple electrically charged heating element and the second multiple electrically charged heating element [col. 6, lines 59-61: “The upper heating coil and lower heating coil are single ribbon coil designs, as seen in FIG. 3, electrically connected by heating coil connector 9.”].
Regarding claim 23, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
Gammerler further teaches:
the encasement of the multiple electrically charged heating elements with refractory material [see fig. 1, 8, 10, showing support structures encasing and mounting the heating element, specifically a chimney 10 for removing heat (abstract) and brackets 61a, 61b, made of heat-resistance materials (i.e., refractory material), e.g., steel and ceramic; col. 3, lines 10-36; col. 9, lines 20-42: “…material capable of withstanding temperatures needed to vaporize the combustible material, such as glass, ceramic, or steel.”].
Regarding claim 29, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
Gammerler further teaches:
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements are comprised of different materials individually or in groups.
In this case, since Gammerler discloses that the heating element may be formed of one or more heating coils (i.e., multiple heating elements), wherein the resistance wire forming each heating coil can be various alloys of nickel, aluminum, copper, manganese, iron, chromium, and silicon [i.e., different materials; col. 2, lines 1-10], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the material of individual heating elements, such that they are in groups, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., with regards to the desired heating response of the heating element.
Regarding claim 30, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
Gammerler further teaches:
wherein the multiple electrically heating elements are charged with varying power individually or in groups [i.e., the heating coil 5 (formed of one or more heating coils) receives power corresponding to voltage varying between 12V to 18V and current varying between 17A to 25A supplied from an electric source 50; col. 7, lines 57-61].
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.
Claims 8, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gammerler (US 10206424 B1) in view of Everly (US 20170273146 A1) and Schatz (US 20200386443 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
Gammerler discloses:
An array of multiple electrically charged heating elements [see fig. 1; col. 2, lines 13-16: “The heating coil is optionally a single ribbon coil or a double-back ribbon coil. Alternatively, the heating element is multiple coils configured as one above the other”], each of the multiple electrically charged heating elements being comprised of
an element material [i.e., ribbon coil] configured in a twin reversed spiral orientation [see fig. 12]
where the element material is comprised of elongated stock that is non-round in cross section [col. 9, lines 10-25: “Heating element 3 designs included a double back ribbon coil, as seen in FIG. 12. Resistance ribbon 86 was coiled into a spiral to a center, where reverse coil 87 results in the coil coiling back upon itself. This results in the two ends of the resistance ribbon 86 extending from the coil, forming first double back supply line 88a and second double back supply line 88b. The designs were formed to generate a temperature range of about 600° F. to about 1000° F. with between about 18 and about 22 Amps. Furthermore, the ribbon must retain sufficient energy such that an airstream resulting from use of a hookah does not result in the heating element dropping below 600° F. Accordingly, the resistance ribbon used has a thickness and width of 0.0285 inchesx0.1875 inches (0.72 mmx4.7 mm).”] and
wherein the element material is wound inwardly in an initial spiral in a single plane [i.e., the initial spiral starting at first double back supply line 88a] to a mid-point of each of the multiple electrically charged heating elements where the element material reverses course forming a spiral reversal [i.e., the ribbon 86 reverses course at reverse coil 87], comprising a radius between the initial spiral and a secondary spiral [i.e., see fig. 12, showing a spacing (or ‘a radius’, if correspondingly measured relative to the mid-point of the circular spiral) between the initial spiral of ribbon 86, and the return portion of ribbon 86 after reverse coil 87] and is then wound in the secondary spiral outwardly in an opposite direction and in the single plane of the initial spiral until the material reaches the outside of the initial spiral [i.e., the ribbon 86, after reversing course, terminates at second double back supply line 88b]
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements each comprise a flat configuration forming a flat oriented surface comprised of a pattern bent in the elongated stock [see figs. 1, 12];
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements are arranged in a stacked side-by-side configuration parallel to each other and positioned so that the flat oriented surface is perpendicular to a fluid flow [see figs. 1, 12, and 13] and
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements are encased in a refractory material [see fig. 1, 8, 10, showing support structures encasing and mounting the heating element, specifically a chimney 10 for removing heat (abstract) and brackets 61a, 61b, made of heat-resistance materials (i.e., refractory material), e.g., steel and ceramic ; col. 3, lines 10-36; col. 9, lines 20-42: “…material capable of withstanding temperatures needed to vaporize the combustible material, such as glass, ceramic, or steel.”].
However, Gammerler does not disclose:
at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral;
Everly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches placing at least one shock resistance ceramic spacer [figs. 1, 2: bushings 46; para. 0008: “Generally, the present disclosure provides a heater, heater system, and related methods, to heat a fluid flow ( e.g. a flow of diesel exhaust gas) that uses a resistive heating element that is directly exposed to the flow and that has a cross-section that is shaped to provide strength for applications including shock, vibration or high flow velocity…”; para. 0052: “In one form, the dielectric members 46/60 (which are ceramic) are actively brazed to the continuous resistive heating element 30.”] between segments of a heating element [para. 0049: “As further shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the dielectric members 46 in one form are bushings. The bushings 46 are disposed between the opposed segments 42, 44 and extend transversely therethrough.”].
However, although Everly teaches that other types of connections may be employed according to various design alternatives [para. 0052: “It should be understood, however, that other types of connections, such as mechanical fasteners or adhesive bonding, may be employed while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure. Such connections shall be understood to apply to the various design alternatives that follow as well.”], Everly does not explicitly disclose a connection type wherein the spacer is arranged so as to be loosely connected to the heating element.
Schatz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an alternative connection type wherein a spacer [figs. 1, 4, 5: stabilization rods 18] is loosely connected between heating elements [figs. 1, 4, 5: heating assembly 5; para. 0049: “Heating assembly 5 is formed from a plurality of lengthwise elongate jacket elements 6 assembled and held together to form a lengthwise elongate jacket block 7.”] such that the loose connection allows minimizing the effects of any differential thermal expansion [para. 0057: “According to the preferred specific implementation, each rod 18 comprises a metallic core surrounded by a refractory coating. Such an arrangement is advantageous to minimise any differential thermal expansion of the rods 18 and jacket block 7. Accordingly, the present electric heater via brackets 15 is configured to stabilise the heating assembly 5 at the external surface region 6a, 6b, 6e, 6h and also to provide stabilisation via internal contact of the jacket block 7 via rods 18.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the heating element of Gammerler by including at least one ceramic spacer placed between the spirals since Everly teaches that a ceramic spacers would provide requisite dielectric spacing between the spirals [para. 0048: “Each opposed segment 42, 44 is separated by dielectric members 46 in order to provide the requisite dielectric spacing therebetween.”], wherein the connection between the spacer and heating element is loose, since Schatz teaches this allows for minimizing any effects due to differential thermal expansion [para. 0057].
Regarding claim 22, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
However, Gammerler does not disclose:
wherein the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements are further comprised of at least one shock resistant ceramic spacer loosely positioned between the initial spiral and the secondary spiral of at least one multiple electrically charged heating element.
Everly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches placing at least one shock resistance ceramic spacer [figs. 1, 2: bushings 46; para. 0008: “Generally, the present disclosure provides a heater, heater system, and related methods, to heat a fluid flow ( e.g. a flow of diesel exhaust gas) that uses a resistive heating element that is directly exposed to the flow and that has a cross-section that is shaped to provide strength for applications including shock, vibration or high flow velocity…”; para. 0052: “In one form, the dielectric members 46/60 (which are ceramic) are actively brazed to the continuous resistive heating element 30.”] between segments of a heating element [para. 0049: “As further shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the dielectric members 46 in one form are bushings. The bushings 46 are disposed between the opposed segments 42, 44 and extend transversely therethrough.”].
However, although Everly teaches that other types of connections may be employed according to various design alternatives [para. 0052: “It should be understood, however, that other types of connections, such as mechanical fasteners or adhesive bonding, may be employed while remaining within the scope of the present disclosure. Such connections shall be understood to apply to the various design alternatives that follow as well.”], Everly does not explicitly disclose a connection type wherein the spacer is arranged so as to be loosely connected to the heating element.
Schatz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an alternative connection type wherein a spacer [figs. 1, 4, 5: stabilization rods 18] is loosely connected between heating elements [figs. 1, 4, 5: heating assembly 5; para. 0049: “Heating assembly 5 is formed from a plurality of lengthwise elongate jacket elements 6 assembled and held together to form a lengthwise elongate jacket block 7.”] such that the loose connection allows minimizing the effects of any differential thermal expansion [para. 0057: “According to the preferred specific implementation, each rod 18 comprises a metallic core surrounded by a refractory coating. Such an arrangement is advantageous to minimise any differential thermal expansion of the rods 18 and jacket block 7. Accordingly, the present electric heater via brackets 15 is configured to stabilise the heating assembly 5 at the external surface region 6a, 6b, 6e, 6h and also to provide stabilisation via internal contact of the jacket block 7 via rods 18.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the gas heater of Gammerler by including at least one ceramic spacer placed between the spirals since Everly teaches that a ceramic spacers would provide requisite dielectric spacing between the spirals [para. 0048: “Each opposed segment 42, 44 is separated by dielectric members 46 in order to provide the requisite dielectric spacing therebetween.”], wherein the connection between the spacer and heating element is loose, since Schatz teaches this allows for minimizing any effects due to differential thermal expansion [para. 0057].
Regarding claim 26, Gammerler in view of Everly and Schatz discloses the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of claim 8.
Gammerler further teaches:
a shorting link [fig. 1: heating coil connector 9] positioned in electrical contact between a first electrically charged heating element and a second electrically charged heating element [col. 6, lines 59-61: “The upper heating coil and lower heating coil are single ribbon coil designs, as seen in FIG. 3, electrically connected by heating coil connector 9.”].
Regarding claim 27, Gammerler in view of Everly and Schatz discloses the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of claim 8.
Gammerler further teaches:
wherein the multiple electrically charged heating elements are comprised of different materials individually or in groups.
In this case, since Gammerler discloses that the heating element may be formed of one or more heating coils (i.e., multiple heating elements), wherein the resistance wire forming each heating coil can be various alloys of nickel, aluminum, copper, manganese, iron, chromium, and silicon [i.e., different materials; col. 2, lines 1-10], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the material of individual heating elements, such that they are in groups, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., with regards to the desired heating response of the heating element.
Regarding claim 28, Gammerler in view of Everly and Schatz discloses the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of claim 8.
Gammerler further discloses:
wherein the multiple electrically heating elements are charged with varying power individually or in groups [i.e., the heating coil 5 (formed of one or more heating coils) receives power corresponding to voltage varying between 12V to 18V and current varying between 17A to 25A supplied from an electric source 50; col. 7, lines 57-61].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gammerler (US 10206424 B1) in view of Everly (US 20170273146 A1) and Schatz (US 20200386443 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Foote (US 20130284169 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gammerler in view of Everly and Schatz discloses the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of claim 8.
However Gammerler does not disclose:
wherein the multiple electrically charged elements are offset in relation to each other by rotating any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements perpendicular to the fluid flow around the mid-point of any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements at an angle different than any other multiple electrically charged heating element forming a misalignment of the spiral reversals of the multiple electrically charged heating elements thereby affecting the fluid flow.
Foote, in the same field of endeavor, teaches arranging adjacent sections of a heating element in an air path such that appropriate sections are offset from each other in direction perpendicular to the air path [see figs. 4, 5, showing sections of heating element 140 arranged at different angles from adjacent sections; para. 0179: “The "petals" or loops of the rosette are designed so that there are a multiple of them on each section or "flower" and the next flower has the petals offset or overlapping to the previous one…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of Gammerler by offsetting by rotating, perpendicular to the fluid flow, any of the elements at an angle different than at least one other of the elements, thereby forming a misalignment and affecting fluid flow, since Foote teaches that this results in complete coverage, thereby producing a more compact air heating coil [para. 0179: “The appropriate offset may be chosen so that there is complete coverage of the cross section of the annular area between the outer tube 126 and the air delivery conduit 116. The design produces a more compact air heating coil than prior art heating coils.”].
Regarding claim 13, Gammerler in view of Everly, Schatz, and Foote discloses the array of multiple electrically charged heating elements of claim 12.
Gammerler as modified by Foote, specifically Foote further discloses:
wherein any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements is rotationally offset perpendicular to the fluid flow around the mid-point of the at least one multiple electrically charged heating element between 30° to 60° in comparison with the positioning of any other multiple electrically charged heating element about the mid-point of any other multiple electrically charged heating element forming a misalignment of the spiral reversals of the multiple electrically charged heating elements and thereby affecting the fluid flow.
In this case, Foote teaches that the offset may be chosen, thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the rotational offset to be between 30° to 60°, since the applicant has not disclosed that an offset of 30° to 60° solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the offset chosen so that there is complete coverage as taught by Foote [para. 0179].
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gammerler (US 10206424 B1) in view Foote (US 20130284169 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
However Gammerler does not disclose:
wherein the multiple electrically charged elements are offset in relation to each other by rotating any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements perpendicular to the fluid flow around the mid-point of the any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements at an angle different than any other multiple electrically charged heating elements forming a misalignment of the spiral reversals of the multiple electrically charged heating elements and thereby affecting the fluid flow.
Foote, in the same field of endeavor, teaches arranging adjacent sections of a heating element in an air path such that appropriate sections are offset from each other in direction perpendicular to the air path [see figs. 4, 5, showing sections of heating element 140 arranged at different angles from adjacent sections; para. 0179: “The "petals" or loops of the rosette are designed so that there are a multiple of them on each section or "flower" and the next flower has the petals offset or overlapping to the previous one…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the gas heater of Gammerler by offsetting by rotating, perpendicular to the fluid flow, any of the elements at an angle different than at least one other of the elements, thereby forming a misalignment and affecting fluid flow, since Foote teaches that this results in complete coverage, thereby producing a more compact air heating coil [para. 0179: “The appropriate offset may be chosen so that there is complete coverage of the cross section of the annular area between the outer tube 126 and the air delivery conduit 116. The design produces a more compact air heating coil than prior art heating coils.”].
Regarding claim 25, Gammerler teaches the gas heater of claim 14.
However Gammerler does not disclose:
wherein any of the multiple electrically charged heating elements are rotationally offset perpendicular to the fluid flow around the mid-point of the at least one multiple electrically charged heating element between 30° to 60° in comparison with the positioning of any other multiple electrically charged heating element about the mid-point of any other multiple electrically charged heating element forming a misalignment of the spiral reversals of the multiple electrically charged heating elements and thereby affecting the fluid flow.
Foote, in the same field of endeavor, teaches arranging adjacent sections of a heating element in an air path such that appropriate sections are offset from each other in direction perpendicular to the air path [see figs. 4, 5, showing sections of heating element 140 arranged at different angles from adjacent sections; para. 0179: “The "petals" or loops of the rosette are designed so that there are a multiple of them on each section or "flower" and the next flower has the petals offset or overlapping to the previous one…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the gas heater of Gammerler by offsetting by rotating, perpendicular to the fluid flow, any of the elements at an angle different than at least one other of the elements, thereby forming a misalignment and affecting fluid flow, since Foote teaches that this results in complete coverage, thereby producing a more compact air heating coil [para. 0179: “The appropriate offset may be chosen so that there is complete coverage of the cross section of the annular area between the outer tube 126 and the air delivery conduit 116. The design produces a more compact air heating coil than prior art heating coils.”].
In this case, Foote teaches that the offset may be chosen, thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the rotational offset to be between 30° to 60°, since the applicant has not disclosed that an offset of 30° to 60° solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the offset chosen so that there is complete coverage as taught by Foote [para. 0179].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 13, Applicant argues: “Grammerler also does not teach a shorting link in electrical contact between a first and a second heating element as is disclosed in the current application at paragraph”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and has presented Gammerler as teaching heating coil connector 9 as electrically connecting a first and second heating element.
Applicant continues “The applicants submit that Grammerler does not teach elements encased in refractory but, instead, only has insulated brackets 61a and 61b supporting the heating coil, not surrounding or encasing the coil (Fig.1) in any manner. The insulated brackets of Grammerler appear to be intended for electrical insulation (to keep the upper and lower elements apart) not for thermal applications as is presently taught.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, although the brackets may also serve as electrical insulation, since Gammerler is directed towards a resistive heating element as the heating element, it stands to reason that any supporting structures (e.g., chimney 10 and brackets 61a/61b) in proximity to the heating element would have heat-resistance properties, e.g., the brackets may be formed of ceramic, which is a conventional refractory material used in heating applications for both its dielectric properties as well as thermal resistance properties. Furthermore, Gammerler has been presented as also disclosing a chimney surrounding the heating element, the chimney so arranged to remove heat when the heater is not in use.
Applicant continues on p. 14, with regards to claim 14, “There is no intake end cap or exhaust end cap attached to the ring. The elements are not covered and Grammerler specifically teaches that the elements should not be covered to keep them as cool as possible so as not to burn the tobacco (Col.9, lines 52-56). The purpose of the present invention is to generate as much heat as possible, partially by covering and containing the heating elements within end caps and a housing.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that in col. 9, lines 52-56, Gammerler is indicating that the upper edge of the radiant heater 1 is not covered, so as to not burn the combustible tobacco (i.e., the requirements of the given hookah application of the heater) however, the support structures (chimney 10 and brackets 61a/61b) do cover the heating elements at sides that aren’t the upper and lower opening (see fig. 8, wherein the chimney/brackets partially cover the heating element). Although the claim does not provide any further details of the intake end cap/exhaust end cap, since Gammerler is directed towards directing an air flow such that tobacco is appropriately combusted (by providing sufficient heat without overly high temperatures) and generated smoke is ultimately channeled to a user, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of an intake/exhaust so as to control air flow.
Applicant continues, on pp. 14-15, with regards to claim 20, “The applicants contend that Fig. 13 of Grammerler does not depict an "air gap" between an outer liner and a refractory layer. Nor is such an air gap taught in the specification of Grammerler. The office action states that head 110 is composed of an equivalent of the refractory material of the present application but it is only positioned at the very end of an inner channel 125 and the body 120. Head 110 is not within the body 120 or "outer liner". Since head 110 is not placed inside the outer liner 120 it could not form an air space between itself and outer liner 120 as is claimed by the applicants. An air gap between the outer liner (body 120) and the inner liner (channel 125) is not claimed in claim 20.” In view of the amendment to claim 14, Examiner has now presented claim 20 as being disclosed by Gammerler, wherein the outer liner is mapped to the body 120 (see fig. 13), wherein the outer surface of pipe 125 is mapped to the inner liner within body 120, wherein the material of the pipe is mapped to the refractory surrounding the flow path of generated smoke, wherein there is an air gap between the pipe and the inner wall of the body.
On pp. 15-16, with regards to the subject matter of claim 7 (i.e., a shock resistant ceramic loosely positioned…), Applicant argues “The applicants submit that such rigidly held spacers are structurally different from those presently claimed and are not anticipated by the prior art. Rigidly held spacers would be more prone to damage and failure due to the shock of high temperature and cooling cycles when positioned between the element spirals as is claimed. A loose or non-rigid spacer could move in response to expansion and contraction of the elements, thereby resisting shock damage and be an improvement over the presented prior art.” Examiner has presented Schatz as teaching that alternative connections exist for spacers, wherein the spacers are not brazed to the heating element, thus allowing for compensation of materials having different thermal expansion.
On pp. 16-17, with regards to claims 12 and 13, Applicant argues “Foote teaches a device with a single heating element that has "petals' bent or twisted along the length of the single element or wire, thereby providing full heating coverage. Current claims 12 and 13 disclose multiple heating elements that are rotated about an axis to provide overlap or misalignment of the heating elements. There is no rotation of one heating element about an axis in comparison to another element. The elements of Foote are a different design than the present application. The applicants submit that multiple elements around an axis is an improvement over the single element design of Foote allowing a simpler system that can be altered to meet differing needs by changing the rotation of the elements rather than designing and manufacturing a single element to meet requirements. Claim 12 has been amended by adding the limitation of "a misalignment of the spiral reversals of the multiple electrically charged heating elements and thereby affecting the fluid flow" which is supported by the specification (Fig. 8) and claim 8 upon which claim 12 depends. Foote does not disclose a spiral reversal that is misaligned by a rotation of heating elements about a midpoint or any spital reversal at all. The applicants therefore submit that claims 12 or 13, which depends on claim 12, do not read on Foote which lacks limitations now claimed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, although Foote does not explicitly use the term “rotate”, Examiner maintains that Foote teaches the benefits of an offset (i.e., a misalignment), specifically that by offsetting adjacent (along the airflow path) heating elements, and thus, in view of the double-back ribbon coil arrangement of Gammerler, and in view of the heating element being formed by multiple coils configured one above the other [col. 2, lines 13-16], a PHOSITA would recognize that relatively rotating the similarly patterned heating elements in Gammerler’s stack as one of the many possible solutions of achieving the complete coverage of the air flow area.
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights