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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callahan et al. (US 2006/0291527) in view of Cedric (EP 0349689 A1) and Dietschi (WO 2018/184914).
Regarding claim 1, Callahan et al. discloses “a liquid heater” (fig.1) comprising:
“a chamber” (fig.1, 1 a liquid heating chamber) for receiving a liquid;
“a pair of electrodes” (the electrode arrays 4) located within “the chamber” (1) “for applying electric current to the liquid” (abstract, i.e., the electrodes are each connected to a power supply by one or more switches … the controller can incrementally increase or decrease the current applied to the liquid to be heated. Para.0031, i.e., AC power 7);
“input terminals” (terminals connecting the electrodes to the AC power supply 7) for connection to a power supply;
“a plurality of switches” (6 includes switches. Para.0033, i.e., Examples of suitable switches include relays and, more preferably, semiconductor switches such as triacs) for connecting the electrodes (4) to the input terminals (terminals connecting the electrodes to the AC power supply 7); and
“a control unit” (fig.5, 10) “for controlling the switches” (abstract, i.e., a controller controls the switches based upon data received from a temperature/current sensor. The controller can incrementally increase or decrease the current applied to the liquid due to the number of switches and spacing between electrodes. See para.0034-0035),
wherein: “the switches are bi-directional” (para.0033, Triacs. Examiner noted that triacs is a type of bi-directional switches);
“the power supply supplies an alternating voltage having a frequency no greater than 60 Hz” ([0065] The algorithm was executed once per every cycle of the AC power supply 7 and thus caused the maximum rate of change of the load to the power supply to be nominally 10% per cycle in this example of the invention. It took 65 cycles to effect a change of current from zero current to maximum current (over 1 second for a 50 Hz or 60 Hz power supply)).
Callahan et al. is silent regarding a plurality of pair of electrodes.
Cedric teaches “a plurality pair of electrodes” (multiple pair of electrodes 11 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Callahan et al. with Cedric, by modifying Callahan et al.’s electrode arrangement with Cedric’s heating arrangement having plurality pair of electrode, to provide desired heating arrangement. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Callahan et al.’ heating arrangement with Cedric’s heating arrangement are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of provide heating. MPEP 2144.06.
Callahan et al. is silent regarding the control unit controls the switches such that the electrodes are energised with an alternating voltage having a frequency no less than 150 kHz.
Dietschi teaches “the control unit controls the switches such that the electrodes are energised with an alternating voltage having a frequency no less than 150 kHz” (Claim 13, i.e., that each electronic switch (2) of the switching arrangement is coupled to at least one control unit (3). Claim 23, i.e., the polarity of the voltage is controlled such that a pulse frequency of up to 3 MHz is obtained.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Callahan et al. with Dietschi, by modifying Callahan et al.’s frequency for the electrodes according to Dietschi’s the electrodes are energised with an alternating voltage having a frequency no less than 150 kHz, to provide intense, rapid and highly localized heat for faster heating.
Regarding claim 3, modified Callahan et al. discloses “the liquid heater comprises pairs of electrodes located within the chamber” (Callahan et al., electrodes 4 within chamber 1), “the switches have a plurality of different states for selectively connecting pairs of electrodes to the input terminals in one of a plurality of electrode configurations, and the electrodes have a different total electrical resistance in each electrode configuration” (para.0036, i.e., there are a large number of possible combinations of switch positions or switch configurations, i.e., 2 raised to the power of the number of switches. Figs.3-4 shows the current level in relation to the switch configuration and Table 1 showing switch configuration and power level with 0 being open and 1 being closed. Para.0063 discuss about the power level 0 all the switches were open and no power was applied. Similarity, at power level 65 all the switches were closed and maximum power was applied).
Regarding claim 4, modified Callahan et al. discloses “the liquid heater comprises at least six electrode configurations” (Callahan et al., electrodes 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Callahan et al. discloses “each pair of electrodes has a different electrical resistance” (abstract, i.e., the electrodes are each connected to a power supply by one or more switches … the controller can incrementally increase or decrease the current applied to the liquid to be heated. Examiner noted that resistance of each electrode pair relates to the applied current via Ohm’s Law. By varying the current applied via the switches, the resistance also changes).
Regarding claim 6, modified Callahan et al. discloses the electrical resistance of the pairs of electrodes have a maximum of Rmax and a minimum of Rmin (the electrical resistances of the electrodes inherently has a min and max resistance of some value), but is silent on where Rmax/Rmin is at least 10.
The instant publication application states “[0010] The electrical resistances of the pairs of electrodes may have a maximum of Rmax and a minimum of Rmin, where Rmax/Rmin is at least 10. As a result, a relatively wide dynamic range in the total electrical resistance of the various electrode configurations may be achieved”.
Callahan discloses a larger number of configuration allowing for a wide range of currents. Specifically, Callahan discloses a 250:1 (para.0037) range of currents being achieved. Here, the current applied is inversely proportional to the resistance via Ohm’s Law. Callahan, Therefore, it suggests a range of resistances depending on the selected configuration. Accordingly, providing a specific range of minimum and maximum resistances amounts to routine optimization, where the instant specification lacks disclosure for any criticality. It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wad filed to modify Callahan with Dietschi, by replacing the ratio of the minimum and maximum resistance of Callahan, being inherently of some value, to be at least 10, since the ratio of minimum and maximum resistance is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. MPEP 2144.05, II, A and MPEP 2144.05, II, B.
Regarding claim 7, Callahan teaches wherein the electrical resistances of the pairs of electrodes have a maximum of Rmax and a minimum of Rmin (the electrical resistances of the electrodes inherently has a min and max resistance of some value). Callahan also teaches a difference in the total electrical resistances of any two ranked electrode configurations having a maximum of Rmaxdiff (interpreted as a difference in total electrical resistances between any of the electrode configurations).
Callahan is silent on where RTmax/RTmin is at least 20 and Rmaxdiff/(RTmax-RTmin) is no greater than 35%. However, the instant specification states that such ranges allow for "relatively good balance" and "resolution" (para. 0011). Callahan discloses a rather large number of configurations allowing for a wide range of currents. Specifically, Callahan discloses a 250:1 (para.0037) range of currents being
achieved. Here, the current applied is inversely proportional to the resistance via Ohm's
Law. Callahan, therefore, it suggests a range of resistances depending on the
selected configuration. Accordingly, providing a specific range of minimum and
maximum resistances amounts to routine optimization, where the instant specification
lacks disclosure for any criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Callahan with Dietschi, by replacing the ratio of the minimum and maximum total resistances (RTmax/RTmin and Rmaxxdiff/RTmax-RTmin) of Callahan, being inherently of some value, to be at least 20 and 35%, respectively, since the ratio of minimum and maximum resistance 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 achieving a particular current and, as such, a desired heating profile. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resistance is inversely proportional to current and that increasing current causes a decrease in resistance (for constant voltage). Varying the ratio of resistances would allow for varying currents to be applied and, ultimately, varied heating profiles to be achieved. "[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, II, A and MPEP 2144.05, II, B.
Regarding claim 8, modified Callahan teaches “the liquid heater comprises a temperature sensor (Callahan, 12) for sensing a temperature of the liquid, and “the control unit controls the switches so as to select an electrode configuration based on the temperature of the liquid and a temperature setpoint” (Callahan, para.0059, i.e., a temperature-sensing element 12 is disposed at the end of the heating chamber, prior to outlet 3, and generates a temperature signal 14 indicative of the heated liquid temperature. The heated liquid temperature signal 14 is communicated to controller 10 which responds to it by adjusting the configuration of switch matrix 6 such that the water temperature is maintained as close as possible to a temperature set-point, but which, in any case, does not exceed it. The matrix switch configuration is always set such that current set-point takes priority over the temperature set-point. In other words, regardless of the demand for power to heat the liquid to the temperature set-point, the controller prevents drawing more current from the AC power supply 7 than the current set-point.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Callahan teaches the liquid heater comprises a temperature sensor (Callahan, 12) for sensing a temperature of the liquid, and “the control unit controls the switches such that the electrodes are energised with a voltage having a duty defined by the temperature of the liquid and the temperature setpoint” (Callahan, para.0059, i.e., a temperature-sensing element 12 is disposed at the end of the heating chamber, prior to outlet 3, and generates a temperature signal 14 indicative of the heated liquid temperature. The heated liquid temperature signal 14 is communicated to controller 10 which responds to it by adjusting the configuration of switch matrix 6 such that the water temperature is maintained as close as possible to a temperature set-point, but which, in any case, does not exceed it. The matrix switch configuration is always set such that current set-point takes priority over the temperature set-point. In other words, regardless of the demand for power to heat the liquid to the temperature set-point, the controller prevents drawing more current from the AC power supply 7 than the current set-point.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Callahan teaches “the control unit controls the switches” (Callahan, control unit 10 controls switches 6) such that “the electrodes are energised with a voltage having a variable duty no less than 70%” (para.0063, i.e., power level 65 all switches are closed and maximum power is applied for heating fluid. This implies that a duty cycle, or on time, of greater than 70%. See also para.0065).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callahan et al. (US 2006/0291527) in view of Cedric (EP 0349689 A1) and Dietschi (WO 2018/184914) as applied in claims 1, 3-10 above, and further in view of Schulz (US 20130022340).
Regarding claim 11, modified Callahan teaches wherein the power supply supplies an alternating voltage (Callahan, AC power supply 7).
Modified Callahan is silent on the control unit controls the switches such that, within at least one setting, the electrodes are energised only during each Nth half-cycle of the alternating voltage, where N is at least 2.
Schulz relates to liquid heating (para.0002-0003) and is concerned with
controlling the temperature of the liquid (para. 0004). Schulz teaches controlling a triac
switch (24) to energize the heater only during each Nth half-cycle of the alternating
voltage, where N is at least 2 (para.0052, i.e., controller 22 is connected to an AC voltage network supplying current to the heater and controls switch 24 such that the heater is switched on for a half-wave and switched off during the subsequent half-wave. Examiner noted that, as such, the heater is energized every other half cycle). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Callahan as modified by Schulz, by adding to the controlling of the switching elements of Callahan, with the energizing only during each Nth half-cycle of the alternating voltage, where N is at least 2 as taught by Schulz, for in doing so would provide further prevent radio interference and large increases in current (para.0052) as taught by Schulz.
Regarding claim 12, modified Callahan teaches the claimed invention, as
applied in claim 1, including wherein the power supply supplies an alternating voltage
(Callahan, AC power supply 7).
Modified Callahan is silent regarding the control unit controls the switches such that, within at least one setting, the electrodes are energised during one or more portions only of each half-cycle of the alternating voltage.
Schulz relates to liquid heating (para.0002-0003) and is concerned with
controlling the temperature of the liquid (para.0004). Schulz teaches controlling a triac switch (24) to energize the heater during one or more portions only of each half-cycle of the alternating voltage (para.0052, controller 22 is connected to an AC voltage network supplying current to the heater and controls switch 24 such that the heater is switched on for a half-wave and switched off during the subsequent half-wave Examiner noted that, as such, the heater is energized every other half cycle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Callahan as modified by Schulz, by adding to the controlling of the switching elements of Callahan, with the energizing during one or more portions only of each half-cycle of the alternating voltage as taught by Schulz, for in doing so would provide further prevent radio interference and large increases in current (para.0052) as taught by Schulz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 103 … With regard to independent claim 1 … claim 1 has been amended to discloses … a plurality of pairs of electrodes …” on pages 5-6 of remark.
In response, examiner agree that Callahan et al. and Dietschi is silent regarding the amended portions (i.e., a plurality of pair of electrodes). However, examiner has introduced new reference in current rejection.
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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, Edward 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights