(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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
The term “too high” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “too high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the inside" and “the outer side” in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and it is unclear if "the inside" and “the outer side” refer to “an inside of said tubular coils" and “an outer side of said tubular coils”. For examination purposes, "the inside" and “the outer side” are construed as “"an inside of said tubular coils" and “an outer side of said tubular coils”.
Claim 10 recites the term “it” in line 5 and it is unclear if it refers to “said microwave energy”. For examination purposes, the term “it” is construed as “said microwave energy”.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteleone (US 6858824 B1) in view of Yoshida (JP H11221265 A), Martin (US 5265444 A) and further in view of Berkan (US 20170312730 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Monteleone discloses
A water heater (microwave heating system, see abstract), comprising:
an inlet pipe (45, see figs.1 and 6);
a housing (shell 13, see fig.1) comprising a tube enclosure (enclosure 14, see fig.1 and col.3 lines 51-52: “shell 13 which forms an enclosure 14”);
tubular coils (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15, see fig.1) encompassed in said tube enclosure (14, see fig.1),
a microwave generator (19, see fig.1) positioned adjacent to said tube enclosure (14, see fig.1, which is formed by the shell 13. In fig.1, the magnetrons 19 are positioned adjacent the shell 13 so that the magnetrons 19 are also positioned adjacent the enclosure 14); and
an insulation member (18, see fig.1) positioned around said tubular coils (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15, see fig.1 and co;.3 lines 54-55: “The heating coil 15 has an upper end 16 and a lower end 17 and is surrounded by insulation 18”), wherein said inlet pipe (45) receives and supplies (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15, see figs.1, 2 and 6 and see col.4 lines 32-33: “The heat conductive medium is fed into the heating coil 15 through a return line 45” and col. 5 lines 40-43: “…the heat conductive medium leaving the storage tank 5.5 and enters the return line 45”) wherein said microwave generator (19, see fig.1) produces microwave energy that is directed towards said tubular coils (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15, see fig.1 and col.3 lines 56-57: “There are three magnetrons 19 which supply microwave energy into the heating coil 15.”).
Monteleone teaches the upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15 are wrapped over one another in a an inverted frustum (See col.3, lines 51-53: “a heating coil 15 with the configuration of an inverted frustum”);
However, Monteleone does not expressly disclose said tubular coils are wrapped over one another in a pyramid-shape structure;
wherein said inlet pipe receives and supplies water into said tubular coils; and
wherein said microwave energy hits said insulation member and gets reflected back into said tubular coils heating the water inside said tubular coils and prevents heat loss.
Yoshida discloses a heater device for a sauna, comprising:
said tubular coils (6’, see figs.1-2) are wrapped over one another in a pyramid-shape structure (See figs.1-2 and para.0026: “the entire heat radiating tube 6'is substantially pyramidal or conical in coil shape”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of said tubular coils of Monteleone to have the pyramidal shape as taught by Yoshida so as “said tubular coils are wrapped over one another in a pyramid-shape structure” as claimed. Doing so ensures better temperature uniformity across the target object, reducing hotspots and cold zones.
Monteleone in view of Yoshida discloses the claimed limitation as set forth, Monteleone discloses said inlet pipe 45 receives and supplies heat conductive medium into said tubular coils 16-17, wherein “the heat conductive medium can be any number of different materials” (see col.6 lines 31-32), but is silent on said inlet pipe receives and supplies water into said tubular coils.
However, Martin discloses an inverted frustum shaped microwave heat exchanger using a microwave source with multiple magnetrons, comprising:
said inlet pipe (100, see fig.3) receives and supplies water (“heat-conducting medium, preferably treated water”, see col.16, line 29) into said tubular coils (104-106, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the heat conductive medium of Monteleone in view of Yoshida by the heat conductive medium /treated water of Martin, so as “said inlet pipe receives and supplies water into said tubular coils” as claimed, since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of transferring thermal energy.
Monteleone in view of Yoshida and Martin discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, Monteleone teaches said insulation member (18, see insulation member in annotated fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Monteleone
but Monteleone in view of Yoshida and Martin is silent on said microwave energy hits said insulation member and gets reflected back into said tubular coils heating the water inside said tubular coils and prevents heat loss.
However, Berkan discloses a method for thermal preconditioning of natural graphite flakes using electromagnetic waves, comprising:
said microwave energy hits said insulation member (10, see fig.2 and para.0034: “The walls of the reaction chamber 10 may include insulating, heat-resistant material that simultaneously reflects microwaves”) and gets reflected back into said tubular coils (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15 of Monteleone ) heating the water inside said tubular coils (treated water of Martin insider the heating coil 15 of Monteleone) and prevents heat loss (see fig.2 and para.0034: “The walls of the reaction chamber 10 may include insulating, heat-resistant material”. Therefore, by modifying the material of the insulation 18 of Monteleone in view of Yoshida and Martin to have the insulating, heat-resistant material of the wall(s) of Berkan, the modified insulation 18 of Monteleone would reflect the microwave energy into the heating coil 15 to heat the water inside the heating coil 15 and prevent heat loss).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the said insulation member of Monteleone (see item 18 Monteleone), as modified by Yoshida and Martin above, to have the insulating, heat-resistant material of the wall(s) of Berkan so as said microwave energy hits said insulation member and gets reflected back into said tubular coils of Monteleone heating the water inside said tubular coils and prevents heat loss. Doing so enhances energy efficiency by maximizing the heating effect of microwave radiation while minimizing standby heat loss; therefore, the modification significantly reduces energy usage and speeds up recovery times for hot water.
Regarding claim 2, Monteleone further discloses an outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55, see figs.1-6), wherein said outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55) connects to said tubular coils (upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15, see figs.1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Monteleone in view of Martin further discloses said outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55) connects to an external water dispensing mechanism (97, see fig.6. The heat conductive medium of Monteleone is replaced by the treated water of Matin in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Monteleone further discloses said outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55) comprises a pressure relief valve (pressure relief valve 63, see fig.2), and wherein said pressure relief valve (62) keeps the internal pressure of said outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55) from getting too high (See fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Monteleone in view of Martin further discloses said inlet pipe (45, see fig.1) receives the water (treated water of Martin) from a water supply source (55, see fig.6 and col. 5 lines 40-43: “…the heat conductive medium leaving the storage tank 5.5 and enters the return line 45”. The heat conductive medium of Monteleone is replaced by the treated water of Matin in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan further discloses
said pyramid-shape structure of said tubular coils (the modified structures of the upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15 of Monteleone in view of Yoshida) allows each tubular coil (the upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15 of Monteleone) on the inside (inside of the heating coil ends 16-17) to have direct exposure to said microwave energy (See col.4, lines 39-41: “The heat conductive medium pumped into the heating coil 15 is heated by the three magnetrons 19”) and each tubular coil (heating coil end 16/17) on the outer side (outer side of the heating coil ends 16-17) receives said microwave energy (microwave energy from 19, see fig.1) after it (microwave energy from 19) penetrates through said tubular coil on the inside and into the water (See col.4, lines 39-41: “The heat conductive medium pumped into the heating coil 15 is heated by the three magnetrons 19”).
Regarding claim 11, Monteleone in view of Yoshida and Berkan further discloses
said tubular coils (the modified structures of the upper and lower ends 16-17 of the heating coil 15 of Monteleone in view of Yoshida) are positioned such that the wide end (16) of said pyramid-shape structure (the modified structures of the upper and lower ends 16-17) locates adjacent to said microwave generator (19, see fig.1).
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Black (US 4417116 A)
Regarding claim 5, Monteleone further discloses said outlet pipe (combo 53 and 55) comprises a switch (65, see fig.2 and col. 4 lines 61-63: “thermostat control 65 will switch the magnetrons 19 to the off position thereby eliminating all microwave input from the magnetrons 19 to the heating coil 15”), except wherein said switch electrically connects to said microwave generator via a control wire.
Black discloses a method of and apparatus for heating liquids such as water utilizing microwave energy, comprising:
said switch (52, see fig.1) electrically connects to said microwave generator (36, see fig.1) via a control wire (See control wire in annotated fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
760
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Black
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said switch of Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan to have “electrically connect to said microwave generator via a control wire” as taught by Black. Doing so prevents “excessive heat and pressure in the system” (see col. 4lines 12-30 of Black)
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan does not expressly disclose said switch sends a signal to said microwave generator via said control wire such that said microwave generator powers ON or operates only when the water is present in said tubular coils.
Black further discloses said switch (52, see fig.1) sends a signal to said microwave generator (36, see fig.1) via said control wire (See said control wire in annotated fig.1 above in the rejection of claim 5) such that said microwave generator powers ON or operates only when the water is present in said tubular coils (tubular coils of Monteleone. See col.4, lines 18-23 of Black: “Flow sensor 50 is connected to a switch 52 in the power circuit to the microwave generator 36 such that the switch 52 is closed permitting operation of the microwave generator only when fluid flows in the hot water line 17”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said switch of Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan to use the teachings of Black so as “said switch sends a signal to said microwave generator via said control wire such that said microwave generator powers ON or operates only when the water is present in said tubular coils”. Doing so prevents “excessive heat and pressure in the system” (see col. 4lines 12-30 of Black)
Regarding claim 7, Monteleone in view of Martin further discloses said switch (65, see fig.2) determines a desired temperature of the water (treated water of Martin) and regulates the strength of said microwave generator (see col.4, lines 54-63: “a thermostat control 65 which is normally Set at one hundred eighty degrees Fahrenheit, which is the desired temperature for the heat conductive medium. Should the temperature of the heat conductive medium drop below the desired temperature, the thermostat control 65 increases the output of the three magnetrons 19. Should the temperature of the heat conductive medium exceed the desired temperature, the thermostat control 65 will Switch the magnetrons 19 to the off position …”).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Constable (US 3716687 A)
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said microwave generator produces said microwave energy having a penetration depth of about one inch.
Constable discloses method and apparatus for cooking, comprising:
said microwave generator produces said microwave energy having a penetration depth of about one inch (see col.5 lines 69-70: “ the depth of penetration of microwave energy supplied at 2 kw. is 1"…”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said microwave generator of Monteleone in view of Yoshida, Martin and Berkan to produce “said microwave energy having a penetration depth of about one inch” as taught by Constable. Doing so ensures that the water absorbs a maximum amount of energy throughout its volume so that the entire water volume is heated consistently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5179259 A discloses microwave sourced heat exchanger in an inverted, truncated frusta-pyramidal or frusta-conical shaped configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761