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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/9/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, lines 10-20, filed 6/9/2026, with respect to objection have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amended drawings filed 6/9/2026. The objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, lines 21-25, filed 6/9/2026, with respect to objection have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amended abstract filed 6/9/2026. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior art rejection and a new ground of rejection based on newly found prior art is presented below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment in Fig. 1 of Schlipf (DE 202020102066), in view of Terada (US 20130070020). For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20210324886, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 202020102066.
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf discloses, in Fig. 1, an electric heater (100, “electric heater”, paragraph 66) with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated (abstract: “with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated”), the electric heater (100) comprising:
an electric heating element (paragraph 67: “In the interior space defined by these sleeve or boundary surfaces, the electric heating element not visible in the figures is embedded”);
a clamping sleeve (110, paragraph 67, “clamping sleeve”) for generating an adjustable, radial force acting in a direction toward a center axis of the axial opening (abstract: “the clamping device is rotatably mounted or can be rotatably mounted relative to the clamping sleeve about an axis of rotation perpendicular to the axis of the axial opening“),
wherein the clamping sleeve (110) is cut through by a groove (111, paragraph 67, “cut”) whose width (b, paragraph 69, “width”) can be changed by a clamping device (120, paragraph 68, “clamping device”) (abstract: “the clamping device changes the width of the cut”),
the clamping device (120) has a pin (123, paragraph 68, “engagement means”) that is perpendicular to the center axis (A, paragraph 67, “axis”) of the axial opening (Fig. 1 shows the engagement means 123 is perpendicular to the axis A) and is connected to the clamping sleeve (110) on a first side (shown in Fig. 1) of the groove (111) (the connection is shown in Fig. 1) and that the clamping device (120) further has a washer (121, paragraph 68, “disk”) that is arranged on the pin (123) and is supported in a radial direction (paragraph 68: “a disk 121 … is rotatable about the axis of rotation D”) of the washer (121) on a bearing (125, paragraph 68, “push-in pieces”) that is connected to the clamping sleeve (110) on a second side of the groove (111) (the connection is shown in Fig. 1) such that when the washer (121) is rotated, a position of the pin is shifted in space (paragraph 69: “If the disk 121 is turned in the clockwise direction…, the engagement means 123 slide along the wall section 126,” which the examiner interprets as “the position of the pin is shifted in space”).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Schlipf
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf does not disclose when the washer is rotated about the pin, a position of the pin is shifted in space.
However, Terada discloses, in Fig. 4, an inclination adjustment mechanism (30) wherein when a washer (34, “eccentric cam”) is rotated about the pin (23, “rotation shaft portion”) (Fig. 4 shows the configuration of the washer (34) being arranged on the pin (23) and supported in a radial direction; paragraph 46: “a rotation shaft portion 23 extending in the up-down direction is inserted through the eccentric cam 34 which is then rotatable about the rotation shaft portion 23”), a position of the pin is shifted in space (Figs. 7A-7C: the rotation shaft portion 23 shifts in space).
Schlipf and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of adjustment mechanisms in which a washer is rotated relative to a pin to produce a displacement for adjusting structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the push-in pieces 125 of Schlipf to incorporate at the pieces’ center a rotation shaft portion based on the known technique of Terada, in which a washer is rotatably mounted about a pin to produce a displacement of the pin, because applying this known technique to Schlipf’s similar washer and pin structure would have yielded the predictable result of adjusting the width of the groove (Terada, paragraphs 46-52). See MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Terada
PNG
media_image3.png
341
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7A-7C of Terada
Regarding claim 2, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 1 of Schlipf, the electric heater (Schlipf: 100) according to claim 1, wherein the washer (Schlipf: 121) is eccentric or has an eccentric projection (Fig. 1 of Schlipf shows the disk 121 is eccentric).
Regarding claim 5, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 1 of Schlipf, the electric heater (Schlipf: 100) according to claim 1, wherein the bearing (Schlipf: 125, paragraph 68, “push-in pieces”) that supports the washer in a radial direction (Schlipf: Fig. 1d shows the push-in pieces 125 support the disk 121, and the bearing surface of the push-in pieces interfaces with the disk in a way that restrains radial movement) extends into the groove (Schlipf: Fig. 1b shows the push-in pieces 125 extend into the cut 111) starting from the first side of the groove (Schlipf: shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment in Fig. 1 of Schlipf (DE 202020102066), in view of Terada (US 20130070020). For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20210324886, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 202020102066.
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf discloses, in Fig. 3, an electric heater with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated (abstract: “An electric heater with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated”), the electric heater comprising:
an electric heating element (paragraph 8: “an electric heating element—preferably surrounding the axial opening”);
a clamping sleeve (310, paragraph 73, “clamping sleeve”) for generating an adjustable, radial force acting in a direction toward a center axis of the axial opening (abstract: “the clamping device is rotatably mounted or can be rotatably mounted relative to the clamping sleeve about an axis of rotation perpendicular to the axis of the axial opening“),
wherein the clamping sleeve (310) is cut through by a groove (311, paragraph 73, “cut”) whose width (b, annotated Fig. 3, “width”) can be changed by a clamping device (320, paragraph 73, “clamping device”) (abstract: “the clamping device changes the width of the cut”),
the clamping device (320) has a pin (323a, paragraph 74, “pin”) that is perpendicular to the center axis (A, annotated Fig. 3) of the axial opening (annotated Fig. 3 shows the pin 323a is perpendicular to the axis A) and is connected to the clamping sleeve (310) on a first side (shown in Fig. 3) of the groove (311) (the connection is shown in Fig. 3) and that the clamping device (320) further has a washer (321, paragraph 73, “disk”) that is arranged on the pin (323a) and is supported in a radial direction (Fig. 3b shows the axis of rotation D, about which the disk 321 is rotatable) of the washer (321) on a bearing (316, annotated Fig. 3) that is connected to the clamping sleeve (310) on a second side of the groove (311) (the connection is shown in Fig. 3) such that when the washer (321) is rotated, a position of the pin is shifted in space (the position of the pin 323a is shifted along the engagement means 314 as the disk 321 rotates).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
940
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Schlipf, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf does not disclose when the washer is rotated about the pin, a position of the pin is shifted in space.
However, Terada discloses, in Fig. 4, an inclination adjustment mechanism (30) wherein when a washer (34, “eccentric cam”) is rotated about the pin (23, “rotation shaft portion”) (Fig. 4 shows the configuration of the washer (34) being arranged on the pin (23) and supported in a radial direction; paragraph 46: “a rotation shaft portion 23 extending in the up-down direction is inserted through the eccentric cam 34 which is then rotatable about the rotation shaft portion 23”), a position of the pin is shifted in space (Figs. 7A-7C: the rotation shaft portion 23 shifts in space).
Schlipf and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of adjustment mechanisms in which a washer is rotated relative to a pin to produce a displacement for adjusting structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the push-in pieces 125 of Schlipf to incorporate at the pieces’ center a rotation shaft portion based on the known technique of Terada, in which a washer is rotatably mounted about a pin to produce a displacement of the pin, because applying this known technique to Schlipf’s similar washer and pin structure would have yielded the predictable result of adjusting the width of the groove (Terada, paragraphs 46-52). See MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Terada
PNG
media_image3.png
341
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7A-7C of Terada
Regarding claim 6, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 3 of Schlipf, the electric heater according to claim 1, wherein
the pin (Schlipf: 323a) that is perpendicular to (Schlipf: annotated Fig. 3) the center axis (Schlipf: A) of the axial opening is connected to the first side of the groove (Schlipf: the connection is shown in Fig. 3), an end of the pin is supported in an arm (Schlipf: 323b & 323c; the examiner interprets the combination of the feedthrough section 323b and the projecting section 323c as “arm”; Fig. 3b shows the lower end of the pin 323a is supported on the structure comprising 323b and 323c) that is connected to the first side (Schlipf: the connection is shown in annotated Fig. 3) of the groove (Schlipf: 311) and extends into (Schlipf: shown in Fig. 3) the groove (Schlipf: 311).
Regarding claim 7, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 3, the electric heater according to claim 6, wherein
the bearing (Schlipf: 316, annotated Fig. 3) that supports the washer (Schlipf: 321) in the radial direction has a mount or guide (Schlipf: 314, paragraph 73, “engagement means”) for the arm (Schlipf: 323b & 323c combined).
Regarding claim 8, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 3, the electric heater according to claim 7, wherein
a bottom side (Schlipf: shown in annotated Fig. 3) of the bearing (Schlipf: 316) that supports the washer (Schlipf: 321) in the radial direction (Schlipf: Fig. 3) and a bottom side (Schlipf: shown in annotated Fig. 3) of the arm (Schlipf: 323b & 323c combined) are located in a plane (Schlipf: shown in annotated Fig. 3b).
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first embodiment in Fig. 1 of Schlipf (DE 202020102066), in view of Terada (US 20130070020). For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20210324886, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 202020102066.
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf discloses, in Fig. 6, an electric heater (600, paragraph 80, “electric heater”) with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated (abstract: “with an axial opening for holding an object to be heated”), the electric heater (600) comprising:
an electric heating element (paragraph 81: “electric heating element”);
a clamping sleeve (610, paragraph 81, “clamping sleeve”) for generating an adjustable, radial force acting in a direction toward a center axis of the axial opening (abstract: “the clamping device is rotatably mounted or can be rotatably mounted relative to the clamping sleeve about an axis of rotation perpendicular to the axis of the axial opening“),
wherein the clamping sleeve (610) is cut through by a groove (611, paragraph 81, “cut”) whose width (b, paragraph 85, “width”) can be changed by a clamping device (620, paragraph 82, “clamping device”; the examiner interprets an assembly comprising a disk 621, an arm 614, a pin 614c, a recess 619 and guide pins 618 along with 620 as “clamping device”) (abstract: “the clamping device changes the width of the cut”),
the clamping device (620) has a pin (614c, paragraph 84, “pin”) that is perpendicular to the center axis (A, paragraph 81, “axis”) of the axial opening (Fig. 6a) and is connected to the clamping sleeve (610) on a first side (shown in annotated Fig. 6a, on the lefthand side of the cut 611) of the groove (611) and that the clamping device (620) further has a washer (621, paragraph 82, “disk”) that is arranged on (Fig. 6c) the pin (614c) and is supported in a radial direction (shown in Figs. 6d & 6e, the arrow) of the washer (621) on a bearing (the examiner interprets the “bottom surface of recess” in annotated Fig. 6a as the “bearing”) that is connected to the clamping sleeve (610) on a second side (shown in annotated Fig. 6a, on the righthand side of the groove 611) of the groove (611) (Fig. 6d shows the connection between the washer and the clamping sleeve) such that when the washer (621) is rotated (Fig. 6d), a position of the pin is shifted in space (paragraph 85: “when the disk 621 rotates … the position of the pin 614c from the cut 611 is changed, … , which leads to a reduction of the width b of the cut 611”).
PNG
media_image5.png
1124
1428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Schlipf, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Schlipf does not disclose when the washer is rotated about the pin, a position of the pin is shifted in space.
However, Terada discloses, in Fig. 4, an inclination adjustment mechanism (30) wherein when a washer (34, “eccentric cam”) is rotated about the pin (23, “rotation shaft portion”) (Fig. 4 shows the configuration of the washer (34) being arranged on the pin (23) and supported in a radial direction; paragraph 46: “a rotation shaft portion 23 extending in the up-down direction is inserted through the eccentric cam 34 which is then rotatable about the rotation shaft portion 23”), a position of the pin is shifted in space (Figs. 7A-7C: the rotation shaft portion 23 shifts in space).
Schlipf and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of adjustment mechanisms in which a washer is rotated relative to a pin to produce a displacement for adjusting structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the push-in pieces 125 of Schlipf to incorporate at the pieces’ center a rotation shaft portion based on the known technique of Terada, in which a washer is rotatably mounted about a pin to produce a displacement of the pin, because applying this known technique to Schlipf’s similar washer and pin structure would have yielded the predictable result of adjusting the width of the groove (Terada, paragraphs 46-52). See MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Terada
PNG
media_image3.png
341
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7A-7C of Terada
Regarding claim 3, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 6 of Schlipf, the electric heater (Schlipf: 600) according to claim 1, wherein the clamping device (Schlipf: 620) has a tool mount (Schlipf: 622, paragraph 82, “tool fitting”) located on an axis of rotation of the washer (Schlipf: 621) (Schlipf: Fig. 6d).
Regarding claim 4, Schlipf in view of Terada discloses, in Fig. 6, the electric heater (Schlipf: 600) according to claim 1, wherein the clamping sleeve (Schlipf: 610) has a recess (Schlipf: 619, paragraph 82, “recess”) in which the clamping device (Schlipf: 620) is arranged at least in some sections (Schlipf: paragraph 82: “The clamping device 620… has a disk 621… arranged in the recess 619”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlipf (DE 202020102066), in view of Terada (US 20130070020), and further in view of Ohse et al. (US 20210388934) hereinafter Ohse. For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20210324886, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 202020102066.
Regarding claim 9, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Schlipf in view of Terada teaches, in Fig. 1, 3 and 6 of Schlipf, the clamping sleeve (Schlipf: 110) surrounds the electric heating element (Schlipf: “electric heating element”; paragraph 67: “In the interior space defined by these sleeve or boundary surfaces, the electric heating element not visible in the figures is embedded… and arranged electrically insulated from the sleeve or boundary surfaces”), but does not explicitly teach a heat-insulating layer is arranged between the clamping sleeve and the electric heating element.
However, Ohse teaches, in Fig. 3B, an electric heater (abstract: “modular heater assembly”), wherein, a heat-insulating layer (40, paragraph 49, “thermal insulation member”) is arranged to surround the electric heating element (17, paragraph 49, “electric heater”).
Schlipf, Terada and Ohse are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cylindrical heater assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an arrangement of the heat-insulating layer and the electric heating element as taught by Ohse under the clamping sleeve taught by Schlipf and Terada, in order to “reduce heat loss to the surrounding environment.” Ohse, paragraph 4.
PNG
media_image6.png
137
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3B of Ohse
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 F. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights