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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slotted gaps (see claim 1), “outlet branch pipe of one heating element to the inlet branch pipe of an adjacent heating element” (claim 8), and “elastic insulating coating” (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the heater housing,” “the area,” and “the heat-radiating surface” lack proper antecedence and should use “a” or “an,” as appropriate. Further claim 1 recites “a resistive conductor” in the preamble followed by “a resistive conductor” with respect to increasing the area. The second occurrence should be “the resistive conductor.”
Claims 1-9 are objected to because the claims recite “water” and “liquid” interchangeably. Applicant should be consistent with all terminology throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. Many of the issues identified may be as a result of translation into English from a foreign document. Further, the claims are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “the area of the heat-radiating surface of the heating element is increased by making a resistive conductor from a flat resistive tape with a thin cross-section, the perimeter of which exceeds the perimeter of a round conductor of equal cross-sectional area, with both wide sides of the resistive tape forming heat-radiating surfaces, and the tape width exceeds its thickness, predominantly by more than ten times” renders the claim indefinite.
First the claim language is substantially vague and unclear as to what structure(s) are required and what are not. For instance, it is not clear if the round conductor of equal cross sectional area is a required structure (i.e., the heating element includes the tape and round conductor) or merely used as a comparison. If used as a comparison, it is unclear as to what that comparison is. The limitation “the perimeter of which exceeds the perimeter of a round conductor of equal cross sectional area” is entirely vague and relative. A round conductor of some circumference can be made that equals the perimeter of a flat tape. It is not clear how the recitation of the perimeter of a round conductor of equal cross sectional area describes the intended scope of the resistive tape. Further, it is noted that the phrase “of equal cross sectional area” is likewise vague and confusing as it is unclear if applicant intends for the cross sectional area of the round conductor to be equal to the cross sectional area of the resistive tape or that the perimeter of the round conductor has a cross sectional area that is equal along the length of the round conductor (i.e., a round conductor of uniform diameter).
Second, as a result of the above confusion it is not clear in what way Applicant intends for the area of the heat radiating surface to be increased. It is not clear if Applicant is using the round conductor as a comparison tool (e.g., a flat tape having a surface area vs. the surface area of an arbitrary round conductor) or if the claimed increase is as a result of some other avenue. As defined in the claim, the manner in which the area of the heat radiating surface being increased is vague and confusing. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to the metes and bounds being sought.
Claim 1 recites that the tape width exceeds its thickness “predominately by more than ten times” which renders the claim indefinite. It is understood that “predominately” means “mostly or mainly” (see dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/English/predominantly). As such, the claim language can be understood to mean “mostly by more than ten times.” However, this limitation is confusing as it is not clear what is meant by “mostly by more than.” It would makes sense to say that the width exceeds the thickness by more than ten times. The use of “predominately” (or mostly) allows for a broader interpretation such that it is not clear if the breadth allows for situations in which the tape width exceeds the thickness by more than ten times along most of the length of the tape. In other words, it is not clear if “mostly” refers to the length of the tape or to the numerical range of the ration of width to thickness.
Claim 1 recites “a heating element with a resistive tape is placed in the housing of the electric heater,” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites, in the preamble, “Electric water heater containing a resistive heating element with a resistive conductor located inside the heater housing and submerged in water.” First, it is not reasonable clear if “the housing of the electric heater” and “the heater housing” refer to the same housing or to different ones. Second, the preamble sets forth that the resistive heating element is located inside the heater housing and submerged in water. Claim 1 also defines the heating element and resistive conductor to be a “flat resistive tape.” The addition of “a heating element with a resistive tape is placed in the housing of the electric heater” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the heating element being reference is the same as previously claimed (i.e., the heating element of a flat resistive tape) or a different one. In other words, it is unclear if the claim requires two heating elements or one.
Claim 1 recites “the adjacent gaps, predominantly slotted” which renders the claim indefinite as “the adjacent gaps” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what gaps are being referenced.
