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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–29, in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 80.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 4 November 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2021/061303, and of the German Application No. 10 2020 111 987.9, is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 29 April 2021. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 4 November 2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Antecedent basis for the “bearing safety” of claim 18, and the “at least one gas deflection channel” of claim 23, should be added.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 113 should be amended to recite “connectors 43 and 44.”
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, 10, 11, and 13–29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The end of claim 4, should be amended to recite “a comb structure[[,]] which receives the heating plate strips.”
Claim 9 should be amended to replace “the connecting elements” with “the connection elements” to comport with the presentation of the limitation in claim 1.
In claim 10 on the second-to-last line, a comma should be added between “mounting element” and “wherein.”
In claim 11, the comma after “heat-resistant” should be struck.
Claim 14, line 3, should be amended to replace “is” with “are” to clarify that it is the walls that are formed to be gas-tight rather than the mounting element, which is made clear in the specification.
Claims 19 and 24 should be amended to replace “the heating assembly” with “the heating arrangement” to comport with the presentation of the limitation in claim 10.
Claim 29, line 5, should be amended to recite “and which” to clarify that the subsequent features are part of the heating unit, and not to the outlet side.
Claims 6, 13, 15–18, 20–23, and 25–28 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted under § 112(f):
The heating device of claim 10 (a resistance heating element).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The throttle device in claim 28 (“a perforated plate 261 representing a static throttle element”).
The locking device in claim 28 (no structure disclosed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 10, 11, and 13–29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one heating unit” (ll. 2–3), but this limitation lacks antecedent basis, and the indefinite article should be used.
Claim 10 recites “the flow channels” (last line) but this limitation lacks antecedent basis, and no article should be used, and the limitation should preferably be interrelated with the other elements of the claim.
Claim 18 provides for “a bearing safety.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because it’s meaning is unclear, particularly because this is not a term of art, and the specification and drawings do not illuminate on the element. This may be the “mounting safeguard which is formed by a protrusion, for example” from Applicant’s disclosure, which may also play a role in resolving the lack of antecedent basis for the limitation highlighted in the objection to the specification above. For examination, the element will be understood to be an element similar to such a protrusion.
Claim 23 recites “the carrier structure,” but the limitation lacks antecedent basis because this element is introduced in claim 20, but this claim depends from claim 10. The claim will be examined assuming it should depend from claim 20.
Claim limitation “locking device” in claim 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any mention of any locking device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 28 recites “on the entrance side and/or on the exit side.” These limitations lack antecedent basis, and it’s unclear if they’re the same as, or different from, the inlet and outlet sides of claim 10.
Claim 29 recites “the at least one heating plate unit” (ll. 4–5), but there is no antecedent basis for any such “plate unit,” only “at least one heating unit.”
Claims 11, 13–17, 19–22, and 24–27 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Comments: The claims are replete with elements that are introduced as “at least one” (e.g. “at least one heating plate unit” in claim 1, and “the at least one mounting element” in claim 10), followed by subsequent recitation that only mention, e.g. “the heating plate unit,” i.e. not “the at least one heating plate unit.” However, the language is perfectly clear, since the limitations associated with “the unit” need only apply to (and are understood only to apply to) that one unit.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US Pub. 2007/0045290).
Claim 1: Lin discloses a heating device for heating a gas stream, the heating device comprising two electric connection elements (1, 3, 4) for being connected to a power source (evident from ¶ 16, “electrically conducting supporting frame 1”) and at least one heating plate unit (one unit defined by 21, 22, 23, etc.) having an inlet side and an outlet side (appreciable from fig. 5), which comprises a plurality of heating plate strips (21, 22, 23, best shown in fig. 2) which are in the gas stream and each have a first end area (2b) and a second end area (2c), adjacent heating plate strips being connected to each other in the first end areas and the second end areas each via a conductive spacer structure (3, 4) wherein the conductive spacer structure comprises lining plates (31, 41), which are disposed between adjacent heating plate strips (see fig. 3) and connect these with each other (via the conductivity of 3 and 4).
Claim 6: Lin discloses that the heating plate strips and the lining plates are each welded, soldered and/or riveted together in both end areas (¶ 16, “silver solders 2b, 2c”).
Claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 20-0170667 Y1).
Claim 10: Park discloses a heating system for a gas stream, the heating system comprising an inlet side (fig. 4, bottom) and an outlet side (fig. 4, top) and a heating arrangement (H), which comprises the at least one heating unit (H), which comprises a heating device (the general area occupied by H, see fig. 4) having an inflow base area (e.g. at the top of the lowest brick 21), which is perpendicular to the gas stream (which enters horizontally via 32), and at least one mounting element (the lowest brick 21), on which the heating device is disposed (appreciable from fig. 4) and which is permeable to the gas stream (via 211) so that the gas stream can flow onto the inflow base area of the heating device or the gas stream can flow from the heating device through the mounting element wherein the mounting element comprises a molded brick (21 is a brick that can be formed by molding) in which the flow channels (211) are formed which lead to the heating device.
Claim 11: Park discloses that the mounting element is made of an electrically insulating, heat-resistant, working material (a brick would inherently have these features).
Claim 13: Park discloses that the mounting element has a support surface which corresponds with the inflow base area of the heating device (appreciable from fig. 4).
Claim 16: Park discloses that the heating assembly comprises several heating units, which are adjacent to each other (the numerous heaters H qualify as adjacent to each other).
Claim 17: Park discloses that the heating assembly comprises several heating units, which are superjacent (numerous heaters H are superjacent, see fig. 4).
Claim 19: Park discloses that the heating assembly has a cover through which the gas stream can pass and which forms the upper side of the heating assembly (the uppermost bricks 21 qualify as a cover).
Claim 24: Park discloses a heating channel in which the heating assembly is disposed (each heater H is disposed in a channel 213).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN 106482341 A).
Claim 20: Park does not disclose that its heating assembly is disposed on a carrier structure. It does not disclose the details at that part of its apparatus.
However, Feng discloses a similar apparatus including a carrier structure (5121) that has an analogous heating assembly (2) disposed thereon.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a structure like the carrier structure taught by Feng beneath the heating assembly of Park as a known means of supporting it in its position as shown in fig. 4 of Park.
Claim 21: Modified as per claim 20 above, Feng discloses that the carrier structure comprises a grid structure on which the heating assembly rests (appreciable from figs. 2 and 5).
Claim 23: Modified as per claim 20 above, Feng discloses that the carrier structure comprises at least one gas deflection channel (given the grid-like structure of 5121 shown in fig. 5, it has gas deflection channels).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Park does not disclose that the heating channel is made of a tube or a rectangular flow channel. Instead, Park discloses its heating channel being trapezoid-shaped.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Park’s trapezoidal-shaped heating channel was very similar to a rectangular flow channel, and would have found it obvious to replace its trapezoidal-shaped heating channel with a rectangular flow channel since it would arrive at substantially the same structure and function.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dunn (GB 1208722 A).
Park does not disclose that a throttle device and/or a locking device is disposed on the entrance side and/or on the exit side.
However, Dunn discloses a similar storage heater with a throttle device or a locking device (50) disposed at an entrance side (see the figure on sheet 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a device like the throttle or locking device taught by Dunn to the entrance side of Park to enable controllable entry of gas into the heater.
Comment: Hao et al. (CN 110332713 A) and Zhou et al. (CN 110411020 A) both disclose what appear to be throttle devices with 18 at their exit sides. Kachelofenverband (AT 392 152 B) discloses a throttle or locking device 15 at its exit side.
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 2, 3, 5, 7–9, 14, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1 in general, other pertinent prior art includes Willett (US Pat. 3,163,841), Dunn et al. (DE 2432904 A1), and Song et al. (KR 2014-0061750 A).
Regarding claim 2, it would not have been obvious to modify Lin’s heating plate strips to alternate between being structured (understood as non-flat) and flat, as this arrangement is too particular.
Claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, nothing in Lin suggests that it would benefit from duplication of its heating plates units including insulating division between these duplicated units.
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 10 in general, other pertinent prior art includes Ding et al. (CN 107300258 A), Zhou et al. (CN 110411020 A), Park (KR 20-0170669 Y1), Zhou et al. (CN 110375436 A).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, and 29, Park reads on claim 10 understood broadly, but the details of each of these claims goes beyond what would have been obvious to implement in Park, and/or their implementation would not be functional in Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights