Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/004,039

HEATING TRAY FOR VACUUM HOPPER PRECHARGER

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 30, 2022
Examiner
DODSON, JUSTIN C
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Samsung Mechatronics Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

46%
Career Allow Rate
171 granted / 376 resolved
Without
With
+68.7%
Interview Lift
avg trend
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
40 pending
416
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Amendment The amendment presents claims 1-4 as amended and claims 5-12 as added. Therefore, claims 1-12 are pending. Amendments to the Drawings and Specification were concurrently filed. The amendment to the claims is sufficient in overcoming the grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) previously indicated. Drawings The drawings were received on 01/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Office action on 10/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 With respect to the prior art, Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 in that: “Kohl fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest that the connecting devices, which the Examiner equates with the claimed ‘mounting part’ includes a series of mounting grooves arranged in columns or rows, let alone that each of the mounting grooves is configured to accommodate a secondary battery.” See Remarks, page 9. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. PNG media_image1.png 518 431 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 6 (annotated) As previously detailed, and maintained herein, Kohl teaches a mounting part (shown above. Figure 7 and 8 identifies the mounting part as connection device, which protrudes from the upper surface of the heating part) which is located on the upper portion of the heating part (60) and has a plurality of mounting grooves (spacings shown above) arranged in a plurality of columns or rows (as shown above). While Kohl does not explicitly state that each mounting groove of the plurality of mounting grooves being configured to accommodate the secondary batter, the secondary battery is not a positively recited structure. That is, the heating tray structure does not include the secondary battery and, as such, reference to the secondary battery amounts to the intended use of the associated structure. Accordingly, the limitation “to accommodate the secondary battery” is not being given patentable weight. Additionally, such limitation is entirely functional and no size, shape, or specific spacing arrangement is recited as being required to achieve the limitation. As such, the arrangement of Kohl, reciting the same structure and cooperative relationships, appears to be capable of performing the same function. For such reasons, the Examiner maintains that Kohl anticipates the claimed invention and, therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is proper. As the above is the only argument presented, dependent claims 2-12 fall with claim 1 as the Examiner’s position remains unchanged. Claim Objections Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the cables” should be “the cable” as claim 4 only recites a single cable. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. 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. Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “a plurality of plates are arrange din the inner space of the base frame” which renders the claim indefinite as “the inner space” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what space is being referenced. Additionally, the base frame is not claimed as having any specific shape or configuration that would lead to one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the base frame inherently has an inner space. As such, it is unclear if the base frame includes sidewalls and a bottom that define an inner space or if the base frame includes recesses or openings that define the inner space. Claims 6-7 inherit the above deficiency as a result of their dependency from claim 5. Claim 8 recites “wherein the duct cover is formed along the shape of the plates” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant for a cover to be formed along a shape. Conversely, it would be clear as to what is meant for a cover to be formed along a surface of the plates or for the cover to have a shape that corresponds to the shape of the plates. However, the claim language is broader such that it is unascertainable as to what is intended. The instant specification only mentions the duct cover 24 in paragraph 0044, which states that such cover “is formed at the bottom of the cable duct to prevent the cable from escaping to the outside.” Figure 6 shows the duct cover 24 is an “X” shape that mirrors the shape of plates 25 with spacing 26 therebetween. While Figure 6 is not limiting as to the scope of the disclosed invention, the claim’s scope creates ambiguity as to the intended cooperative relationship between the duct cover and the plates. Claim 10 recites “wherein the heating part comprises a plurality of heating parts” which creates confusion as it is unclear if the intended meaning is fore the plurality of heating parts to define the heating part (that is coupled to the upper plate) or if the heating part includes a plurality of discrete heating parts within the heating part. For instance, if the heating part is a heating plate, it is unclear if there are multiple heating plates or if a single heating plate includes discrete heating elements (such as resistive coils within the plate). Claim 11 inherits the above deficiency as a result of its dependency from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kohl (US2015/0131979). Regarding claim 1, Kohl teaches a heating tray (Fig. 1,2, 6, 7, 8) for a vacuum hopper precharger for discharging an electrolyte of a secondary battery mounted on a tray and gas contained in the electrolyte to the outside, and supplying the electrolyte to the inside of the secondary battery [“If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” MPEP 2111.02-II. In this case, the limitation “for a vacuum hopper precharger for discharging an electrolyte of a secondary battery mounted on a tray and gas contained in the electrolyte to the outside, and supplying the electrolyte to the inside of the secondary battery” identifies the intended use of the heating tray while the body of the claim sets forth all the limitations of the claimed heating tray. As such, the aforementioned limitation is not given patentable weight.], the heating tray comprising: a base frame (10) an upper plate (4) which is coupled (coupled indirectly via seal 61 and heating device 60) to an upper portion of the base frame (10); a heating part (electrical heating device 60) which is coupled (indirectly coupled via seal 61) to an upper portion of the upper plate (5); and PNG media_image1.png 518 431 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 6 (annotated) a mounting part (shown above. Figure 7 and 8 identifies the mounting part as connection device, which protrudes from the upper surface of the heating part) which is located on the upper portion of the heating part (60) and has a plurality of mounting grooves (spacings shown above) arranged in a plurality of columns or rows (as shown above), each mounting groove of the plurality of mounting grooves being configured to accommodate the secondary batter [The secondary battery is not a positively recited structure. That is, the heating tray structure does not include the secondary battery and, as such, reference to the secondary battery amounts to the intended use of the associated structure. Accordingly, the limitation “to accommodate the secondary battery” is not being given patentable weight. Additionally, such limitation is entirely functional and no size, shape, or specific spacing arrangement is recited as being required to achieve the limitation. As such, the arrangement of Kohl, reciting the same structure and cooperative relationships, appears to be capable of performing the same function). Regarding claim 4, Kohl teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the base frame (10) has formed therein a cable duct (13/14) in which a cable connected to the heating part (60) is located (The cable is not positively recited structure. Rather, the claim language makes it reasonably clear that the duct is intended to have a cable therein. The ducts 13/14 are structurally capable of having a cable of some size pass through them.). Regarding claim 9, Kohl teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein a plurality of holes (Fig. 6; holes 11/12) are formed in the upper plate. 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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (US2015/0131979) in view of Wong (US20100089902). Regarding claim 2, Kohl teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the details of the heating part (60). As such, Kohl is silent on wherein the heating part (40) comprises: a fixed frame (41) which is fixed to the upper plate (30); a heating plate (42) which is located on the upper part of the fixed frame (41) and is for generating heat; an insulation plate (43) which is located between the fixed frame (41) and the heating plate (42) and is for preventing heat generated from the heating plate (42) from escaping to the lower side of the heating part; and a cover (44) which has the heating plate (42) and the insulation plate (43) positioned therein and has a lower portion fixed to the fixed frame (41). However, Figure 8 of Kohl details an exploded view of a heating device. In this embodiment the heating device comprises: a fixed frame (plate 80) which is fixed (indirectly) to the upper plate (4); a heating plate (82) which is located on the upper part of the fixed frame (80) and is for generating heat (para. 0053, discloses 82 being an electrical resistive layer); an insulation plate (insulation ceramic plate 85) a cover (84) which has the heating plate (42) and the insulation plate (85) positioned therein and has a lower portion fixed to the fixed frame (80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kohl by replacing the heating device of Figs. 6-7 of Kohl, with the heating device of Figure 8 of Kohl, for in doing so would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized electrical heating devices performing the same function of generating heat upon the application of electrical current and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II). Kohl, as modified, teaches substantially the claimed invention except for the insulation plate being located between the fixed frame (80) and the heating plate (82) and being for preventing heat generated from the heating plate (82) from escaping to the lower side of the heating part. Kohl’s insulation plate is described as serving as “the electrical insulation of the resistive layer” (para. 0053). As such, the insulation plate of Kohl is an electrical insulation plate and not a thermal insulation plate. Wong relates to a system for heated food delivery (Title) and is concerned with providing an electrical heater in which the direction of generated heat is controlled (para. 0034). This is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing heat generated from the heating plate from escaping to the lower side. Wong teaches a layered electrical heater (Fig. 3; heater 12) comprising a base plate (80 [corresponding to the plate 80 of Kohl), a heating plate (10), and am insulation plate (thermal insulation plate 82) being located between the base plate (80) and the heating plate (10) for preventing heat generated from the heating plate (10) from escaping to the lower side (para. 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kohl with Wong by adding to the heating part, between the fixed plate and heating plate, of Kohl, with the thermal insulation plate of Wong, for in doing so would allow the top of the heating part to reach the desired temperature, while the bottom remains substantially cooler (para. 0036 of Wong). Those of ordinary skill in the art would seek to modify Kohl to include the thermal insulation plate of Wong as in doing so would regulate the direction of generated heat, thereby reducing waste energy. Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, including wherein the heating part comprises a detection sensor for detecting and controlling the temperature of heat generated by the heating plate (Wong; paragraph 0042 discloses using a microcontroller with built in thermal sensors for controlling a power circuit switch supplying power to the heater where the sensors monitor the temperature) (see also paragraph 0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kohl with Wong by adding to the heating part of Kohl, with the detection sensor of Wong, for in doing so would provide a means for regulating the temperature of the heating part. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (US2015/0131979). Regarding claim 10, Kohl teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, except for wherein the heating part comprises a plurality of heating parts spaced apart from each other. However, Figure 8 of Kohl details an exploded view of a heating part. In this embodiment the heating part comprises a plurality of heating parts (82) spaced apart from each other (as shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kohl by adding to the heating part of Figs. 6-7 of Kohl, with the multiple heating parts of Figure 8 of Kohl, for in doing so would amount to a mere duplication of heating parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-B. In this case, duplicating the heating parts would increase the output of the heating part by allowing for a more uniform temperature distribution. Regarding claim 11, modified Kohl teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 10, including wherein the number of heating parts corresponds to the number of holes in the upper plate (Fig. 8 shows 3 heating parts and Figure 6 shows 3 openings, two circular ones and one rectangular one, on plate 6). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (US2015/0131979). Regarding claim 12, modified Kohl teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein a plurality of holes are formed in the fixed frame. However, Figure 7 of Kohl details a fixed frame (70) having a plurality of holes formed (two circular holes shown, which correspond to holes 13/14 in plate 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kohl by adding to the fixed frame of Fig.8 of Kohl, with the holes shown in Fig. 7, in order to provide communication to the holes in the base frame. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5-8 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. The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of features required by claim 5 including “wherein a plurality of plates are arranged in the inner space of the base frame, wherein the plates are spaced apart from each other to form a space, and wherein the cables of the cable duct are arranged in the space.” Claims 6-8 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 5. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 27, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12569934
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WELDING COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12414654
MICRO PUREE MACHINE WITH FIXED MOTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12213622
DEVICE FOR ROASTING FOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 04, 2025
Patent 12209774
Water Heater
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 28, 2025
Patent 12161246
AIR PREHEATING OF BREW CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 10, 2024

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+68.7%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 376 resolved cases by this examiner