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 .
Priority
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 6-20) in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/6/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) low signal select (claim 6, line 14; claim 11, line 14; claim 16, line 14),
(ii) switch protection temperature control loop (claim 6, line 27; claim 11, line 36)
(iii) low flow protection temperature control loop (claim 11, line 28)
(iv) low flow protection temperature control loop (claim 16, line 27), because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation
(i) low signal select (claim 6, line 14; claim 11, line 14; claim 16, line 14),
(ii) switch protection temperature control loop (claim 6, line 27; claim 11, line 36)
(iii) low flow protection temperature control loop (claim 11, line 28)
(iv) low flow protection temperature control loop (claim 16, line 27), has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) low signal select (claim 6, line 14; claim 11, line 14; claim 16, line 14), US2023/0266040, figure 2, low signal select 2030, par 0032, par 0042, the low signal select 2030 selects the lower signal and sends selected output signal 2050 to switch 1070 to lower the heater current of the electric heating element 1030 until the output of temperature sensor 2010 equals to the setpoint set by protection temperature control loop 2020.
(ii) switch protection temperature control loop (claim 6, line 27; claim 11, line 36), figure 5, switch protection temperature control loop 5020 comprises a switch protection temperature control loop input 5062 and a switch protection temperature control loop output 506, par 0069-0071
(iii) low flow protection temperature control loop (claim 11, line 28), figure 3, low flow temperature control loop 3020 comprises a low flow protection temperature control loop input 3062 and a low flow protection temperature control loop output 3064, par 0056-0058
(iv) protection temperature control loop (claim 16, line 27), figure 2, protection temperature control loop 2020, par 0033, can be implemented using a microcontroller that receives a plurality of input signals, compares the signals with one or more preset values, and outputs the lowest signal or a signal indicative of the lowest signal; par 0034, protection temperature control loop 2020 can be implemented using various forms of digital and/or analog circuitry.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 6-20 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.
Claim 6, line 39; claim 16, line 38 recites “the air temperature sensor”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, line 14; claim 11, line 14; claim 16, line 14 recites “a low signal select” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required. Is “a low signal select” a switch, a fuse, or a processor / controller that determines a low power, current, voltage signal?
Claim 6, line 27; claim 11, line 36 recites “switch protection temperature control loop” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required. Does the switch protection temperature control loop require a controller/processor, switch or fuse alone or in combination with a temperature sensor?
Claim 11, line 28 recites “low flow temperature control loop” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required. Does a low flow temperature control loop require a switch, a fuse, or a processor / controller that determines a low flow temperature of air, current or voltage?
Claim 16, line 27 recites “protection temperature control loop” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitations are required. Does the protection temperature control loop require a controller/processor, switch or fuse alone or in combination with a temperature sensor? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claims 6, 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
As best understood by the examiner’s interpretation of the claims above, Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kopel (US 2006/0006167).
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Kopel teaches an integrated temperature-controlled modulating forced air electric heater (title, abstract) comprising:
an electric heating element for use in heating air in an airflow (Figs 1-4, electric heating elements 20, 22, HVAC duct 30, airflow 14, 0026);
a thermal cutout switch (Fig, 4, power switch 90, 0036) comprising: a thermal cutout switch input (signal 76, 0036); a thermal cutout switch output (circuit branch 94, 0036); and the thermal cutout switch output is connected to the electric heating element (heating elements 20, 0036) to control power to the electric heating element;
a switch (opto-isolator 74, 0036) comprising: a switch control input (output line 62, 0033); a switch output (signal 76, 0036); the switch output (76) is connected to the thermal cutout switch (90) input to control power to the electric heating element (20);
a low signal select (difference circuit block 50, 0031) comprising: a first low signal select input; a second low signal select input (Fig 3, inputs 44, 46, 0031); a low signal select output (difference-output signal 52, 0031); and the low signal select output (52) is connected to the switch control input (76) to control the switch based on the lower of the first low signal select input and the second low signal select input;
an electric heat controller (control circuit 60, 0033), comprising: an electric heat control output, the electric heat control output is connected to the first low signal select input of the low signal select (50); the electric heat controller modulates the electric heating element; and the electric heat controller outputs an electric heat control output signal at the electric heat controller output (0038);
a protection temperature control loop (threshold detector block B, 0032) comprising: a protection temperature control loop input (conditioned signal 46, 0032); a protection temperature control loop output (output 56, 0033), the protection temperature control loop output is connected to the second low signal select input (46) of the low signal select; and the protection temperature control loop outputs a protection temperature control loop output signal at the protection temperature control loop output (0032);
a temperature sensor (Figs 1, 2, heat sensors Ta, Tb, 0026) comprising: a temperature sensor output (inputs 44, 46, 0031), the temperature sensor output is connected to the protection temperature control loop (threshold detector block B) input of the protection temperature control loop; and the air temperature sensor monitors a temperature of the integrated temperature-controlled modulating forced air electric heater and outputs the temperature on the switch temperature sensor output to the protection temperature control loop input (0026); and
the low signal select outputs the smaller of the electric heat control output signal from the first low signal select input and the protection temperature control loop output signal from the second low signal select input onto the low signal select output as the selected output signal to avoid overheating (0032) the integrated temperature-controlled modulating forced air electric heater.
With respect to the limitations of claims 17, 18, 19 and 20, Kopel teaches further comprising an airflow sensor (Fig 8, pressure sensor 122 P1, 126 P2, 0049, air velocity can be obtained based upon this pressure differential) connected to the electric heat controller (control circuit 60) to monitor a temperature of the airflow;
the switch comprises a rapid-acting, solid-state, silicon-controlled rectifier (0036, triac, solid state relays and high-speed electromechanical relays);
the switch comprises a triode for alternating current (0036)
the switch comprises a solid-state relay (0036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights