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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: in FIG. 4, number “12a” is used to designate the spacer to support thermocouple 38, but it should be “12b”.
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
The following claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “the flow path” should be changed to “the air flow path”
Claim 10, “to claim 1 claim wherein” should be changed to “to claim 1 [[claim]] wherein”
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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.
Claim 1 reciting “said cut-outs” in line 10 is unclear if these cut-outs are referring to the cut-outs of the first sheet or the second sheet.
Claim 1 reciting “the thickness” in line 11 lacks a prior antecedent.
Claim 3 reciting “said cut-outs” in line 4 is unclear if these cut-outs are referring to the cut-outs of the first, second or third sheet.
Claim 11 reciting “each heater element” in line 2 is unclear if each heater element is referring to the first and second heater elements or something else.
Claim 12 reciting “adjacent heater elements” in line 2 is unclear if the adjacent heater elements are referring to the first and second heater elements or something else.
Claim 13 reciting “each heater element” in line 2 is unclear if each heater element is referring to the first and second heater elements or something else.
Claim 14 reciting “at least two neighboring electrical paths” is unclear if the electrical paths are the first and second electrical paths or other electrical paths.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weatherly (US 20140290087 A1) in view of Miyairi (US 20210041141 A1) and Jenkins (US 20140263267 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Weatherly discloses a heater assembly (hair dryer, Fig 1a, [0056]) for a haircare appliance (intended use), the heater assembly comprising:
an air duct (inner air flow channel 8) defining an air flow path extending from an upstream end to a downstream end (air flow arrows indicate an upstream end to a downstream end of air duct 8 in Fig 1c);
a first heater element (1ST heater element downstream of the fan annotated in Fig 1a, [0010]) positioned in the flow path (8), the air flow path extending through said first heater element (air flows through 1ST heater element); and
a second heater element (2ND heater element downstream of 1ST heater element annotated in Fig 1a, [0010]) positioned in the flow path downstream of the first heater element, the air flow path extending through said second heater element (air flows through 2ND heater element).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weatherly is silent on the first heater element having a first electrical path defined between cut-outs in a first sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs,
the second heater element having a second electrical path defined between cut-outs in a second sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs,
wherein the thickness of the first sheet is different to the thickness of the second sheet.
However, Miyairi teaches a heater (100, Figs 6-7, [0095. 0096]) applicable to be used for haircare (honeycomb structure to use for hair dryer, [0005 middle]), having the first heater element (four heater elements 100 are shown in Fig 7, the most upstream one is interpreted to be the 1ST heater element, annotated in Fig 7) having a first electrical path (electrodes 118a, 118b shown as +/- signs such that the heater elements 100 are electrically connected in parallel, [0096]) defined between cut-outs in a first sheet (each heater element 100 of this embodiment comprises a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure, [0063 middle], each heater 100 is a sheet with holes/cut-outs in order for gas/air to flow through as seen in Fig 7), the air flow path extending through said cut-outs (gas/air flow through cut-outs in each sheet/heater 100),
the second heater element having a second electrical path (118a, 118b, similar to the 1ST electrical path for the 1ST heater element) defined between cut-outs in a second sheet (each heater 100 is a honeycomb sheet), the air flow path extending through said cut-outs (gas/air flow through cut-outs in each sheet/heater 100).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the honeycomb structure, as suggested and taught by Miyairi, as the first and second heater elements in Weatherly, such that the first heater element having a first electrical path defined between cut-outs in a first sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs, the second heater element having a second electrical path defined between cut-outs in a second sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs, as suggested and taught by Miyairi, because a honeycomb heater can increase the heat transfer area with respect to volume, it is considered to contribute to downsizing of the heater (0012 top).
Weatherly in view of Miyairi is silent on wherein the thickness of the first sheet is different to the thickness of the second sheet.
However, Jenkins teaches a heater (20, Fig 2, [0036 top]) having a plurality of heater elements (261, 262, 263, 264, [0036 middle]) having different thicknesses (heater element 261 is the narrowest and the resistive heater element 264 is the widest, [0036 bottom]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the first sheet and the second sheet in Weatherly in view of Miyairi to have different thicknesses, as suggested and taught by Jenkins, because this allows for different heat flux capacities thus offer greater flexibility for a wide range of heating application (0031 top).
Regarding claim 2
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins further discloses wherein the second sheet is thicker than the first sheet (Jenkins teaches that the second sheet 262 has intermediate width while the first sheet 261 is the narrowest, thus the second sheet 262 is wider than the first sheet 261 in Fig 2, [0036 middle]).
Regarding claim 3
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses a third heater element (Miyairi teaches that there are four heater elements 100 are shown in Fig 7, the 3RD heater element annotated in Fig 7) positioned in the flow path downstream of the second heater element, the third heater element having a third electrical path (electrodes 118a, 118b shown as +/- signs such that the heater elements 100 are electrically connected in parallel, [0096]) defined between cut-outs in a third sheet (each heater element 100 of this embodiment comprises a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure, [0063 middle], each heater 100 is a sheet with holes/cut-outs in order for gas/air to flow through as seen in Fig 7), the air flow path extending through said cut-outs (gas/air flow through cut-outs in each sheet/heater 100).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 3.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins further discloses wherein the third sheet is thicker than the second sheet (Jenkins teaches that the third sheet 263 is wider than the second sheet 262 as seen in Fig 2, [0036 middle]).
Regarding claim 5
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses wherein each of the sheets (Miyairi teaches each sheet of the honeycomb heater shown in Fig 2) is no more than 1mm thick (outer peripheral side wall 112 show thickness of the sheet, Fig 2 and [0072 top], where the thickness of the outer peripheral side wall is preferably 1 mm or less [0080 bottom]).
Regarding claim 6
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses wherein each of the sheets is no less than 0.01mm thick (outer peripheral side wall 112 show thickness of the sheet, Fig 2 and [0072 top], where the thickness of the outer peripheral side wall is preferably 1 mm or less [0080 bottom], this thickness of 1 mm is not less than 0.01 mm).
Regarding claim 7
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses the cut-outs (Miyairi teaches the honeycomb heater having holes/cutout, Figs 2 and 7) and said electrical paths (Fig 7 electrodes 118a, 118b shown as +/- signs such that the heater elements 100 are electrically connected in parallel, [0096]))
The limitation “formed by etching” is interpreted to be a process, since this is an apparatus claim, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, in this case the product being the cut-outs and electrical paths taught by Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins are the same or similar to the claimed cut-outs and electrical path as the claimed invention, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 8
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses wherein each of said electrical paths is generally domed shape (Miyairi teaches the electrical path through electrodes 118a, 118b with +/- signs in Fig 7, where each element 100 is generally a rectangular dome shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 9
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses wherein each of said electrical paths is generally planar (Miyairi teaches the electrical path through electrodes 118a, 118b with +/- signs where each element 100 is generally planar in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 10
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly further discloses wherein the air duct (8 Fig 1a) is formed by a stack of annular elements (annular heating elements stacked along an axial direction of the airflow, annotate din Fig 1a) each of which defines an axial portion of the air duct (air flow axially through the air duct 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
496
942
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 10.
Weatherly further discloses wherein each heater element is embedded within a respective one of said annular elements (each heating element is also the annular element, annotated in Fig 1a).
Regarding claim 12
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 10.
Weatherly further discloses wherein one of said annular elements forms a spacer between adjacent heater elements (one of the heating elements is interpreted to be a spacer which forms a space between the 2ND heating element and the “additional heating elements” annotate din Fig 1a,
note that there is no requirement that the spacer cannot be aheating element).
Regarding claim 13
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses wherein the electrical path of each heater element is positioned substantially (“substantially” is interpreted as mostly) entirely within the air flow path (Miyairi teaches the electrical path through electrodes 118a, 118b with +/- signs for each element 100 is mostly within the gas/air flow in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 14
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly in view of Miyairi further discloses
Claim 14 (Currently Amended): The heater assembly according to claim 1
wherein at least two neighbouring electrical paths are spaced apart by no more than 5mm (Miyairi teaches each sheet 100 of the honeycomb heater shown in Fig 2 has a thickness that is the outer peripheral side wall 112, [0072 top], where the thickness of the outer peripheral side wall is preferably 1 mm or less [0080 bottom],
Fig 7 as annotated, shows four heaters 100 spaced apart where the spacing between adjacent heaters is about the same distance as the thickness of each heater, thus is also about 1 mm, which is no more than 5 mm).
PNG
media_image5.png
684
920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15
Weatherly in view of Miyairi and Jenkins discloses the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Weatherly further discloses a haircare appliance (hair dryer, Fig 1a, [0007]) comprising the heater assembly according to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shim (US 20070119069 A1) teaches a hair drying system having stacked heating elements
Jeong (US 11641918 B2) teaches a hair dryer with heating elements spaced apart axially
Wada (US 3927300 A) teaches a heater with PTC material
Kobayashi (US 4162395 A) teaches a heating unit with stacked heating elements
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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 F. 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights