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
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennella (US 6,188,839) in view of Timm et al. (US 7,778,530) as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (NPL) and All about silicone Rubber (NPL).
Regarding claim 1, Pennella discloses “a heating structure” (figs.1-3, in particular fig.1, 10) comprising:
“an object to be heated having recesses at its surface” (MPEP 2115. Fig.1, 14 having recesses);
“a laminate type heater” (16, 18 and 30) including “a heat generation layer” (30) and “one or more layers” (16 and 18) covering “the heat generation layer” (30); and
“a filler” (25) penetrating into “the recesses between the surface of the object to be heated” (recesses of object 14) and “a surface of the laminate type heater” (16, 18 and 30)
Timm et al. teaches “a filler having flexibility and higher thermal conduction properties than air” (the filler 430 which is a silicone rubber sheet insulation has a degree of flexibility and it is inherently and necessarily that the silicone rubber has a higher thermal conduction properties than air. For example: Standard silicone rubber typically ranges from 0.15 to 0.3 W/mK, while air is a very poor conductor with a conductivity of approximately 0.022-0.033 W/mK. Please see attached for “Engineering ToolBox” (NPL) for thermal conductivity of air and “All about silicone Rubber” (NPL) for thermal conductivity of silicone rubber. Please noted that the date of the NPL references is not important because the references merely used to teach the inherent characteristic of the materials). Pennella teaches a variety of insulative material including not limited to air (col.4 at lines 20-23). Timm et al. teaches insulative material can be silicone rubber for the heating device. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Pennella’s insulation material with Timm et al.’s insulation material are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of providing insulation. MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 2, modified Pennella discloses “the laminate type heater has flexibility” (Pennella, at least the portions of laminate type heater 18 and 30 includes heating element 30 such as heated wire strand covered by the self-leveling cement 18. Both elements 18 and 30 is inherently and necessarily that each material 18 and 30 has a degree of flexibility), “a first covering layer” (Pennella, 22), “the heat generation layer” (Pennella, 16, 18 and 30), “a second covering layer” (Pennella, 24) and “a heat diffusion layer” (Pennella, 12) are stacked in this order, and of these “the heat diffusion layer” (Pennella, 12) is disposed at a position closest to “the object” (Pennella, 14) to be heated.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennella (US 6,188,839) in view of Timm et al. (US 7,778,530) as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (NPL) and All about silicone Rubber (NPL) as applied in claims 1-2 above, and further in view of AO (CN 105890147).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pennella discloses filler.
Modified Pennella is silent regarding the material of filler is made of a metal fiber porous material and/or resin.
AO teaches “a metal fiber porous material” (metal fibre filler is porous net-like structure) and/or resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pennella with AO, by replacing Pennella’s filler material with AO’s filler material, to provide corrosion resistant during wet weather condition.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennella (US 6,188,839) in view of Timm et al. (US 7,778,530) as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (NPL) and All about silicone Rubber (NPL) as applied in claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2012/0251779).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pennella discloses the recesses present at the surface of the object to be heated.
Modified Pennella teaches the recesses has a depth of 0.1 mm or more.
Liu teaches “the recesses has a depth of 0.1 mm or more” ([0017], i.e., each two adjacent recesses 112 may be about 0.2 mm-2 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pennella with Liu, to modifying Pennella’s depth of recess according to Liu’s depth of recess, for accommodating desired amount of filling for insulation purpose.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennella (US 6,188,839) in view of Timm et al. (US 7,778,530) as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (NPL) and All about silicone Rubber (NPL) as applied in claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (US 6,043,468)
Regarding claim 5, modified Pennella discloses “the recesses present at the surface of the object to be heated are in a groove shape” (Pennella, 25 pointed at recesses present at the surface of the object to be heated are in a groove shape).
Modified Pennella is silent regarding recesses have a groove width of 30 mm or less.
Toya et al. teaches “recesses have a groove width of 30 mm or less” (col.34 at lines 58-64, i.e., groove width 1.5 to 2.5 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pennella with Toya et al., to modifying Pennella’s recess width according to Toya et al.’s recess width, for accommodating desired amount of filling for insulation purpose.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennella (US 6,188,839) in view of Timm et al. (US 7,778,530) as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (NPL) and All about silicone Rubber (NPL) as applied in claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Reis et al. (US 2009/0101306).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pennella discloses the object to be heated.
Modified Pennella is silent regarding the object to be heated is a flexible pipe.
Reis et al. teaches “a flexible pipe” ([0006], i.e., a flexible heating pipe embedded throughout the floor of the room to be heated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pennella with Reis et al., by replacing Pennella’s object with Reis et al.’s object, to provide allow additional heating source to be supply through the pipe for heating efficiency (para.0006) as taught by Reis et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Conclusion
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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