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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gossler (US 4,471,214).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Gossler teaches an infrared emitter (title, abstract, electrical heating element) comprising: a first refractory layer of a first refractory material (Figs 2, 3, 5, insulating layer 15, Col 4, Lines 1-5, pryogenic silicic acid, Aerosil); a helical coiled wire (heater coil 18, deformations 19, Col 3) disposed over the first refractory material (15); and a second refractory layer of a second refractory material (surface layer 16, Col 4, Lines 1-5, 29-36, pryogenic silicic acid, Aerosil), a portion of the second refractory layer is disposed within a void of a helix of the coiled wire (Col 3, Lines 20-33, where figure 3 shows embedded coils 18, 19, which means layer 16 is disposed between the voids of helix 18, 19)
With respect to the limitations of claim 11, Gossler teaches an infrared heating apparatus comprising at least one infrared emitter (title, abstract, electrical heating element), the at least one infrared emitter comprising: a first refractory layer of a first refractory material (Figs 2, 3, 5, insulating layer 15, Col 4, Lines 1-5, pryogenic silicic acid, Aerosil); a helical coiled wire (heater coil 18, deformations 19, Col 3) disposed over the first refractory material; and a second refractory layer of a second refractory material (surface layer 16, Col 4, Lines 1-5, 29-36, pryogenic silicic acid, Aerosil), a portion of the second refractory layer is disposed within a void of a helix of the coiled wire (Col 3, Lines 20-33, where figure 3 shows embedded coils 18, 19, which means layer 16 is disposed between the voids of helix 18, 19).
With respect to the limitations of claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, Gossler teaches the first refractory material is a machinable ceramic material (Col 4, Lines 1-5, 29-36, pryogenic silicic acid); the second refractory material is a castable refractory material (Fig 9, Col 3, Line 60 thru Col 4, Line 15, upper and lower mould part 26, 28).
The limitation of “machinable ceramic material; castable refractory material” is product by process claim, here it is noted that a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S. P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
With respect to the limitations of claims 4, 7 and 14, Gossler teaches the first refractory material comprises a groove (Fig 2, insulating layer 15 having outer taper groove that surrounds heater coil 18), and the coiled wire is disposed within the groove;
the second refractory material (surface layer 16) provides sufficient support to the coiled wire to retain a shape of the coiled wire (18) when the coiled wire is raised to a temperature at which a liquid phase is present in the coiled wire (see MPEP 2144, functional language).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gossler (US 4,471,214) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of de los Toyos (US 2006/0027562).
With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 12, Gossler discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing the first refractory material is a machinable ceramic material. However, de los Toyos the first refractory material is a machinable ceramic material (0002, furthermore, such machining operations as drilling and material removal operations may be performed on a insulating base made of vermiculite) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the infrared emitter of Gossler having a first ceramic material silent to the shaping method with the first refractory material is a machinable ceramic material of de los Toyos for the purpose of using a known shaping method that is suitable for forming ceramic heater blocks to a desired shape quickly and inexpensively.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gossler (US 4,471,214) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Evans (US 3,612,829).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 13, Gossler discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing the second refractory material is a castable refractory material. However, Evans discloses the second refractory material is a castable refractory material (Figs 2, 3, 6, heater blocks 63, 65, Col 4, Lines 62-70) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the infrared emitter of Gossler having a second refractory material silent to the manufacturing method with the second refractory material is a castable refractory material of Evans for the purpose of using a known casting method that is suitable for manufacturing refractory heater blocks quickly and inexpensively.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gossler (US 4,471,214) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Linskog (US 4,376,245).
With respect to the limitations of claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19 and 20, Gossler teaches the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer (see figure 3). Gossler discloses the claimed invention except for a diameter of the helix of the coiled wire is from 12 to 17 times a diameter of the wire; less than half of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer; 33% or less of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer; the coiled wire is a nickel chromium alloy.
However, Linskog discloses a diameter of the helix of the coiled wire is from 12 to 17 times a diameter of the wire (Col 2, Lines 30-35; Col 3, Lines 3-11); the coiled wire is a nickel chromium alloy (Col 1, Lines 48-57) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the infrared emitter of Gossler having a heater coil silent to the material and coil diameter with a diameter of the helix of the coiled wire is from 12 to 17 times a diameter of the wire and the coiled wire is a nickel chromium alloy of Linskog for the purpose of using a known heating coil configuration that has superior durability and less variation in extreme temperature resistance.
Gossler in view of Linskog discloses the claimed invention except for less than half of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer; 33% or less of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have less than half of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer; 33% or less of the coiled wire is exposed above the second refractory layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable heating coil exposure level ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gossler (US 4,471,214) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view Hsiao (US 7,926,969).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, Gossler discloses the claimed invention except for the emitter is configured to project at least 70% of a total radiant output in a 45° cone normal to a radiating surface of the infrared emitter. However the emitter is configured to project at least 70% of a total radiant output in a 45° cone normal to a radiating surface of the infrared emitter is known in the art. Hsiao, for example, discloses the emitter using Lambertain surfaces to direct a desired amount of energy where desired (Abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the infrared emitter of Gossler silent to projecting energy in a desired direction with the emitter using Lambertain surfaces of Hsiao for the purpose of projecting a total radiant output into a coned shape thereby ensuring that energy is projected in a desired direction.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gossler (US 4,471,214) as applied to claim 11, further in view Griffiths (US 2001/0003335).
With respect to the limitations of claim 17, Gossler discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising: a control module; and a thermocouple configured to sense a temperature of the coiled wire, the control module is configured to control a temperature of the coiled wire using the temperature sensed by the thermocouple. However, Griffiths discloses further comprising: a control module (Fig 8, controller 16, 0023, 0024); and a thermocouple configured to sense a temperature (Figs 2-7, temperature sensor 28, 0024) of the coiled wire (heating element 20, 0024), the control module is configured to control a temperature of the coiled wire using the temperature sensed by the thermocouple (0024) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the infrared emitter of Gossler silent to a control module and thermocouple with the further comprising: a control module; and a thermocouple configured to sense a temperature of the coiled wire, the control module is configured to control a temperature of the coiled wire using the temperature sensed by the thermocouple of Griffiths for the purpose of providing a known controller, thermocouple configuration that allows the controller automatically control application of power to heating element based on inputs from thermocouple (0026).
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/14/2026 with respect to claim 1-20 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.
The applicant has argued on page 7 of the Remarks about claims 6 and 16 that the combination of the IR emitter of Kratel or (similarly Gossler) in view of the Lambertian surface of Hsiao is improper because Hsiao is directed to a LED where Gossler is directed to an IR emitter and that the combination would change the principle operation of Gossler, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Hsiao is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hsiao is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is directing controlled directional light wavelengths in a desired area. Additionally, adapting the infrared emitter of Gossler to include the Lambertain surfaces provides the benefit of projecting a total radiant output into a coned shape thereby ensuring that energy is projected in a desired direction, allowing for a uniform temperature distribution.
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 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 on 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 3/9/2026