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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 28-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
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 7, 16, 17 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pokorny et al. (US 6205292B1).
Pokorny discloses in reference to claim:
1. A modular fluid heating device for a heating system having a fluid circuit, wherein the fluid heating device 1 comprises a supply conduit 9 and a discharge conduit 10, which are connectable to a return side and a feeding side of the fluid circuit of the heating system, and having at least one fluid heating module (see fig. 2) which is connectable to the supply conduit 9 and the discharge conduit 10, wherein the fluid heating module comprises a substantially straight fluid tube 2 having a threaded neck A (see annotated fig. 2) formed on each end thereof, a sleeve 3 that is arranged concentrically within the fluid tube 2, which sleeve extends at least into the necks A of the fluid tube, wherein in each neck a sealing ring 12, 13 is arranged between the neck and the sleeve, and a threaded ring B is configured to cooperate with the thread of the neck, and which engages the sealing ring so as to seal the ends of the fluid tube 2, and wherein the fluid tube has, spaced apart from the respective necks, an inlet or and outlet, respectively, which can be coupled directly with the discharge conduit or supply conduit, respectively, wherein the fluid heating module further comprises an infrared lamp 4 having end consoles C that rest on end portions of the sleeve, wherein electrical connection wires 5, 6 protrude from one or both end consoles so as to connect the infrared lamp to a power source.
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid tube 2 has an axis, and wherein the inlet and outlet of the fluid tube have parallel axes perpendicular to the axis of the fluid tube.
17. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid tube has a round, preferably a substantially circular cross-section in the portion between the necks.
See column 2 lines 47-50 for the additional features of claims 6, 17
7. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid tube is made of metal, preferably of stainless steel. See column 2 lines 44-46 for the additional features of claim 7.
8. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein a fixing ring is included in the threaded ring for (axially) fixing of the infrared lamp in the sleeve.
13. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the threads on the necks are an outer thread provided on the outside of the neck and the threaded ring is an inner threaded ring nut.
See figure 2 for the additional features of claims 8, 13.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokorny et al. (US 6205292B1 ) in view of KOMATSU (WO 92/14102 A1)
Pokorny discloses the claimed invention except with respect to claim:
9. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid heating module is embedded in a silicone casing, wherein only the connection wires of the infrared lamp protrude from the casing.
KOMATSU (WO 92/14102 A1) teaches the use of silicone rubber bushing 93 to encase the infrared lamp ends such that only the connection wires of the infrared lamp protrude from the casing. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the device of Pokorny to use such a silicone rubber bushing as a substitute means of providing the sealing means allowing for only the connection wires of the infrared lamp protrude from the casing
Claim(s) 2-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokorny et al. (US 6205292B1 ) in view of Park (WO 2007/139327 A1) and/or KOMATSU (WO 92/14102 A1) and/or DE 20020320 and/or JP 2006/108010 A and/or Moskal et al. (US 8541721B2)
Pokorny discloses the claimed invention except with respect to claim:
2. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 1, wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit each have a connection portion, the connection portions extending parallel to one another and being provided with connection points for connecting one or more fluid heating modules, wherein the connection points in the supply conduit and in the discharge conduit corresponding to one fluid heating module are substantially at the same height.
The subject-matter of claims 2, 3 is not inventive with respect to the combination of Pokorny and DE 20020320 as the latter discloses the additional features of claims 2 or 3 (see figures 1, 4b).
PNG
media_image2.png
1061
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
939
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pokorny teaches:
3. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 2, wherein the connection points of the supply conduit and the discharge conduit comprise connectors to couple the inlet and outlet of the fluid tube of the fluid heating module with the supply and discharge conduits. See Fig. 2
4. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 3, wherein the connection points comprise an operable valve to close off the respective connection point when the connection point is not in use or a fluid heating module is to be connected or disconnected, and to open the connection point when a fluid heating module is coupled thereto.
The additional feature of claim 4 is known from document D4 (see valve 52 in the embodiment of figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
948
904
media_image4.png
Greyscale
5. The modular fluid heating device according to claim 3, wherein the supply conduit upstream of the connection points and the discharge conduit downstream of the connection points are provided with main valves with which the connection sections of the supply conduit and the discharge conduit can be closed, and wherein a vent and/or a tapping point is provided in at least one of the supply and discharge conduits to release pressure and fluid from the modules and the connection portions of the supply and discharge conduit respectively when the main valves are closed.
The additional feature of claim 5 is obvious for the skilled person as it is common knowledge to connect heaters to heating circuits via valves and further to provide pressure relief means for any closed fluid circuit that is heated as a safety means.
The additional feature of claim 10 is obvious for the skilled person as it is common knowledge that a turbulent flow of the fluid increases the heat transfer. In particular Moskal discloses it is knonw in the art to provide flow obstacles in the fluid path to induce directional changes in the fluid flow through the fluid heating module as a means of improving heat transfer to or from a fluid.
The additional feature of claim 14 is obvious for the skilled person as it is only the inverse solution to what is shown in Pokorny with respect to the position of the threads on cooperating parts, which would be chosen depending on the problem posed without need to be inventive.
The subject-matter of claim 15 is obvious for the skilled person as the claimed material is a common material for seals in particular if higher operation temperatures are to be expected and there is no surprising effect in using the claimed material. See KOMATSU teaching the use of silicone as a suitable sealing material for similar device.
The subject-matter of claim 16 is obvious as choosing a proper cross-section is something the skilled person will do without need to be inventive. Further DE 20020320 discloses fluid heaters having a rectangular cross section (see element 7 in figure 1 ).
Claim(s) 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokorny et al. (US 6205292B1 ) in view of Park (WO 2007/139327 A1).
Pokorny discloses the claimed invention except with respect to claim:
18. A heating system having a fluid circuit and a circulation pump included in the fluid circuit, and further comprising a fluid heating device according to claim 1 included in the circuit, as well as at least one heat emission device in the circuit.
It is noted that the Pokorny device discusses a flowing fluid, as such, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to include a pump device within the fluid circuit to provide the fluid flow required.
19. The heating system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one heat emission device is at least of the radiator, wall heating device, floor heating device or heat exchanger type. Note that the fluid heating module having an increased temperature compared to the surroundings will act, itself, as a radiator.
20. The heating system according to claim 19, wherein the system comprises a plurality of heat emission devices, which are of the same type, or a combination of different types. Note that the fluid heating module having an increased temperature compared to the surroundings will act, itself, as a radiator, and further, the conduits containing fluid heated above the ambient will act as additional heat emission devices.
21. The heating system according to claim 18, wherein the heating system comprises a controller for controlling the heating power delivered by the infrared lamp of the at least one fluid heating module. Note that Pokorny discloses a system controller for controlling the heating power of the device (see claim 1 of Pokorny).
22. The heating system of claim 21, wherein the controller comprises a thermostat and a separate solid state relay (SSR) for each fluid heating module, the solid state relay being coupled to the thermostat to receive an input signal therefrom and being coupled to the infrared lamp to control the voltage determined by the input signal to the infrared lamp.
23. The heating system of claim 22, wherein the controller further comprises a solid state relay (SSR) for the circulation pump.
24. The heating system according to claim 22, wherein the thermostat comprises a PI control.
The subject-matter of claims 22-24 is not inventive for the skilled person as document Park discloses a similar heating device wherein the control of the heater and the pump are provided by a common controller and choosing a solid state relay, or a PI control, which are well known in the art, is an obvious choice under KSR rationale A-C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
