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 04/12/2023, 07/22/2024 and 11/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every features of the invention specified in the claims. The limitations:
" projecting landing portion" recited in line 5, claim 1,
“narrow elongated passage” recited in line 3, claim 1
“locating member” recited in line 3, claim 3
“shallow saw tooth segment” recited in lines 2-3, claim 12.
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 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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:
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “…a projecting landing portion … for supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element and support element” 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 “portion” that is coupled with functional language “supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element and support element” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a locating member that engages a side edge of said resistive heating element locating and retaining said support element in a known position in a length of said resistive heating element” 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 “member” that is coupled with functional language “engages a side edge of said resistive heating element locating and retaining said support element in a known position in a length of said resistive heating element” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “projecting landing portion” , Figs.4-6 of the current application show a base 76 supports a bottom surface of said resistive heater 10 at a raised position within said slot passage. Therefore, the base 76 is construed as the claimed “projecting landing portion”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “locating member”, Figs.4-6 of the current application show the top portion 82 engages a side edge of said resistive heating element 10 locating and retaining said support element 22 in a known position in a length of said resistive heating element 10. Thus, the top portion 82 is construed as the claimed “locating member”.
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 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 Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4, “said slot” should be “said slot passage”. Claims 3 and 7 recite the same limitation “said slot” which should amend as “said slot passage”
Claim 1, last line, “support element” should be “isolating support element” so that it is consistent with the limitation in line 2.
Claim 3, line 4, “said support element” should be “said isolating support element” so that it is consistent with the limitation in line 2, claim 1. Claims 9-12 recite the same limitation “said support element” which should be amended as “said isolating support element”
Claims 2-12, lines 1-2, “A high temperature electrically isolating support element in combination with a resistive heating element as claimed in claim …” should be “The high temperature electrically isolating support element in combination with the resistive heating element as claimed in claim …”
Claims 14-16, line 1, “A high temperature thermal energy storage system as claimed in claim…” should be “The high temperature thermal energy storage system as claimed in claim…”
Claim 5, line 3, “each trace” should be “each trace of the connected traces”.
Claim 6, line 3, “each trace portion” should be “each trace of the connected traces”.
. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said at least one projecting landing portion" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if “said at least one projecting landing portion" refers to said “projecting landing portion” previously recited in claim 1, line 5. If so, "said at least one projecting landing portion" should be amended as "said projecting landing portion". For examination purposes, “said at least one projecting landing portion" (claim 5) is construed as said “projecting landing portion” (claim 1).
Claims 6-8 recite the same limitation “said at least one projecting landing portion" so these claims are rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least one of said support element” in line 2 is unclear if the limitation “at least one of said support element” refers to “said isolating support element” previously recited in line 2 claim 1. If so, the limitation “at least one of said support element” should be “said isolating support element”. For examination purposes, the limitation “at least one of said support element” is construed as “said isolating support element”.
The term “shallow” in claim 4, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shallow” 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 limitation “CFC material” in line 3 and it is unclear the meaning of “CFC”. The specification does not disclose the meaning of “CFC”. For examination purposes, “CFC” stands for “carbon fiber-reinforced carbon”.
Claim 12 recites the same term “shallow” in line 2 and the claim is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said slots” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the limitation “said slots” refers to the “slotted ports” previously recited in line 3 of the same claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “said slots” is construed as the “slotted ports”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said slot” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the limitation “said slots” refers to the “slotted ports” ( line 3) or the “narrow elongated slot passage” (line 10). For examination purposes, the limitation “said slot” in line 13 is construed as the “narrow elongated slot passage” (line 10).
Claims 2, 9-11 and 14-16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claims 1 and 13.
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.
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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US3992609A) in view of (KR200419987Y1, cited in 11/18/2025 IDS), hereinafter ‘987
Regarding claim 1, Alexander discloses
A high temperature electrically isolating support element (10, see fig.1 and abstract: “A support member for an electric heating assembly of the type having a plurality of heating elements supported by electrical insulators”. Notes: regarding “high temperature”, the claim does not define any particular temperature; thus, for examination purposes, the term “high temperature” can be any temperature of the support structure 10 of Alexander. In the current application, pub. Para.0032 discloses: “The electrically isolating support elements can be made of an alumina ceramic material for applications under about 1250° C. or can be made of boron nitride ceramic material for higher temperature applications up to about 2250° C”) in combination with a resistive heating element (electric resistance element 17, see fig.1).
Alexander discloses said isolating support element 10 supports the tube resistive heating element 17 as shown in fig.1.
However, Alexander does not expressly disclose
said isolating support element comprising two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element; with at least one of said opposed members including a projecting landing portion within said slot for supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element and support element.
‘987 discloses a tube bundle support device, comprising:
said isolating support element (10, see figs.3-4) comprising two opposed members (11 and 13, see figs.3-4) defining a narrow elongated slot passage (plurality of slots 25 is treated as one elongated slot. See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 below) therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element (opposed edges of said resistive heating element 17 of Alexander. See fig.4 of ‘987, the annotated narrow elongated slot passage is sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of tube 210. Thus, in the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987, the annotated narrow elongated slot passage is sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element 17 of Alexander) with at least one (13) of said opposed members (11 and 13) including a projecting landing portion (25, see fig.2 and page 3 limes 138-139: “the edge portion 25 of the fixing groove 24 provided in the support portions 22a and 22b protrude in the thickness direction”) within said slot passage (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 below) for supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater (bottom surface of said resistive heater 17 of Alexander. See fig.4 of‘987, the edge portion 25 supports the bottom surface of the tube 210. Thus, in the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987, the edge portion 25 supports the bottom surface of said resistive heater 17 of Alexander) at a raised position (see figs.2-4 and page 3 lines 138-139: “the edge portion 25 of the fixing groove 24 provided in the support portions 22a and 22b protrude in the thickness direction”) within said slot passage (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 below) to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element (said resistive heater 17 of Alexander) and support element (See fig.4 of ‘987, the edge portion 25 within said slot passage for supporting a bottom surface of the tube 210 at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the tube 210 and support element 10. Thus, in the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 , the edge portion 25 within said slot passage for supporting a bottom surface of the said resistive heater 17 of Alexander at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the said resistive heater 17 of Alexander and support element 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of Alexander
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said isolating support element of Alexander (item 10 of Alexander) to have the shape of said isolating support element of ‘987 (item 10 of ‘987) so as said isolating support element comprises “two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element; with at least one of said opposed members including a projecting landing portion within said slot for supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element and support element” as claimed. Doing so allows the tube heating element to be firmly secured from the top and bottom surfaces by said isolating support element while “the maintenance work is simplified and the maintenance work is facilitated” (See page 3, line 170 of ‘987).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
said opposed members (11 and 13 of ‘987 are included in the modification. See rejections of claim 1 above) are of the same section (10, see figs.2-4 of ‘987) .
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
at least one of said support element (10 of ‘987 is included in the modification. See rejections of claim 1 above) includes at each side of said slot (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 of ‘987 above), a locating member (22, see fig.2-4 of ‘987) that engages a side edge of said resistive heating element (resistive heating element 17 of Alexander. In ‘987, the portion 22 engages a side edge of the tube 210 as shown in fig.4. Thus, In the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987, the portion 22 of ‘987 engages a side edge of the tube heating element 17) locating and retaining said support element (10 of ‘987) in a known position in a length of said resistive heating element (see fig.4 of ‘987)
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
each locating member (22, see figs.2-4 of ‘987 are included in the modification. See rejections of claim 1 above) projects inwardly and engages a shallow recess (space between tube portions 210 of ‘987. See shallow recess in annotated fig.4 below) in said resistive heating element (heating element 17 of Alexander).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of Alexander
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
said resistive heating element (heating element 17 of Alexander) includes a plurality of connected traces (see traces in annotated fig.1 below) and each trace (see trace(s) in annotated fig.1 below) is supported by said at least one projecting landing portion (25 of ‘987).
PNG
media_image3.png
348
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Alexander
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
said at least one projecting landing portion (25 of ‘987 are included in the modification. See rejections of claim 1 above, see figs.2-4) supports only a portion of each trace portion (see trace portion in annotated fig.4 below. Thus, in the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 , the 25 of ‘987 supports only a portion of each annotated trace portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
427
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of Alexander
.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except said at least one projecting landing portion has an area less than 10 percent of the area of said slot.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify said at least one projecting landing portion of Alexander in view of ‘987 to have an area less than 10 percent of the area of said slot since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Alexander in view of ‘987 teaches a certain area of said at least one projecting landing portion and varying the area of said at least one projecting landing portion less than 10 percent of the area of said slot is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so allows to obtain the proper areas of said at least one projecting landing portion and said slot which are desirable for certain application.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
said resistive heating element (17 of Alexander) includes at least 4 traces (see traces in annotated fig.1 of Alexander) and said at least one projecting landing portion (25 of ‘987) is two projecting landing portions (25 of ‘987) with each landing portion (25 of ‘987) supporting two adjacent traces (adjacent traces of Alexander. In ‘987, the portions 25 support the adjacent traces of tube 210. Thus, in the modification, the portions 25 of ‘987 support the adjacent traces of Alexander).
PNG
media_image5.png
396
801
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Alexander
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987 further discloses
each opposed member (11 or 13 of ‘987) of said support element (10 of ‘987 is included in the modification. See rejections of claim 1 above) are of the same section (see figs.2-4 of ‘987) and include a central locating structure (see central locating structure in annotated fig.4 of ‘987 below) to separate the center two traces (see traces in annotated fig.4 of ‘987 below) of said resistive heating elements (17 of Alexander. In the modification, the central locating structure of ‘987 separate the center two traces of the heating element 17 of Alexander).
PNG
media_image6.png
497
737
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
396
801
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of ‘987 and fig.1 of Alexander
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of ‘987 as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Linow (US 20060115244 A1) and Ohori (US 20070051316 A1)
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except said resistive heating element is made of a CFC material and said support element is made of a boron nitride ceramic material.
Linow discloses an IR radiant heater, comprising:
said resistive heating element is made of a CFC material (see claim 1: “ one carbon heating element (1) is a CFC web”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said resistive heating element of Alexander in view of ‘987 to be made of a CFC material as taught by Linow since CFC materials can withstand extremely high temperatures, often exceeding 2000°C, without losing mechanical strength or deforming
Alexander in view of ‘987 and Linow discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but silent on said support element is made of a boron nitride ceramic material.
Ohori discloses Chemical Vapor Deposition Apparatus, comprising:
said support element (6C, see fig.4) is made of a boron nitride ceramic material (see para.0031: “ Typical examples of the heat-resistant material for the supporting member include…nitride-based ceramics such as boron nitride”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said support element of Alexander in view of ‘987 and Linow to be made of a boron nitride ceramic material as taught by Ohori. Doing so provides superior performance due to its exceptional high-temperature stability, excellent thermal conductivity for uniform heating, electrical insulation, and resistance to thermal shock, preventing hot spots and extending heater life in extreme conditions.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Alexander in view of ‘987, Linow and Ohori further discloses said support element (10 of ‘987 is included in the modification, see rejection of claim 1 above) includes a securing arrangement (32, see fig.2 of ‘987) to one side of said support element (upper side of 10 of ‘987).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkinson (US 20150053367 A1) in view of Alexander (US3992609A) and further in view of in view of (KR200419987Y1), hereinafter ‘987
Regarding claim 13, Parkinson discloses
A high temperature thermal energy storage system (400, see fig.7 and para.0088 and para.0088: “ the core temperature reached 1410 degrees C”) comprises a thermal core (402, see fig.7) of a carbon based or graphite material (see para.0076: “a contiguous block 402 of sintered graphite”) with a series of electrical resistive heating elements (20, see fig.7) located in slotted ports (414, see figs.7-9) located in a distributed manner in the core (402, see fig.7-9); said series of electrical resistive heating elements (20, see figs.7-9) having capacity to heat said thermal core (402) to temperatures in excess of 1400°C (see para.0088: “ the core temperature reached 1410 degrees C… The kiln temperature was then maintained 504 at 1480 degrees C.”);
Parkinson does not disclose
each electrical resistive heating element including a plurality of isolating support elements spaced in a length of the electrical resistive heating element to support the electrical resistive heating element within one of said slots and out of direct contact with the thermal core and providing electrical isolation therefrom; each isolating support element comprising two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed side edges of the respective resistive heating element; and wherein at least one of said opposed members of each isolating support element includes a projecting landing portion within said slot supporting a bottom surface of the respective resistive heating element at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the electrical resistive heating element and support element.
Alexander discloses a support member for an electric heating assembly, comprising:
each electrical resistive heating element (17, see fig.1) including a plurality of isolating support elements (18, see fig.1) spaced in a length of the electrical resistive heating element (17) to support the electrical resistive heating element (17, see fig.1) within one of said slots (20. See fig.1) and out of direct contact with the thermal core (thermal core 402 of Parkinson. As shown in fig.9 of Parkinson, the heating elements 20 are out of direct contact with the thermal core 402. Therefore, in the modification of Parkinson in view of Alexander, the heating elements 20 are also out of direct contact with the thermal core 402) and providing electrical isolation therefrom (See col.2, lines 27-28: “Electrical insulators 18 are formed from a suitable non-conductive material”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each electrical resistive heating element of Parkinson to incorporate the plurality of isolating support elements as taught by Alexander, such as the “plurality of isolating support elements spaced in a length of the electrical resistive heating element to support the electrical resistive heating element within one of said slots and out of direct contact with the thermal core and providing electrical isolation therefrom; each isolating support element comprising two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed side edges of the respective resistive heating element; and wherein at least one of said opposed members of each isolating support element includes a projecting landing portion within said slot supporting a bottom surface of the respective resistive heating element at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the electrical resistive heating element and support element” as claimed. Doing so allows firmly and securely fasten heating elements with low costs (see col.1, lines 47-54).
Parkinson in view of Alexander discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, but silent on each isolating support element comprising two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed side edges of the respective resistive heating element; and wherein at least one of said opposed members of each isolating support element includes a projecting landing portion within said slot supporting a bottom surface of the respective resistive heating element at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the electrical resistive heating element and support element.
‘987 discloses a tube bundle support device, comprising:
each isolating support element (10, see figs.3-4) comprising two opposed members (11 and 13, see figs.3-4) defining a narrow elongated slot passage (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 below. See 112(b) rejection above) therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element (opposed edges of said resistive heating element of Parkinson / Alexander. See fig.4 of ‘987, the annotated narrow elongated slot passage is sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of tube 210. Thus, in the modification of Parkinson in view of Alexander and ‘987, the annotated narrow elongated slot passage is sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element of Parkinson / Alexander); and
wherein at least one (11 or 13) of said opposed members (11 and 13, see figs.3-4) of each isolating support element (10, see figs.3-4) includes a projecting landing portion (25, see fig.2 and page 3 limes 138-139: “the edge portion 25 of the fixing groove 24 provided in the support portions 22a and 22b protrude in the thickness direction”) within said slot (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 below. See 112(b) rejections above)
supporting a bottom surface of the respective resistive heating element (resistive heating element of Parkinson / Alexander) at a raised position within said slot passage (See slot passage in annotated fig.4 below) to limit the direct contact area of the electrical resistive heating element and support element (See fig.4 of ‘987, the edge portion 25 within said slot passage for supporting a bottom surface of the tube 210 at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the tube 210 and support element 10. Thus, in the modification of Parkinson in view of Alexander and ‘987, the edge portion 25 within said slot passage for supporting a bottom surface of the said resistive heater of Parkinson/Alexander at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of the said resistive heater of Parkinson/ Alexander and support element 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4 of ‘987
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify said isolating support element of Parkinson in view of Alexander (item 10 of Alexander) to have the shape of said isolating support element of ‘987 (item 10 of ‘987) so as said isolating support element comprises “two opposed members defining a narrow elongated slot passage therebetween sized to receive and straddle opposed edges of said resistive heating element; with at least one of said opposed members including a projecting landing portion within said slot for supporting a bottom surface of said resistive heater at a raised position within said slot passage to limit the direct contact area of said resistive heating element and support element” as claimed. Doing so allows the tube heating element to be firmly secured from the top and bottom surfaces by said isolating support element while “the maintenance work is simplified and the maintenance work is facilitated” (See page 3, line 170 of ‘987).
Regarding claim 14, Parkinson in view of Alexander and ‘987 further discloses
said opposed members (11 and 13 of ‘987 are included in the modification. See rejections of claim 13 above) are of the same section (10, see figs.2-4 of ‘987) .
Regarding claim 15, Parkinson in view of Alexander and ‘987 further discloses
at least one of said support elements (10 of ‘987 is included in the modification. See rejections of claim 13 above) includes at each side of said slot therein (See narrow elongated slot passage in annotated fig.4 of ‘987 above), a locating member (22, see fig.2-4 of ‘987) that engages a side edge of the respective resistive heating element (resistive heating element of Parkinson / Alexander) locating and retaining said isolating support element (10 of ‘987) in a known position in a length of said resistive heating element (see fig.4 of ‘987)
. Regarding claim 16, Parkinson in view of Alexander and ‘987 further discloses
each locating member (22, see figs.2-4 of ‘987, is included in the modification. See rejections of claim 13 above) projects inwardly and engages a shallow recess (space between tube portions 210 of ‘987. See shallow recess in annotated fig.4 below) in said resistive heating element (resistive heating element of Parkinson / Alexander).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejection(S) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120153688 A1 discloses a flexible flat structure has a flexible, flat resistance heating element that is connected to electrodes that are spaced apart from one another for supplying electrical current that is pressed on to the resistance heating element by staples or clamps in a force-fit manner and/or a form-fit manner and provides a more flexible connection.
.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