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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2022, 02/12/2025 and 02/25/2025 .The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12/08/2022, claims 1-22 are pending.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites: “a heating element” and “at least functional pipe” in lines 3 and 9. It is unclear if the limitation “heating element” is a part of the limitation “at least functional pipe”. According to the specification, pub. Para.0037 discloses: “ the at least one functional pipe 100, 200, 300, 400 and/or 500 can comprise … an electric heating element containing pipe 300, 400”. Therefore, for examination purposes, the claimed “heating element” is a part of the claimed “at least functional pipe”.
Claims 2-22 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US4974551A) in view of Moore (US 6725811 B1) and Beasley (US 4877014 A)
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses
A hot water appliance (title) comprising:
- a water tank (261, see fig.8) comprising a water tank wall (261, see fig.8 and col. 8 lines 34-44);
- a heating element (268, see fig.8) included in the water tank (see fig.8, a portion of the heating unit 268 is included in the water tank 261);
- a vacuum vessel (262, see fig.8) enclosing a vacuum space (272, see fig.8 and col. 13 lines 52-55: “a vacuum is pulled on cavity 272 so as to create a negative pressure throughout the cavity thereby enhancing the acoustical and thermal insulating properties for the tank”), the water tank (261) being wholly included in the vacuum space (272, see fig.8), the whole water tank wall (261) being bounded by vacuum (see fig.8 and col. 13 lines 52-55), the vacuum vessel (262) comprising a vacuum vessel wall (262, see fig.8) consisting of a number of vacuum vessel wall parts (263-264, see fig.8) (“Plastic outer shell 262 includes a generally cylindrical cover 263 which is actually disc-like in appearance and spin-welded or alternatively adhesively welded or bonded to the upper edge of cylindrical side wall 264”, see col. 3 lines 38-42);
- at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 and/or 269, see fig.8) extending through the water tank wall (261) and being261, see fig.8) at the location of a water tank wall connection (see water tank wall connection in annotated fig.8 below), and the functional pipe (266, 267, 268 and/or 269, see fig.8) extending also through the vacuum vessel wall (262, see fig.8) and being(see vacuum vessel wall connection in annotated fig.8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.8 of Nelson
Nelson discloses the connections
between the number of vacuum vessel wall parts (263-264),
between the at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 and/or 269) with the water tank wall (261) and
between at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 and/or or 269) with the vacuum vessel wall (262).
However, Nelson does not expressly disclose the connections are gas tight.
Moore discloses a water heater, comprising:
the number of vessel wall parts (30 and 34) gastightly connected with each other by welding or soldering (See col.3 lines, 37-39: “Welding or the like provides a permanent gas tight joint between reduced portion 34 and flange 30”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connection between the number of vacuum vessel wall parts of Nelson to be “gastightly connected with each other by welding” as taught by Moore. Doing so maximizes vacuum integrity, strengthens structural resilience, and reduces energy costs.
Beasley discloses Tube Arrangement for Heat Exchanger, comprising:
the at least one functional pipe (31-34, see fig.1) with the water tank wall (22, see fig.1) being gastightly connected with the tank wall (22, see fig.1 and col. 4 lines 10-13: “The heat exchange tubes 31 through 34 are positionally secured in a gas-tight manner, such as by welding, to the end plate 22”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connections between the at least one functional pipe with the water tank wall and between at least one functional pipe with the vacuum vessel wall of Nelson to be “gastightly connected” with each other by welding as taught by Beasley. The gastight connection keeps the water clean and safe for its intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Nelson further discloses the water tank (261) is exclusively borne by the at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 or 269, see fig.8).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson further discloses the weight of the water tank (261, see fig.8) is transferred via the at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 or 269, see fig.8) to the vacuum vessel wall (264, see fig.8).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson further discloses a part (a part of 268, see fig. 8) of the at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 or 269, see fig.8) that extends between the water tank wall connection (see water tank wall connection in annotated fig. 8 above) and the vacuum vessel wall connection (see vacuum vessel wall connection in annotated fig.8 above) determines a heat transport length lh (see length of the portion 268 between the annotated wall connections) for heat conduction from the water tank wall connection ((see water tank wall connection in annotated fig. 8 above) to the vacuum vessel wall connection (see vacuum vessel wall connection in annotated fig.8 above) and has a wall sectional area A (see fig.8), except where a ratio between heat transport length lh in mm and wall sectional area A in mm2 satisfies the formula lh/A > 4 mm-1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a ratio between heat transport length lh in mm and wall sectional area A in mm2 satisfies the formula lh/A > 4 mm-1 since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley teaches a certain ratio between heat transport length lh in mm and wall sectional area A in mm2, and having a specific ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio between heat transport length lh in mm and wall sectional area A satisfies the formula lh/A > 4 mm-1 is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio between heat transport length lh in mm and wall sectional area A satisfies the formula lh/A > 4 mm-1 in order to obtain a desired heating level, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley/ Takada does not expressly disclose the at least one functional pipe has an external diameter that is less than 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the external diameter of the at least one functional pipe to be “less than 8 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley teaches a certain external diameter of the at least one functional pipe and having the external diameter of the at least one functional pipe to be “less than 8 mm” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the heat transport length lh is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the heat transport length lh to be greater than 60 mm in order to obtain desired heating and/or water level(s), is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley does not expressly disclose the at least one functional pipe has a wall thickness that is between 0.4 and 1.0 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall thickness of the at least one functional pipe to be “between 0.4 and 1.0 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley teaches a certain wall thickness of the at least one functional pipe and having the wall thickness “between 0.4 and 1.0 mm” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the wall thickness to be “between 0.4 and 1.0 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so ensures the pipe is strong enough for its intended use but not so thick that it restricts flow, increases cost, or complicates installation.
Regarding claim 8, Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley further discloses water tank wall connection (water tank wall connection of Nelson in annotated fig.8 above) and the vacuum vessel wall connection (vacuum vessel wall connection of Nelson in annotated fig.8 above) are welded joints (see fig.1 and col. 4 lines 10-13 of Beasley. See rejection of claim 1 above, the modified connections of Nelson in view of Beasley are welded jointed ).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Takada (US 20150125139 A1)
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley does not expressly disclose the part of the at least one functional pipe that extends between the water tank wall connection and the vacuum vessel wall connection has a heat transport length lh that is greater than 60 mm, wherein the material of the at least one functional pipe is one of stainless steel, titanium or Incoloy, respectively.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the part of the at least one functional pipe that extends between the water tank wall connection and the vacuum vessel wall connection of Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley to have a heat transport length lh that is greater than 60 mm since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley teaches the part of the at least one functional pipe that extends between the water tank wall connection and the vacuum vessel wall connection to have a certain heat transport length lh and having the heat transport length lh that is greater than 60 mm is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the heat transport length lh is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the heat transport length lh to be greater than 60 mm in order to obtain a desired heating level, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Robert (GB 2270369 A)
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except water tank wall connection and the vacuum vessel wall connection are soldered joints.
Robert discloses an instantaneous water heater, comprising:
tank wall connection is soldered joint (see page 2, lines 33-35: “Each pipe 6,7 is offset from the central longitudinal axis of the tank 1 as shown in Figure 2 and is secured to the bottom plate 5, for example by soldering”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water tank wall connection and the vacuum vessel wall connection of Nelson in view of Moore and Beasley to apply the teachings of Robert so as they are soldered joints. Doing so allows to improve dimensional stability, reduce thermal damage, and simplify assembly.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Peteri (US6612268B1)
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth. Nelson further discloses the at least one functional pipe (266, 267, 268 and/or 269, see fig.8) comprises at least one of a water supply pipe (266, see fig.8), a water discharge pipe (267, see fig.8), an electric heating element containing pipe (268, see fig.8), except a temperature sensor containing pipe.
Peteri discloses a hot-water appliance, comprising:
a temperature sensor containing pipe (6, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the at least one functional pipe of Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley to comprise the temperature sensor containing pipe as taught by Peteri. Doing so allows to measure the actual water temperature in the pipe in order to maintain the temperature setpoint of the appliance which ensures consistent heat output and prevents overshooting or undershooting the target temperature.
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shinoki WO 2013065162 A1 (as evidenced by Cool US 2015/0020756A1)
Regarding claim 11, Nelson further discloses
the water tank (261) comprises a cylindrical water tank sidewall (sidewall of 261, see fig.8) and wherein the vacuum vessel ((262) comprises a cylindrical vacuum vessel sidewall (sidewall of 262, see fig.8), wherein at least between the cylindrical water tank sidewall (sidewall of 261) and the cylindrical vacuum vessel sidewall (sidewall of 262), except a laminate of reflecting foil and glass fiber cloth is included.
Shinoki discloses a vacuum heat insulating material, comprising:
a laminate (1, see fig.1) of reflecting foil (4, see fig. 1. See Cool, para.0013 discloses: “reflective foil” to prove the foil is a reflective material) and glass fiber cloth (2, see fig.1) is included.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley to incorporate the “laminate of reflecting foil and glass fiber cloth” of Shinoki between the cylindrical water tank sidewall and the cylindrical vacuum vessel sidewall of Nelson. Doing so provides a “high heat insulation property when used while being bent can be obtained” (See abstract of Shinoki).
Regarding claim 12, Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley/ Shinoki further discloses
the laminate (1, see fig.1 of Shinoki) at least three layers of glass fiber cloth (2, see fig.1 of Shinoki).
However, Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley/ Shinoki does not disclose the laminate comprises at least three layers of reflecting foil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reflecting foil of Nelson in view of Moore/ Beasley/ Shinoki to have at least three layers of reflecting foil since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known (see fig.1 of Shinoki) it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Shinoki teaches a certain layer(s) of Shinoki and varying the number of layer(s) is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so allows to maintain a desired barrier property.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090194250 A1 discloses a heat accumulator includes a thermally insulated heat storage vessel having an opening formed in a bottom wall thereof, a quantity of heat accumulating medium arranged within the vessel, and a fluid circulation tube of double tube structure inserted from the opening into the vessel and extending vertically upward toward a top wall of the vessel for introducing a fluid into the vessel or discharging the fluid out of the vessel. The heat accumulator further includes a heat-insulating layer provided on an outer peripheral surface of the fluid circulation tube and extending over at least a longitudinal portion of the fluid circulation tube extending from the bottom wall of the vessel in an upward direction to a predetermined height of the vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 Landrum can be reached on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights