DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
Claims 5-14, 17-27 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation "the bulb of the wax motor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Solar( DE 29612894U1 ).
Solar discloses in reference to claim:
1 (independent) . A water heating tank comprising:
a reservoir 10 with a cold water inlet 14 into the reservoir and a hot water outlet 15 from the reservoir, a heater enclosure 2 located within the reservoir 10, the heater enclosure enclosing at least part of a heater 3, the heater enclosure having an inlet 25, an outlet at 23, an enclosure vent 28 that passes through a wall of the heater enclosure, an enclosure vent closure 29 suitable for closing the enclosure vent, and an actuator (see indicated hinge of flap valve 29) arranged to move the enclosure vent closure;
and a duct (potion above 23) connected to the outlet at 23 of the heater enclosure, the duct having an exit 24 located in an upper portion of the reservoir.
PNG
media_image1.png
959
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar (DE 29612894U1) in view of Giamati (US 2015/0308712A1).
Solar discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
2. A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuator is a wax motor.
Giamati discloses a similar water heating device wherein a wax motor is used to facilitate mixing of water. Further note that Giamati discloses the general equivalence of a shuttle type valve and a wax motor to function as means for mixing water. Since Solar teaches the use of valves 29 to facilitate mixing of water, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the Solar device to include the use of a wax motor to facilitate mixing of water.
3. A water heating tank as claimed in claim 2, wherein the bulb of the wax motor is located inside the heater enclosure and within the top half of the heater enclosure.
Note that the placement of the wax motor at a position that experiences the highest temperatures, i.e. the top half of the enclosure due to heat stratification, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
4. A water heating tank as claimed in claim in any one of claims 1, 2 or 3 further comprising a cut-out thermostat for the heater, wherein the temperature sensor of the thermostat is located within the heater enclosure and above the heater.
Note the use of a cut-out thermostat for safely discontinuing power to the heater when a condition of excessive heat is sensed at a position that experiences the highest temperatures, i.e. above the heater in the top half of the enclosure due to heat stratification, would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Solar (DE 29612894U1) in view of Robionek (DE 19510293A1)
Solar discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
15. A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heater enclosure comprises at least one aperture towards its base, wherein the aperture acts as the inlet and the vent and wherein the heater enclosure has a heating zone within which zone there is located an active part of the heating element that is, in use, able to transfer heat to water within the heater enclosure and wherein the part of the aperture acting as the vent is located within the heating zone.
Robionek discloses a similar fluid heating device including a heater enclosure 11 having at least one aperture (see arrows) towards its base wherein the aperture acts as the inlet and the vent and wherein the heater enclosure has a heating zone (shaded region) within which zone there is located an active part of the heating element that is, in use, able to transfer heat to water within the heater enclosure and wherein the part of the aperture acting as the vent is located within the heating zone.
PNG
media_image2.png
1349
1015
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious modification to the Solar device to provide an inlet/vent aperture as taught by Robionek within the active heating zone of the heating element as a means to more quickly circulate the heated water.
16. A water heating tank according to claim 15, further comprising an openable aperture cover.
Note that Solar teaches the use of an openable aperture cover 29.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc