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.
Claims 2-10 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.
In claim 2, it is not definite what is meant by “a gap formed between the ceramic heating sheets and a bottom of the recess of the base plate”. It is not definite how the gap is formed because the claim recites that gap is “formed between” more than two elements. This recitation recites “sheets” such that more than one sheet is necessary as well as “a bottom” such that there are more than two elements recited. It is not definite what the gap is between or how it could be between more than two elements. It is also not definite whether “formed between” is a product-by-process recitation. In particular, it is not definite whether “formed” is a process as part of a product-by-process recitation.
The scope of claim 7 is not definite. Claim 7 recites: “An electrothermal furnace using the heating assembly according to claim 1.” However, this claim lacks a typical transition term (e.g., comprising) such that it is not clear what the body of the claim encompasses. Furthermore, it appears that the body of the claim simply recites “the heating assembly according to claim 1” such that there appears to be nothing more than the scope of claim 1 recited with a different preamble, such that it is not definite what is being claimed in claim 7.
Claim 10 recites “the power socket is provided with three connection terminals, three connection terminals are in a straight line”, wherein the second recitation of “three connection terminals” does not include an article (e.g., said or the) to refer back to the first recitation of three connection terminals such that it is not definite whether the second recitation refers back to the first recitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As noted above, it appears that the body of the claim 7 simply recites “the heating assembly according to claim 1” such that there appears to be nothing more than the scope of claim 1 recited with a different preamble, and thus claim 7 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: a heat conduction structure in claim 1, which is interpreted as a microcrystalline panel and equivalents thereof based upon the disclosed corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0220638 A1 to WEI et al. (“WEI”) in view of US 20050166844 A1 to Gralenski (“Gralenski”).
WEI discloses:
Regarding claim 1: a heating assembly, comprising
a base plate (e.g., insulating pieces 300) (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34),
the base plate being provided with a plurality of ceramic heating sheets (e.g., ceramic heating pieces 110) (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34),
the ceramic heating sheets being spaced apart side by side being connected (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34), and
a heat conduction structure (e.g., electrode plates 200) being provided over the ceramic heating sheets (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34);
Regarding claim 2, as best understood: the heating assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base plate is provided with a recess (e.g., recesses within walls 320), and the ceramic heating sheets are disposed at a position corresponding to the recess of the base plate, with a gap (e.g., spaces between pieces 110 and 300) formed between the ceramic heating sheets and a bottom of the recess of the base plate (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34); and
Regarding claim 7, as best understood: an electrothermal furnace using the heating assembly according to claim 1 (e.g., Fig. 1 and 12 and para 25-26 and 34).
WEI does not explicitly disclose the ceramic heating sheets being connected in parallel (as recited in claim 1).
However, Gralenski discloses:
Regarding claim 1: heating elements 106 corresponding to the ceramic heating sheets being spaced apart side by side being connected in parallel (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 41, 61 as well as claim 3);
Regarding claim 3: the heating assembly according to claim 2, wherein a side wall (e.g., side wall with holes accommodating heating elements 106 as seen in Fig. 2) of the recess of the base plate is provided with holes (e.g., holes accommodating heating elements 106 as seen in Fig. 2), and the heating elements 106 corresponding to the ceramic heating sheets are connected to the base plate through the holes (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 61);
Regarding claim 7, as best understood: an electrothermal furnace (e.g., furnace 100) using the heating assembly according to claim 1 (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 61); and
Regarding claim 8: the electrothermal furnace according to claim 7, wherein the electrothermal furnace further comprises a casing (e.g., casing seen in Fig. 1-3 including side wall surface 114), an upper side of the casing is provided with an opening (e.g., holes accommodating heating elements 106, apertures 112), the heating assembly is disposed in the casing, and the heat conduction structure of the heating assembly is in contact with an outside at the opening (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI as suggested and taught by Gralenski in order to optimize the relationship of the heat source to the product.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI in view of Gralenski and further in view of US 20090200285 A1 to Raidt et al. (“Raidt”)
WEI in view of Gralenski discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
WEI in view of Gralenski does not explicitly disclose the recess of the base plate is provided with a heat insulating wool pad, and the heat insulating wool pad is located under the ceramic heating sheets (as recited in claim 4).
However, Raidt discloses:
Regarding claim 4: the heating assembly according to claim 3, wherein the recess of the base plate is provided with a heat insulating wool pad (e.g., first layer 3, second layer 4), and the heat insulating wool pad is located under structure corresponding to the ceramic heating sheets (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 7 and 42); and
Regarding claim 5: the heating assembly according to claim 3, wherein, a heat insulating plate (e.g., first layer 3) is provided under structure corresponding to the base plate, the heat insulating plate is provided with an accommodating recess (e.g., recess within first layer 3) adapted to the base plate, and the base plate is disposed in the accommodating recess (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 7 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI in view of Gralenski as suggested and taught by Raidt in order to provide insulation and also a reliable liquid, moisture, and water seal in the plane at the same time.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI in view of Gralenski and further in view of US 20030019863 A1 to Gratz et al. (“Gratz”).
WEI in view of Gralenski discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
WEI in view of Gralenski does not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor (as recited in claim 6).
However, Gratz discloses:
Regarding claim 6: the heating assembly according to claim 3, wherein the heating assembly further comprises a temperature sensor (e.g., temperature sensor 29), and the temperature sensor is disposed under the heat conduction structure (e.g., cooktop panel 3) for detecting a temperature of the heat conduction structure (e.g., Abstract, Fig. 1 and para 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI in view of Gralenski as suggested and taught by Gratz in order to simplify assembly/fitting.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI in view of Gralenski and further in view of US 20040026404 A1 to Lerner (“Lerner”).
WEI in view of Gralenski discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
WEI in view of Gralenski does not explicitly disclose a thermochromic ring (as recited in claim 9).
However, Lerner discloses:
Regarding claim 9: the electrothermal furnace according to claim 8, wherein a thermochromic ring is provided at the opening of the casing, the thermochromic ring is in contact with the heat conduction structure, and the thermochromic ring is a metal ring (e.g., central metal element 10) coated with a thermochromic ink (e.g., liquid crystals 14 in the form of the letters "HOT" that change color when they reach a certain temperature) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 61, 79 and 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI in view of Gralenski as suggested and taught by Lerner in order to provide a warning instantly when a surface is too hot to touch.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI in view of Gralenski and further in view of US 20050250375 A1 to Allison (“Allison”) and US 6814462 B1 to Fiene (“Fiene”).
WEI in view of Gralenski discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
WEI in view of Gralenski does not explicitly disclose a power socket is provided on one side of the casing, the power socket is provided with three connection terminals, three connection terminals are in a straight line, an adapted power cord is provided outside the power socket, one end of the adapted power cord is provided with a power plug, the power plug is adapted to be inserted into the power socket, the power plug is provided with three terminal holes corresponding to the three connection terminals, and the three terminal holes are in the straight line (as recited in claim 10).
However, Allison discloses:
Regarding claim 10: the electrothermal furnace according to claim 7, wherein a power socket (e.g., universal socket 10) is provided on one side of the casing, the power socket is provided with three connection terminals (e.g., prongs 32-35), an adapted power cord (e.g., power cord assembly 4, power cord assembly 7) is provided outside the power socket, one end of the adapted power cord is provided with a power plug (e.g., universal plug 6, universal plug 9), the power plug is adapted to be inserted into the power socket, the power plug is provided with three terminal holes (e.g., cavities 15, 17, 19, 21) corresponding to the three connection terminals (e.g., Fig. 1-4 and para 37-48).
WEI in view of Gralenski and Allison does not explicitly disclose three connection terminals are in a straight line and the three terminal holes are in the straight line (as recited in claim 10).
However, Fiene discloses:
Regarding claim 10: three connection terminals (e.g., terminals of lamp 70) are in a straight line, and the three terminal holes (e.g., holes of socket 72) are in the straight line (e.g., Fig. 4 and col 4, ln 29-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI in view of Gralenski as suggested and taught by Allison in order to allow production of an electrical device or appliance featuring a common universal socket, receiving of multiple universal plug power cords, allowing for connection to multiple power service voltages and outlet wall socket configurations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify WEI in view of Gralenski and Allison as suggested and taught by Fiene in order to a simpler and more flexible system for installing and connecting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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) LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 15, 2025