Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/096,786

HIGH POWER PORTABLE RESERVOIR HEATER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 13, 2023
Examiner
PAIK, SANG YEOP
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
907 granted / 1386 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1434
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites for the temperature “problem” which should be the temperature --probe--. . Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the internal resistive heating component in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scime et al (US 2006/0024036) in view of Taylor (US 5,459,812) and Sorenson et al (US 12,384,222). Scime discloses the electrical heater claimed including an electric heating element (26) for heating liquid contained in a reservoir or water tank (12) that is connected to an electrical system (para 0016) of a vehicle (21). But, Scime does not explicitly show an electrical connection to an electrical system of a vehicle. Taylor shows it is known to provide an electric heater with an electrical connection (shown by terminal pins 47) that can be connected to a power source. Sorenson discloses it is known to provide an electrical system of a vehicle that allows an electrical connection to be made to an electrical system of a vehicle (including a pin receptable as shown in Figure 10a) that allows power to be supplied therethrough (column 16, lines 14-47). In view of Taylor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime with the electrical heater having an electrical connection (terminal pins) to be connected to a power source of an electrical system wherein Sorenson further discloses an electrical system of a vehicle that allows electrical components to be connected thereto so that power can be predictably supplied to the electrical heater that is known to be used in the vehicles (e.g., recreational vehicles) for its heated water tank/reservoir. With respect to claim 2, Scime discloses the heating element that has a tubular shape as illustrated in Figure 1. With respect to claim 3, Sorenson discloses that the electrical connection is to a 7 pin trailer receptable which is illustrated in Figure 10A. With respect to claim 8, Scime discloses that the heating element can be used when the vehicle (RV) is hooked to a power source (para 0015), and thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to active the heating element with the vehicle connected to a power source wherein the heater can be activated with the vehicle hooked to the power source and is running so that continuous and uninterrupted power can be provided to the heating element. Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scime in view of Taylor and Sorenson as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of Ulanet (US 3,319,049). Scime in view of Taylor and Sorenson discloses the electrical heater claimed except for explicitly showing an internal resistive heating component. Ulanet shows it is known to provide an electrical heater having an internal resistive heating component inside a tube (31; column 2, lines 67-71) connected with an electrical connection (shown with a power cord as illustrated in Figure 2).. In view of Ulanet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime as modified by Taylor and Sorenson with electric heating element having an internal electric resistive heating component/wire within the electrical heater that is known to predictably produce a resistance conductive heating for heating of water as the electrical connection is made to a power source as known in the art. With respect to claim 5, Sorenson discloses for the electrical connection to a DC power supply such as a battery supply. With respect to claims 6 and 7, Ulanet shows it is known to provide the electrical heater with a temperature probe (13) that is maintained at a predetermined distance from the heating element (12) to measure the temperature of the water wherein the temperature probe is provided with a connector (24/25) to a thermostat (18) that is adjustable to adjust the liquid temperature. And, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime, as modified by Taylor and Sorenson, with a temperature probe that is maintained at a predetermined distance from the heating element so that the temperature probe is situated at a desired location to predictably and effectively measure the temperature of the heated water wherein the temperature of the water can be predictably adjusted by the thermostat. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scime in view of Taylor, Sorenson as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of Henrie et al (US 2002/0127007). Scime in view of Taylor and Sorenson discloses the electrical heater claimed except for an On-Off switch. Henrie shows it is known to provide an electric heater with an On-Off switch (222) to control the operation of the electric heater. In view of Henrie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime, as modified by Taylor and Sorenson, with an On-Off switch to power on and off the electric heater as desired by the user to control its operation. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scime in view of Taylor and Sorenson as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above, and further in view of McGraw (US 5,960,157) and Peretz (US 2011/0277488). Scime in view of Taylor and Sorenson discloses the electrical heater claimed except for the electrical heater comprising an AC power supply with a ground fault circuit interrupt GFCI. McGraw shows it is known to provide an electrical heat that is supplied with AC power as well as DC battery power. Peretz shows it is known to provide an electric water heater that is provided with a ground fault circuit interrupt GFCI for shock prevention (para 0054). In view of McGraw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime, as modified by Taylor, Sorenson, with the power source being an AC power supply as another suitable power source that can power the heating element as known in the art; and, in view of Peretz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Scime, as modified above, to further provide a GFCI for the protection of a user from any potential electric shocks that can occur due to electric shorts as known in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F. 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. /SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 13, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601440
SYSTEM TO CONVEY A FLUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594618
WELDING POWER SUPPLIES AND USER INTERFACES FOR WELDING POWER SUPPLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595870
UNDERWATER HEATED PIPE FOR THE TRANSPORT OF FLUIDS AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING SUCH A PIPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598988
Integrated Circuit Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588456
REFLECTOR PLATE FOR SUBSTRATE PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+16.5%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month