Claim 1 recites “the ratio between the width of the heat-radiating surface of the heating element and the slit size of each gap” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which width of which heat radiating surface of which heating element is being referenced. Assuming there are two heating elements, it is unclear which of the two Applicant intends to be referencing. Further, it is not clear what heat radiating surface is being referenced as the claim recites that the heating element (and both sides of the resistive tap) form heat radiating surfaces. As such, it is not clear if the width being referenced refers to one side of the resistive tape or to the width of both sides.
Claim 1 recites “selected from the condition of ensuring such temperature pressure and thermal conductivity, at which the rate of the heat transfer to the heated liquid is close to the maximum” renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear as to what “temperature pressure” is. Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that that temperature and pressure refer to distinct properties. It is not clear if Applicant intended to refer to the same in the alternative (i.e., temperature or pressure) or collectively (i.e., temperature, pressure, and thermal conductivity). Here, the lack of punctuation allows for varying interpretations as to the metes and bounds being sought. Second, the phrase “the rate of heat transfer to the heated liquid is close to the maximum” is similarly vague and confusing as “close to” is entirely relative. Further, it is unclear as to what “maximum” is being referenced. Heat transfer relies on various parameters including heat flux, heat capacity of the liquid and heating materials, temperature difference, etc. It is not clear if “maximum” refers to a hypothetical maximum heat transfer (i.e., perfect heat transfer assuming no loss) or to, for instance, a maximum amount based on applied current to the heating element.
Additionally, the claim uses vague language throughout the claim further compounding efforts in ascertaining the metes and bounds being sought. For instance, the term “its” is used. While using such term does not render the claim indefinite per se, such usage, in combination with the above mentioned vagueness, merely causes more confusion. For instance, in the limitation “a resistive tape is placed in the housing of the electric heater in such a way that on both sides of its heat radiating surfaces” the use of “its” can be understood to refer to the “resistive tape,” to the “housing” or to the first claimed heating element. Further, claim 1 makes mention of heater water in the preamble while the body references “liquid.” While it is understood that water is a liquid, switching the terms of the substance being heated further creates confusion as to the metes and bounds being sought.
Claim 2 recites “the heating element contains a thin resistive tape” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “thin resistive tape” is in addition to the resistive tape recited in claim 1 or to another resistive tape.
Claim 3 recites “a thin resistive tape” which renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear how many resistive tapes are being claimed. Claim 1 sets forth a resistive tap (twice) and claim 2 sets forth “a resistive tape.” The lack of proper antecedence creates confusion as to how many resistive tapes are intended.
Claim 3 recites, “a thin resistive tape is wound on a carcass made of a thin-walled cylindrical pipe, and has a coating…” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structure has the coating; the resistive tape, or the cylindrical pipe. Similarly, “that insulates it from the heated liquid” is confusing as “it” could refer to either the resistive tape of the cylindrical pipe and it is not clear which is intended.
Claim 4 recites “between the external heating element” renders the claim indefinite as “the external heating element” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what heating element is being referenced.
Claim 4 recites “the ends of the resistive tapes of the two heating elements” renders the claim indefinite for much of the same reasons already discussed. Specifically, it is not clear what resistive tapes or what heating elements are being referenced as the language being used is not consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 5 recite “it contains at least two pairs” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structure(s) “it” is referencing. In other words, what contains at least two pairs; the electric heater or the heating element?
Claim 5 recites “the condition of equality of the total dimensions of the diameters of the connected pairs of cylinders” renders the claim indefinite as such language is confusion. It is not clear as to what the total dimensions of the diameters of the connected pairs of cylinders are equal. Does Applicant intend for the diameter of a first pair to be equal to the diameter of the second pair of cylinders? If so, then the language should clarify this relationship. As written, the use of “total dimensions of the diameters of the connected pairs” implies that the diameters of all pairs are totaled together. This, then, would create confusion as to what this total is equal to.
Claim 6 recites “a thin resistive tape” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 sets forth a resistive tap (twice). The lack of proper antecedence creates confusion as to how many resistive tapes are intended.
Claim 7 recites “a thin resistive tape” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 sets forth a resistive tap (twice). The lack of proper antecedence creates confusion as to how many resistive tapes are intended.
Claim 8 recite “it contains at least two heating elements” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structure(s) “it” is referencing. In other words, what contains at least two heating elements; the electric heater or the heating element?
Claim 8 recites “the gaps for the liquid flow” which renders the claim indefinite as “the gaps” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what gaps are being referenced.
Claim 8 recites “the outlet branch” and “the inlet branch” which renders the claim indefinite as such terms lack proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what branches are being referenced.
Claim 9 recites “the thin resistive tape has an elastic insulating coating, which is pressed together with it into a flattened tubular shell, and the cross section of the tubular shell has a shape close to that of the resistive tape” which renders the claim indefinite. First, claim 9 depends from claims 2, 6, 7, or 8. While considered a proper multiple dependent claim, the fact that each of claims 2, 6, 7, and 8 set forth a different number of heating elements or resistive tapes, it is not clear which resistive tape is being referenced. Further, the claim states that the tape has an elastic coating and that the tape and coating are pressed together into a flattened tubular shell. As such, the limitation of “the cross section of the tubular shell has a shape close to that of the resistive tape” is indefinite since the tubular shell is made from pressing the tape and coating into the tubular shape. As such, the tubular shell, being made from the pressed together tape and coating, would have the same cross sectional shape as the resistive tape, which in this case is the shape of a flattened tubular shell. Further, the use of “close to” is relative, which further compounds the confusion as to what is meant by the claim language.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loktev (US20040256375)
Regarding claim 1, Loktev teaches an electric water heater containing a resistive heating element with a resistive conductor, located inside the heater housing and submerged in water (Abstract, Figs. 1-7) characterized in that:
the area of the heat-radiating surface of the heating element (40) is increased by making a resistive conductor from a flat resistive tape (tape 31) with a thin cross-section (para. 0021, thin tape consisting of metal alloy foil or of carbon materials. See also paras. 0067-0070), the perimeter of which exceeds the perimeter of a round conductor of equal cross-sectional area [As a result of the indefiniteness raised above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the presence of a round conductor, nor a comparison to any particular conductor. In this case, a round conductor can be made with a perimeter that is less than the perimeter of tape 31], with both wide sides of the resistive tape forming heat-radiating surfaces (heating tape 31 is a thin tape made from metal alloy foil with high resistance or from carbon fibers/fabric-para. 0068. As such, both sides of tape 31, necessarily, form heat radiating surfaces, as this is how heat generated is transferred to heat the water) and the tape width exceeds its thickness (para. 0068 states the thickness of tape 31 is 20-50 microns) (Figs. 5-6 show the tape 31 whose width clearly exceeds its thickness), predominantly by more than ten times,
a heating element with a resistive tape is placed in the housing of the electric heater in such a way that on both sides of its heat-radiating surfaces [As a result of the indefinites detailed above, this instant heating element is interpreted to refer to the above heating element having a resistive tape that is placed in the housing.], the adjacent gaps, predominantly slotted, are formed for the flow of the heated liquid (Figure 3-4 shows heating element 40 being wound on pipe 10 with a central opening allowing for fluid flow), the ratio between the width of the heat-radiating surface of the heating element and the slit size of each gap for the flow of the heated liquid is selected from the condition of ensuring such temperature pressure and thermal conductivity, at which the rate of the heat transfer to the heated liquid is close to the maximum [the size of the heat radiating surface of the heating element and the size of the fluid path defines some ratio that is selected “to increase heating uniformity and to accelerate the heating process.” See para. 0006. Further, this “is achieved by way of increasing the heating material surface and water mixing during of [sic] heating process.” Here, the purpose outlined is to accelerate heating and increasing heating uniformity. As a result, one would select the size of the heating element and of the fluid flow path to be such that the rate of heat transfer from the heating element to the water would be increased to be relatively close to the maximum allowed for such parameters, allowing for some loss to the environment. See MPEP 2112 and 2114].
Loktev does not explicitly state that the tape width exceeds its thickness (para. 0068 states the thickness of tape 31 is 20-50 microns) (Figs. 5-6 show the tape 31 whose width clearly exceeds its thickness), predominantly by more than ten times.
However, this difference is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over Loktev. In this case, the only difference between the prior art and the claim is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than that of Loktev; i.e., such device would sill function to generate heat upon the application of current and to transfer that heat to the water in order to heat the water. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lektov, by modifying the ratio of width to thickness of the tape of Lektov, being necessarily of some value, with the width exceeding the thickness by more than ten times, for in doing so would merely result in changing the relative size of the resistive tape.
Further, since width to thickness ratio is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be the resulting heat transfer to the water. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of a relatively flat heating element of the allows for a greater surface area to be in contact with the object being heated. Varying the width of the resistive tape would allow for varying amounts of heat to be transferred to the water. Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the width of the resistive tape influences the resulting temperature of the flow. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Regarding claim 2, Lektov, as applied in claim 1, further discloses the heating element contains a thin resistive tape rolled in the form of a cylindrical spiral (Fig. 3-4), and the wide sides of the resistive tape form, respectively, the external and internal heat-radiating surfaces of the formed cylindrical heating element (Fig. 3-4, external facing out of the page with internal facing outer wall of pipe 10), the cylindrical heating element is placed in the electric heater housing in such a way, that cylindrical gaps for a liquid flow are formed with the side of its external and internal heat-radiating surfaces (fluid flows through pipe 10).
Regarding claim 9, Lektov, as applied in claim 2, further discloses the thin resistive tape (31) has an elastic insulating coating (para. 0024).
Lektov is silent on the tape/coating pressed together with it into a flattened tubular shell, and the cross section of the tubular shell has a shape close to that of the resistive tape.
However, this difference is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over Loktev. In this case, the only difference between the prior art and the claim is the shape of the resulting heating element. “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lektov, by modifying the shape of the heating element of Lektov, to be a flattened tubular shell, for in doing so would merely result in a change in shape of the heating element, which would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loktev (US20040256375) in view of Shaffer (US20160061488).
Regarding claim 3, Lektov teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, including that the cylindrical spiral of a thin resistive tape is wound on a carcass made of a thin-walled cylindrical pipe (10).
Lektov is silent on a coating, predominantly from enamel, that insulates it from the heated liquid.
Shaffer relates to a water heater (para. 0001) and teaches providing an enamel coating (para. 0002 and 0041).
Therefore, it would have been Lektov, by modifying the ratio of width to thickness of the tape of Lektov, being necessarily of some value, with the width exceeding the thickness by more than ten times, for in doing so would merely result in changing the relative size of the resistive tape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lektov with Shaffer, by adding to the pipe/conduit of Lektov, with the enamel coating of Shaffer, for in doing so would provide some protection to the pipe (para. 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of features including “two cylindrical heating elements concentrically placed one in the other with the formation of cylindrical gaps for the liquid flow between them” and “the ends of the resistive tapes of the two heating elements from one side of the heater housing are connected to each other by means of a jumper isolated from the heated liquid, and the ends of the resistive tapes from the second side of the heater housing are connected to the contacts for connecting to a power source” as required in claim 4.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4.
With respect to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of features including the heating element “curved in the shape of a sinusoid, mainly a rectangular sinusoid (meander), and the wide sides of the resistive tape form two heat-radiating surfaces of the formed heating element of a sinusoidal shape, the electric heater's housing is made in the shape of a flat prism and is divided by partitions into longitudinal sections that have passages between each two adjacent sections for sequential passage of liquid through all sections, the heating element is placed in sections of the heater housing in such a way, that its sinusoidal ends are pressed to the flat ends of the heater housing, the sinusoidal gaps for the liquid flow are formed with on the sides of both heat-radiating surfaces of the heating element.”
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of features including the heating element “rolled in the shape of a flat spiral, predominantly in the form of a double Archimedes spiral, moreover the wide sides of the resistive tape form, respectively, the external and internal heat-radiating surfaces of the formed spiral heating element, the electric heater housing is made in the shape of a disk, and the spiral heating element is placed in it in such a way, that the spiral ends of the heating element are pressed to the ends of the disk housing, spiral gaps for the liquid flow are formed with the side of the external and internal heat-radiating surfaces of the spiral heating element, a passage for a liquid flow is made in the central part of the disk housing, under the place turnabout of the twin spiral heating element.”
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 or 7.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761