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
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954293 U in view of Inoue et al. (US 7054548), O’Connor (US 20100059502) 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, JP 293 discloses “a heating structure” (fig.3) comprising:
“a pipe” (fig.3, 11 pointed at a pipe) having “recesses” (the outer surface of pipe forms recesses) in an outer surface of the pipe;
“a 13) configured to heat “the outer surface of the pipe” (the outer surface of the pipe 11), “the 13) being positioned directly adjacent to “the pipe” (11), and “a filler” (14) filled into “the recesses” (recesses of the pipe 11) and extending along outer surface of the pipe so as to form “a layer” (the filler 14 forms a layer) sandwiched directly between “the outer surface of the pipe and a surface of the at least a portion of filler 14 is sandwiched directly between the outer surface of the pipe 11 and the surface of the heater 13. See annotated fig.3), “the filler” (thermal insulation 14) .
JP 293 is silent regarding the pipe being configured to vibrate while a fluid flows inside of the pipe; a laminate type heater; the laminate type heater including a heat generation layer and one or more layers covering the heat generation layer, the heat generation layer being configured to generate heat; the filler having flexibility and a higher thermal conduction property than air.
Inoue et al. teaches “the pipe being configured to vibrate while a fluid flows inside of the pipe” (col.1 at lines 25-27, i.e., uses a forced-vibration-flow-type cooling a heating body by vibrating (reciprocating) a fluid within the channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP 293 with Inoue et al., by adding Inoue et al.’s pump in connection with JP 293 pipe, to enhance heat transfer rate for high performance radiator or heat exchanger.
O’Connor teaches “a laminate type heater” (fig.2); the laminate type heater including “a heat generation layer” (4, 5 and 6. [0053], i.e., The matrix 4 serves as a heating element) and “one or more layers” (7, 8 and 9) covering “the heat generation layer” (4, 5 and 6), “the heat generation layer” (4, 5 and 6) being configured to generate heat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify JP 293 with Lange et al., by replacing JP 293 heater with Lange et al.’s heating layer, to improves safety because heating wire can be covered.
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 JP293’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 7, modified JP 293 discloses “the pipe is a flexible pipe” (JP 293, fig.3, flexible tube 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
1298
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S5954293 U in view of Inoue et al. (US 7054548), O’Connor (US 20100059502) 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 and 7 above, and further in view of AO (CN 105890147).
Regarding claim 3, modified JP 293 discloses filler.
JP 293 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 JP 293 with AO, by replacing JP 293’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 JP S5954293 U in view of Inoue et al. (US 7054548), O’Connor (US 20100059502) 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 and 7 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2012/0251779).
Regarding claim 4, modified JP 293 the recesses has a depth.
JP 293 is silent regarding a depth of 0.1 mm or more for the depth of recesses.
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 further modify JP 293 with Liu, by modifying JP 293’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 JP S5954293 U in view of Inoue et al. (US 7054548), O’Connor (US 20100059502) 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 and 7 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (US 6,043,468).
Regarding claim 5, modified JP 293 discloses “the recesses present at the surface of the object to be heated are in a groove shape” (JP 293, 11 pointed at recesses).
JP 293 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 JP 293 with Toya et al., to modifying JP 293’s recess width according to Toya et al.’s recess width, for accommodating desired amount of filling for insulation purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 are 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.
Examiner’s Remark
(2) With respect to claim 2, the closest prior art are Invierno (US 9103181), Frei et al. (US 5883364) and Jenko et al. (US 6043466).
Invierno teaches “the laminate type heater has flexibility” (at least a portion of the laminated type heater 2 and 6 has flexibility (5 pointed at the flexible portion)) and , “the heat generation layer” (6), “the second covering layer” (10, 9, 8 and 7 forms a second covering layer), and the heat diffusion layer” (2) are stacked in this order, and “the heat diffusion layer” (2) is disposed at a position closest to “the pipe” (fig.1, 1).
Frei et al. teaches “the first covering layer” (fig.3, 14 and 12 forms first covering layer), “the heat generation layer” (fig.3, 13), “”, and the heat diffusion layer” (11) are stacked in this order, and “the heat diffusion layer” (11) is disposed at a position closest to “the pipe” (fig.3, 15).
Jenko et al. teaches “the laminate type heater is rigid (fig.2B, i.e., the sleeve 108 include titanium, titanium alloys, stainless steels, and iron alloys. For high thermal insulation, sleeve 108 can be made of a suitable ceramic material. the sleeve 110 include high conductivity materials such as copper, copper alloys, beryllium copper alloys, aluminum and aluminum alloys), and “the first covering layer” (108), “the heat generation layer” (102), “the second covering layer” (110), and the heat diffusion layer” (30) are stacked in this order, and “the heat diffusion layer” (30) is disposed at a position closest to “the object” (for clamping object)
With respect to claim 6, JP S5954293 shows the heater is in the filler and filler is attached to the pipe so that there is no reason to modifying heater and pipe to change their positions relative to each other.
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