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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng CN107249223A in view of Kitt US6116190A.
Regarding Claim 1, Deng teaches a heating system ([0002]), comprising:
a housing (including 3);
the housing having a hollow interior with an open lower end (for heating plate 1; exposed “lower” end visible in Fig 1 as the end that emits the infrared);
a first heating panel (incl. 1) positioned in the open lower end of the housing (Figs 1-4);
wherein the first heating panel includes a heating layer (incl. 12);
the heating layer including a conductive microfilm (12) includes;
a first electrical contact (one of the 14’s in Fig 2) connected to the conductive microfilm (Fig 2);
a second electrical contact (other of the 14’s in Fig 2) connect to the conductive microfilm (Fig 2);
wherein application of a voltage difference between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact causes current to flow through the conductive microfilm, thereby generating heat ([0009, 0029, 43]).
Deng does not teach the housing including a downward facing channel extending through and between a front wall and a rear wall, the channel having a pair of sidewalls and a top wall, wherein the channel is configured to receive a top edge of an external wall; the housing having a hollow interior with an open lower end, wherein the housing is configured to attach to the external wall at a plurality of different heights.
However, Kitt teaches a heating system (Figs 1-4) comprising a housing (30) including a downward facing channel (of 50) extending through and between a front wall (one of 32, 34) and a rear wall (other of 32, 34),
PNG
media_image1.png
648
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the channel having a pair of sidewalls and a top wall (Fig 4 above), wherein the channel is configured to receive a top edge of an external wall (16 per Figs 1-3); the housing having a hollow interior (Figs 3-4) with an open lower end (at 42), wherein the housing is configured to attach to the external wall at a plurality of different heights (housing 30 is mountable to external walls of different heights, or a wall having different heights along its length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deng to use the housing of Kitt, in order to facilitate divider wall attachment for pig farrowing (Title, Abstract, Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the conductive microfilm includes a layer of graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Regarding claim 5, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the conductive microfilm has a honey-comb pattern (2-D molecular graphite, or graphene, having a honey-comb pattern, by definition).
Regarding claim 7, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the heating layer includes an upper substrate layer (11) and a lower substrate layer (13); wherein the conductive microfilm is positioned between the upper substrate layer and the lower substrate layer (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches when current flows through the conductive microfilm the conductive microfilm emits infrared radiation ([0029, 35-36]).
Regarding claim 12, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches an insulating material (2) positioned within the hollow interior of the housing above the first heating panel (Figs 1-3).
Claims 13-15, 17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel US4888468A.
Regarding Claim 13, Deng teaches a heating system ([0002]), comprising:
a housing (incl.3) including a protective cover positioned under the first heating panel (frame 3 includes portion that extends under the first heating panel, which protects the edges of the panel; Fig 3);
the housing having a first heating panel (incl. 1);
wherein the first heating panel includes a conductive microfilm (12);
wherein conductive microfilm includes a layer of graphene ([0031-32, 40]);
wherein when power is applied to the layer of graphene, the layer of graphene generates heat ([0009,0029,43]).
Deng does not teach the housing is configured to hold the first heating panel in a recessed position; wherein the housing includes a protective cover positioned under the first heating panel; wherein the housing includes an upper flange having an opening which forms a handle to facilitate lifting of the system.
However, Kitt teaches a heating system (Figs 1-4) comprising a housing (30) configured to hold a first radiant heating element (44) in a recessed position (Figs 3-4).
And Maendel teaches a similar housing with an additional upper flange (24) having an opening (to pass 26) which forms a handle to facilitate lifting of the system (24, 26, and opening in 24 can also be grasped for manual manipulation; definition of handle per dictionary.com: “a part of a thing made specifically to be grasped or held by the hand” and “that which may be held, seized, grasped, or taken advantage of in effecting a purpose”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deng to use the housing arrangements of Kitt and Maendel in order to facilitate both wall mounting and hanging/suspension, as needed (Kitt, Title, Abstract, Figs 1-4; Maendel Figs 1-2, col.2 ll.3-8).
Regarding claim 14, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches a first electrical contact (one of the 14’s in Fig 2) connected to a first side (e.g. left or right in Fig 2) of the conductive microfilm; a second electrical contact (other of the 14’s in Fig 2) connected to a second side (e.g. right or left in Fig 2) of the conductive microfilm;
wherein application of a voltage difference between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact causes current to flow through the conductive microfilm, thereby generating heat (Fig 2; [0009, 0029, 43]).
Regarding claim 15, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the conductive microfilm has a honey-comb pattern (2-D molecular graphite, or graphene, having a honey-comb pattern, by definition).
Regarding claim 17, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the heating layer includes an upper substrate layer (11) and a lower substrate layer (13); wherein the conductive microfilm is positioned between the upper substrate layer and the lower substrate layer (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 21, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches when current flows through the conductive microfilm the conductive microfilm emits infrared radiation ([0029, 35-36]).
Regarding claim 22, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches an insulating material (2) positioned within the hollow interior of the housing above the first heating panel (Figs 1-3).
Claim 23-24, 27, 29, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hishida US20210153304A1 and Huang et al. (Ke Huang et al., Ultrahigh Temperature Graphene Molecular Heater, 2018, Advanced Materials Interfaces, 5, 1701299, doi: 10.1002/admi.201701299).
Regarding Claim 23, Deng teaches a method, comprising:
providing a heating system ([0002]) having a housing (incl.3) and a first heating panel (incl. 1);
the housing having a hollow interior with an open lower end (for heating plate 1; exposed “lower” end visible in Fig 1 as the end that emits the infrared);
the first heating panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing (Figs 1-3);
wherein the first heating panel includes a heating layer (incl. 12);
the heating layer including a conductive microfilm (12 comprising graphite and/or graphene per [0031-32]);
a first electrical contact (other of the 14’s in Fig 2) connected to the conductive microfilm (Fig 2);
a second electrical contact (one of the 14’s in Fig 2) connect to the conductive microfilm (Fig 2); and
generating heat by applying a voltage difference between the first electrical contact and the second electrical to cause current to flow through the conductive microfilm, thereby generating heat ([0009,0029,43]).
Deng does not teach the conductive microfilm reaches approximately 260 degrees Fahrenheit during operation and diffusing heat to provide a more even heat distribution with a diffusion plate positioned below the first heating panel.
However, Hishida teaches adding a diffusion plate (incl.10, Fig 1B) below (toward the object to be heated) a first heating panel (incl. 20) in order to diffuse heat and provide more even heat distribution ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deng to include the diffusion plate as taught by Hishida, because then “it becomes possible to enhance heat conductivity; temperature unevenness is improved; and it becomes possible to suppress a local temperature rise. Further, such a heat diffusion type mixed paper 10 diffuses heat and also has a function of absorbing and radiating far-infrared rays, and thus it becomes possible to be used without shielding the radiation of the far-infrared rays and to promote heat diffusion at the same time, and it becomes possible to be laminated so as to closely adhere to an outermost surface layer portion on a radiation surface of the heat generation type mixed paper 20” ([0047]).
Deng in view of Hishida still does not teach the conductive microfilm reaching approximately 260 degrees Fahrenheit during operation.
However, Huang teaches (in the Abstract) standard conductive graphene microfilm heaters being capable of operation up to 200°C (≈ 392°F), and new graphene heaters being heated up to 600°C (≈ 1112°F). In heating up to these temperatures during standard operation, the devices also reach approximately 260°F during operation, thus reading on the claimed temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the graphene conductive microfilm of Deng in view of Hishida could operate at temperatures including 260°F, because Huang teaches these operational temperatures for graphene microfilms, such as that taught by Deng (Huang, Abstract; Deng [0031-32]).
Regarding claim 24, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the conductive microfilm includes graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang as discussed so far, does not teach the microfilm including a laminate of a plurality of layers of graphene.
However, Huang teaches using a laminate of a plurality of layers of graphene (3-4 or even 10 layers; section 2.2 in col.2 of p.2, description of Fig 2 on p.3, para.1 of col.2 on p.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphite/graphene layer of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang to include a laminate of multiple layer because Huang teaches typical graphene heater fabrication yielding laminates of 3-4 layers (Huang, section 2.2 in col.2 of p.2, description of Fig 2 on p.3) and because Huang teaches variation of the number of layers being a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the prior art, in this case the sheet resistance of the heater depending on the number of layers (para.1 of col.2 on p.4), such that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable, in this case greater than one layer, may have been characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, in this case as taught by Deng in view of Hishida and Huang as discussed above, it has been held that the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by experimentation requiring only routine skill in the art, in this case the ability to fabricate graphene of different numbers of layers, would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 27, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the conductive microfilm has a honey-comb pattern (2-D molecular graphite, or graphene, having a honey-comb pattern, by definition).
Regarding claim 29, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the heating layer includes an upper substrate layer (11) and a lower substrate layer (13); wherein the conductive microfilm is positioned between the upper substrate layer and the lower substrate layer (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 33, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches an insulating material (2) positioned within the hollow interior of the housing above the first heating panel (Figs 1-3).
Claims 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt, and further in view of Lau WO2022036726A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach the conductive microfilm includes a layer of nano-carbon fiber material.
However, Lau teaches that a carbon based conductive microfilms for a heating panel may use graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers or other conductive nanocarbons ([0068, 76]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating panel of Deng to use carbon nanofibers as taught by Lau, because Lau teaches the substitutional equivalence of using graphene and carbon nanofibers for heating panel microfilm applications (Lau, [068,76]).
Regarding Claim 8, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the infrared-generating conductive film (12; [0036]) comprising graphene ([0031-32, 40]) and being mounted on a substrate (11), backed by an insulation material (2).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach a radiant barrier positioned above the heating layer.
However, Lau teaches a heating panel (Fig 3) with a carbon based conductive microfilm (33) mounted on a substrate (34) backed by an insulation material (36), wherein a radiant barrier is layered between the substrate and the insulation material to specifically insulate from the infrared radiation (infrared emissivity of close to 0) so as to improve efficiency and reduce radiation losses in the direction away from the target ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt, to use a radiant barrier as taught by Lau, to minimize loss of infrared heating to areas other than the target area, thereby improving efficiency (Lau, [0064]).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel, and further in view of Lau WO2022036726A1.
Regarding Claim 18, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the infrared-generating conductive film (12; [0036]) comprising graphene ([0031-32, 40]) and being mounted on a substrate (11), backed by an insulation material (2).
Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel does not teach a radiant barrier positioned above the heating layer.
However, Lau teaches a heating panel (Fig 3) with a carbon based conductive microfilm (33) mounted on a substrate (34) backed by an insulation material (36), wherein a radiant barrier is layered between the substrate and the insulation material to specifically insulate from the infrared radiation (infrared emissivity of close to 0) so as to improve efficiency and reduce radiation losses in the direction away from the target ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel, to use a radiant barrier as taught by Lau, to minimize loss of infrared heating to areas other than the target area, thereby improving efficiency (Lau, [0064]).
Claims 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hishida and Huang, and further in view of Lau WO2022036726A1.
Regarding Claim 25, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach the conductive microfilm includes a layer of nano-carbon fiber material.
However, Lau teaches that a carbon based conductive microfilms for a heating panel may use graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers or other conductive nanocarbons ([0068, 76]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang to use carbon nanofibers as taught by Lau, because Lau teaches the substitutional equivalence of using graphene and carbon nanofibers for heating panel microfilm applications (Lau, [068,76]).
Regarding Claim 30, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the infrared-generating conductive film (12; [0036]) comprising graphene ([0031-32, 40]) and being mounted on a substrate (11), backed by an insulation material (2).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach a radiant barrier positioned above the heating layer.
However, Lau teaches a heating panel (Fig 3) with a carbon based conductive microfilm (33) mounted on a substrate (34) backed by an insulation material (36), wherein a radiant barrier is layered between the substrate and the insulation material to specifically insulate from the infrared radiation (infrared emissivity of close to 0) so as to improve efficiency and reduce radiation losses in the direction away from the target ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang, to use a radiant barrier as taught by Lau, to minimize loss of infrared heating to areas other than the target area, thereby improving efficiency (Lau, [0064]).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt, and further in view of Shin KR20190054344A.
Regarding Claim 4, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach the conductive microfilm includes a carbon silver nanomaterial mixture.
However, Shin teaches that the conductive microfilm of an electric heater may comprise a carbon and silver nanomaterial mixture ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microfilm of Deng in view of Kitt to use carbon-silver as taught by Shin, because Shin teaches the carbon-silver nanomaterial mixture as an alternative to graphene films for heating elements ([0002-3]).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hishida and Huang, and further in view of Shin KR20190054344A.
Regarding Claim 26, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach the conductive microfilm includes a carbon silver nanomaterial mixture.
However, Shin teaches that the conductive microfilm of an electric heater may comprise a carbon and silver nanomaterial mixture ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microfilm of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang to use carbon-silver as taught by Shin, because Shin teaches the carbon-silver nanomaterial mixture as an alternative to graphene films for heating elements ([0002-3]).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt, and further in view of Li1.
1 Guanghao Li et al., Graphene based self-healing materials, February 2019, Carbon 146 (2019) pp.371-387 retrieved via Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2019.02.011
Regarding claim 6, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene and polymer resin ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach the microfilm is self-healing.
However, Li teaches graphene-polymer materials having self-healing properties (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the graphene-polymer film of Deng in view of Kitt was self-healing or could be made self-healing as taught by Li, in order to extend lifespan, improve security, save cost, and achieve sustainable development (Li, Abstract).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 16, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene and polymer resin ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel does not teach the microfilm is self-healing.
However, Li teaches graphene-polymer materials having self-healing properties (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the graphene-polymer film of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel was self-healing or could be made self-healing as taught by Li, in order to extend lifespan, improve security, save cost, and achieve sustainable development (Li, Abstract).
Claim 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hishida and Huang, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 28, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the microfilm comprising graphene and polymer resin ([0031-32,40]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach the microfilm is self-healing.
However, Li teaches graphene-polymer materials having self-healing properties (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the graphene-polymer film of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang was self-healing or could be made self-healing as taught by Li, in order to extend lifespan, improve security, save cost, and achieve sustainable development (Li, Abstract).
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt, and further in view of Johnson 3028097.
Regarding claim 9, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach a second heating panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of the external wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Kitt teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Regarding claim 10, Deng in view of Kitt teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]), and the heating panel is adjustable to generate different amounts of heat (at least either on/off using thermostat 16; [0029]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Kitt does not teach two of the heating panel, such that there is a second panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of the external wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Kitt teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 19, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel does not teach a second heating panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Regarding claim 20, Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]), and the heating panel is adjustable to generate different amounts of heat (at least either on/off using thermostat 16; [0029]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel does not teach two of the heating panel, such that there is a second panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Kitt and Maendel provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Claims 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Hishida and Huang, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 31, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach a second heating panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Regarding claim 32, Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deng further teaches the housing is configured to heat livestock stall(s) ([0002, 8]), and the heating panel is adjustable to generate different amounts of heat (at least either on/off using thermostat 16; [0029]). Deng further teaches the heating panel being a suitable alternative to prior art heating solutions such as radiators ([0005]).
Deng in view of Hishida and Huang does not teach two of the heating panel, such that there is a second panel positioned in the open lower end of the housing; wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall between a pair of livestock stalls; wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls; wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls.
However, Johnson teaches a heating system (Figs 1-8), comprising:
a housing (36, Figs 2,7);
a first heating panel (one of 44, 45) and a second heating panel (other of 45, 44) of the housing (Figs 2, 7);
wherein the housing is configured to attach on top of a wall (28) between a pair of livestock stalls (20, 32);
wherein the first heating panel is positioned to heat a first one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6);
wherein the second heating panel is positioned to heat a second one of the pair of livestock stalls (Figs 1, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heating panels of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang in place of the heating panels of Johnson because Deng in view of Hishida and Huang teaches the electrical heating panels of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang being a suitable alternative to radiator-type heaters for livestock (Deng, [0005, 7]) having the advantages of improved installation, maintenance, deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (Deng, [0007]); and because Johnson teaches the dual pen arrangement is a common form of pig farrowing pen and using respective heating panels of a single apparatus to cover the respective pens provides efficient use of heating surface area while enabling a simple mounting arrangement (Johnson, Figs 1-8, col.2 ll.8-34). Note, MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) provides that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang provides only the predictable result of increased heating surface area distributable to two pens as taught by Johnson (Figs 1, 6). Further note, duplication of the heating panel of Deng in view of Hishida and Huang (including frame 3 as the housing) for the arrangement of Johnson, provides for the interpretation of the two frames together as the single housing, having an open lower end (comprising a divider to accommodate both panels) where the two panels are installed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 ET.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights