Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/990,470

FLUID HEATING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Priority
Dec 13, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0178059
Examiner
BARGERO, JOHN E
Art Unit
3762
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kyungdong Navien Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allowance Rate
324 granted / 585 resolved
-14.6% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
625
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
94.7%
+54.7% vs TC avg
§102
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 4/13/2026 have been considered and are not persuasive. The applicant has amended the claims to state, wherein the controller controls the first pump to increase the flow rate of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger when the flow rate detected by the firs flow rate sensor is less that equal to a reference flow rate and when a set temperature of the fluid heating apparatus set by the user is greater than or equal to a reference temperature... The Office still does not understand this because the reference temperature was never defined in the claims. One interpretation of the claim is that the user selects a set temperature, 95 degrees Fahrenheit or example, and the reference temperature is 94 degrees Fahrenheit, both are fixed temperatures that do not change, and so in this condition the first pump will never increase the flow rate. In essence, by choosing a set temperature higher or lower than the reference temperature, the user is directly controlling the operation of first pump; this does not seem to be the intent of the invention. There seems to be a sensed temperature comparison step missing in the claims. Specification The disclosure is no longer objected to because of the following informalities: 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. Claims1,3-6,8, and 13 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. Independent claims 1 and 13 state the condition, “when a set temperature of the fluid heating apparatus set by user is greater than or equal to a reference temperature...”. This is unclear as to what is the temperature of the “fluid heating apparatus” because three temperatures are recorded by sensors (104,106,107) which are all part of the fluid heating apparatus (100) and there may be variation within the system and so the Office is unsure of what is meant by this set temperature. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims1,3-6,8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written disclosure does not state that the set temperature is set or selected by the user. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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. /HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /JOHN E. BARGERO/ Examiner Art Unit 3762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Dec 27, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 13, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12669266
FURNACE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12650015
PROFILED SECTION FOR TEMPERATURE-CONTROL OF A ROOM, AND BUILDING ELEMENT ASSEMBLY COMPRISING SAID PROFILED SECTION
5y 3m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12638191
CONSTANT-TEMPERATURE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM EMPLOYING CARBON DIOXIDE HEAT PUMP, AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12624771
STOP VALVE FOR INSTALLATION IN A PIPELINE, IN PARTICULAR IN A PIPELINE OF A NUCLEAR FACILITY
3y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12595915
GAS VALVE AND OVEN
4y 9m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+30.1%)
3y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 585 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month