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 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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the second heater". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 depends from claim 1 which does not provide a second heater.
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—noting that the hinge acts to permit the flap valve to move pivotally around the hinge) 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) 1-6, 9, 15-19, 22-25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar (DE 29612894U1) in view of Giamati (US 2015/0308712A1) and/or Munsterhuis et al. (US 20040173600 A1) and/or Mottershead (US 6370328) and/or Moreno (US6936798) and/or Allen (US 1968549) and/or Gordon et al. (US 20110277744 A1) and/or Robionek (DE 19510293A1)
Solar discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except in reference to claim:
2. A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuator is a wax motor.
Note Solar discloses the actuation of the flap valves 29 to mix the water in response to the temperature of the water in the Guide scope 2 and/or remotely operated according to the amount of heat provided by the heat sources. 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, and further that the valves 29 can be operated in response to the temperature of the water in the Guide scope 2 and/or remotely operated according to the amount of heat provided by the heat sources, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the Solar device to include the use of a wax motor (known to operate based on the temperature of the water by Giamati ) to facilitate mixing of water.
3. A water heating tank as claimed in claim 2, wherein a 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. inside 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 1 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.
Evidence of such a placement of a cut-out thermostat can be found in Munsterhuis et al. (US 20040173600 A1). Munsterhuis discloses in reference to figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
609
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cut-out condition 910 may be satisfied when the first sensor 134 detects, measures, or otherwise determines that the water temperature at or near the top of the tank 102 is greater than a predetermined-overheat state condition 912. The first sensor 134 may be a temperature sensor or another device capable of sensing water temperature at or near the top of the tank 102. Thus, for example, a sensor capable of detecting a property of the water from which the water temperature may be derived (such as pressure) may also be used with the present system. While in an exemplary embodiment the first sensor 134 may be located towards the top surface 124 near the exit opening in the output pipe 116, the sensor need not be physically located at the top of the water heater, provided that the temperature of the water at or near the top is detected by the sensor.
5. (Currently Amended)_A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a temperature and pressure relief valve fluidly connected to the reservoir by a pipe, wherein the inlet to the pipe is located above the exit from the duct.
Note that it is known in the art to provide a temperature and pressure relief valve fluidly connected to fluid heating vessel. Mottershead (US 6370328) discloses the use of a standard relief valve fluidly connected to the reservoir by a pipe wherein the inlet to the pipe is located at the top of the tank. It would have been obvious to one of skill to Modify the device of Solar to provide such a standard relief valve fluidly connected to the reservoir by a pipe wherein the inlet to the pipe is located at the top of the tank, whereby the inlet of the pipe would be above the exit from the duct of Solar.
6. (Currently Amended)_ A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a chimney valve 27’ that, in use, can prevent fluid flow from the heater enclosure to the duct or prevent fluid flow from the duct. Note that valve 27’ when closed can prevent fluid flow from the heater enclosure to the duct or prevent fluid flow from the duct.
9. (Currently Amended). A water heating tank as claimed in claim 1, wherein the duct 22 comprises at least one duct vent 28 that passes through a wall of the duct and that is covered by an openable duct vent cover 29 and wherein there is also provided a duct actuator to open the duct vent. Note the modification of Solar in view of Giamati to include a wax motor on valve 29 satisfies the claimed limitations.
17. (Currently Amended) A water heating tank according to claim 1, further comprising a valve 27 located at the inlet to the duct, at the outlet from the duct or within the duct.
18. (Original) A water heating tank according to claim 17, wherein the degree of opening of the valve can be changed by an adjuster located at least partially outside of the reservoir. Note that Solar discloses the remote control of the valves 27 and 29 based on temperature or heat as discussed above.
19. (Currently Amended)_ A water heating tank according to claim 1, further comprising a second heater, wherein the second heater is located within the reservoir and externally to the heater enclosure.
Gordon et al. (US 20110277744 A1) discloses a water heating device having a primary heat exchanger and at least one other auxiliary heating element positioned above the primary heat exchanger and through the side wall of the water storage tank. It would have been obvious to one of skill to modify the Solar device to include an auxiliary heating element as taught by Gordon in the Solar device to provide heat to the water heater in the event of a failure of the primary heat exchanger or to supplement said heat exchanger.
22. (Currently Amended) A water heating tank according to claim 1,
wherein the reservoir comprises a base 11 and the water heater 3 is located adjacent to
the base and extends into the reservoir away from the base. See figure 2 of Solar
PNG
media_image1.png
959
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
23. (Currently Amended), A water heating tank according to claim_1,
wherein the duct has a lower cross-sectional area than the heater enclosure. See Figure 2
24. (Currently Amended) A water heating tank according to claim_1,
wherein the heater is an electrical water heater.
Moreno disclose the use of an electric heating element in a similar device to Solar. One of skill would find it obvious to modify the Solar device to include the electric heating element of Moreno in place of the heat exchanger of Solar for instances where the use of a fluid type heat exchanger would be prohibitive.
25. (Currently Amended). A water heating tank according to claim 1,
further comprising a control system with a means for varying heat provided by
the heater.
Note that Solar discloses a control system for varying the heat provided by the heater.
Alternatively, it is possible to switch on a pump with a variable flow rate in the water pipe. . With this design of the hot water tank, the Volume of water by changing the pump's flow rate. Appropriate control devices that Pumping capacity of the pump depends on the current flow rate of the heat exchanger through the heat sources. are known in themselves and can be used here.
27. (Currently Amended)_ A water heating tank according to claim 1,
further comprising a diffuser at the duct exit in the upper portion of the
reservoir. Note that in figure 2 of Solar, the exit opening 24 of the duct acts as a diffuser.
However, additionally, the use of an exit diffuser is known from Allen (US 1968549). Allen teaches the use of a diffuser 35 located at the top portion of a heating duct in a similar heating device to Solar. It would have been obvious to one of skill to modify the Solar device to include the diffuser as taught by Allen.
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_image3.png
1349
1015
media_image3.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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the flap valves 27 and 29 in Solar operate by differential pressure acting across their surface area rather than by any actuator. Further arguing that Solar itself confirms this passive operation, disclosing that "the valve 27' is actuated as a function of the buoyancy of the water in the guide tube" (page 11, paragraph 2 of the translation). It is noted however that Solar further discloses [machine translation---The valve 27' is operated also depends on the buoyancy of the water in the guide scope 2 and/or on the temperature of the water in the Guide scope 2 and/or remotely operated according to the amount of heat provided by the heat sources 4, 5. ] Applicant argues this is a passive action initiated without an actuator. However Solar discloses the valves can be operated depending on the temperature of the water or remotely operated according to the amount of heat provided. The suggestion of remote operation indicates a non-passive intentional operation based on temperature/heat. Solar therefore suggests a valve having "an actuator “ [passive or active] arranged to move the enclosure vent closure".
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 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
Prosecution Insights