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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II claim 20 in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is found persuasive because the claim language of claim 20 is broader than that of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 anticipates claim 20. The restriction of 12/10/2025 is hereby withdrawn and invention II, claim 20, is examined herein.
Examiner Notes
The amendment to include the language “detect a condition that at least a portion of the heating element is not submerged in coolant based on a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature exceeding a predetermined temperature difference and a rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than a predetermined rate of temperature increase” changes the scope of the claimed language and is the reason for the application of the art of US 20100209084 A1 Nelson.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claim limitation of “heater control module” does not invoke 112(f). The examiner respectfully disagrees because a heater control module is a nonce term followed by the function language of receiving temperature measurements after the recitation of “configured to”. The examiner reminds the applicant that a 112(f) is an interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are moot considering the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 3/25/2026 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended. Due to the amendments of 7/7/2026, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20100209084 A1 Nelson.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(a) and (b) for claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 20 have been fully considered and are moot considering the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 3/25/2026 have been withdrawn because the claims were cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/7/2026, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 3/25/2026 has been withdrawn because the claims were cancelled.
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.
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 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:
“heater control module configured to” in claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 is being interpreted as item heater control module 124 which are per par. 67 is a memory circuit.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240167727A1 Cardoso in view of US 20100209084 A1 Nelson.
Regarding claim 1,
Cardoso teaches, except where struck through,
A coolant heating system (tankless hot water heater 100, water is known in the art to be a coolant) for an engine (the inlets 115 and outlets 120 are threaded and therefore the tankless hot water heater 100 is capable of being used to receive a coolant from an engine and working with anything capable of being threaded into the tankless hot water heater 100), comprising:
a coolant heater including:
a housing (outer case 105) including:
an inlet (115) configured to receive coolant (115 receives cold water per par. 21) from the engine (the inlets 115 and outlets 120 are threaded and therefore the tankless hot water heater 100 is capable of being used to receive a coolant from an engine and working with anything capable of being threaded into the tankless hot water heater 100);
and an outlet (120) configured to output coolant (serves as a hot water outlet) to the engine (the inlets 115 and outlets 120 are threaded and therefore the tankless hot water heater 100 is capable of being used to receive a coolant from an engine and working with anything capable of being threaded into the tankless hot water heater 100);
an electrically resistive heating element (first, second, third, and fourth heating elements 30 or 130, 25 or 131, 20 or 132, and 15 or 133 respectively) that is disposed within the housing (fig. 1) and that is configured to generate heat when power is applied to the heating element (par. 6 and 7);
and a first temperature sensor (inlet thermistor 50 or 135) configured to measure a first temperature of coolant within the inlet (par. 6 and 21);
a second temperature sensor (outlet thermistor 45 or 140) configured to measure a second temperature of coolant within the outlet (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%);
and a heater control module (controller 40) configured to:
receive the first temperature from the first temperature sensor (par. 6 and 21);
receive the second temperature from the second temperature sensor to control application of power to the heating element based on maintaining the first temperature at or above a predetermined temperature (par. 6, claims 1 and 17, algorithm for a method 200 for figs. 28 and 29 per par. 50);
detect a condition that at least a portion of the heating element is not submerged in coolant based on a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature exceeding a predetermined temperature difference (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%)
and when the presence of the condition is detected, disconnect the heating element from power (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cardoso does not teach: detect a condition that at least a portion of the heating element is not submerged in coolant based on a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature exceeding a predetermined temperature difference and a rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than a predetermined rate of temperature increase.
Nelson teaches a heat pump water system with a single water temperature sensor 126/226 and further teaches detect a condition that at least a portion of the heating element is not submerged in coolant based on a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature exceeding a predetermined temperature difference and a rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than a predetermined rate of temperature increase (par. 29 teaches detecting the rate of change increase of the temperature measured at temperature sensor 126/226 to determine the presence of a flow of water at a desired temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the algorithm for determining a temperature rate of change of Nelson to the controller 40 of Cardoso for the purpose of determine or detect significant change in water temperature (Nelson par. 29).
Regarding claim 2,
Cardoso teaches, The coolant heating system of claim 1 (as discussed above)
Cardoso further teaches, wherein the first, second, or both temperature sensors are a thermistor (inlet thermistor 50 or 135 and outlet thermistor 45 or 140).
Regarding claim 3,
Cardoso teaches, The coolant heating system of claim 1 (as discussed above)
Cardoso further teaches a water heater with a housing (as discussed above) with one or more mounting openings 157 (par. 21) to provide convenient mounting to a surface (par. 21) and is therefore configured to be located vertically below a vertically lowest point of a coolant loop of the engine, and no pump is used to pump coolant between the coolant heater and the engine (Cardoso does not include a pump in the invention, further, It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235).
Regarding claim 5,
Cardoso teaches, The coolant heating system of claim 1 (as discussed above)
Cardoso further teaches,
wherein the temperature sensor extends through the housing and are configured to directly contact coolant within the housing (par. 21 teaches the inlet thermistor 135 and outlet thermistor 140 measuring the temperature of the water exiting the heater 100, it is therefore obvious that they are in contact with the water/coolant when performing temperature measurements).
Regarding claim 20,
Cardoso teaches, except where struck through,
A method, comprising:
receiving a first temperature from a first temperature sensor (inlet thermistor 50 or 135), the first temperature sensor configured to measure the first temperature of coolant at an inlet of a housing of a coolant heater (par. 6 and 21), the coolant heater including:
receiving a second temperature from a second temperature sensor (outlet thermistor 45 or 140), the second temperature sensor configured to measure the second temperature of coolant at an outlet of the housing of the coolant heater (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%),
an electrically resistive heating element (first, second, third, and fourth heating elements 30 or 130, 25 or 131, 20 or 132, and 15 or 133 respectively) that is disposed within the housing (fig. 1) and that is configured to generate heat when power is applied to the heating element (par. 6 and 7);
determining whether a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature difference (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%);
detecting the presence of a condition based on when both the predetermined temperature difference is exceeded (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%) and when the rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than the predetermined rate of temperature increase;
and when the presence of the condition is detected, disconnecting the heating element from power (par. 50 and 51 teaches algorithm 200 and steps 205, 210, and 215 capable of detecting air or frozen water in the system by measuring a comparative temperature between the inlet and outlet thermistors and turning off power to the heating elements by setting heat% to 0%).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cardoso does not teach: determining whether a rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than a predetermined rate of temperature increase…detecting the presence of a condition based on when both the predetermined temperature difference is exceeded and when the rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than the predetermined rate of temperature increase.
Nelson teaches a heat pump water system with a single water temperature sensor 126/226 and further teaches determining whether a rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than a predetermined rate of temperature increase…detecting the presence of a condition based on when both the predetermined temperature difference is exceeded and when the rate of increase of the first temperature or the second temperature is greater than the predetermined rate of temperature increase (par. 29 teaches detecting the rate of change increase of the temperature measured at temperature sensor 126/226 to determine the presence of a flow of water at a desired temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the algorithm for determining a temperature rate of change of Nelson to the controller 40 of Cardoso for the purpose of determine or detect significant change in water temperature (Nelson par. 29).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240167727A1 Cardoso in view of US 20100209084 A1 Nelson in view of US20100205958A1 Ishii.
Regarding claim 4,
The primary combination teaches, The coolant heating system of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Cardoso does not teach: further comprising a pump configured to pump coolant between the coolant heater and the engine.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Ishii teaches a coolant heater (surplus power heater 34 par. 49) in a fluid communication with a coolant circulation system (engine cooling circuit 14) and further teaches a pump (44) configured to pump coolant between the coolant heater and the engine (par. 52-54).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Cardoso with the teachings of Ishii for the purpose for forcibly circulating the heat medium 18 in the engine cooling circuit 14 such that the heat medium 18 circulates in the heat exchanging unit 46, the temperature sensors 48 and 50 (Ishii par. 54).
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights