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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender et al (US 2013/0161316; hereinafter Bohlender ‘316) in view of Kachelhoffer et al (US 2020/0309413).
Bohlender ‘316 discloses the PTC heating device claimed including a heating cell including at least one PTC element (80) and conductor elements (82) having contact surfaces for contacting the PTC elements wherein each side of the conductor elements is provided with an electrical insulation (90) thereof opposite the PTC heating element, and a metallic housing (110; para 0058) for accommodating the heating cell and is connected to the insulation. But, Bohlender ‘316 does not disclose the conductor elements having at least one through hole located therein through which an area of the contact surface of each of the conductor elements that contacts the PTC element is reduced.
Kachelhoffer discloses it is known to provide a PCT heating element with conductor elements (32, 46) formed of a contact strip having through holes (para 0019 and 0036) wherein such conductor elements provide an increased thermal conductivity as the through holes are filled with conductive adhesive materials (para 0021) wherein such through holes reduce a contact surface of the conductor elements with the PTC heating element.
In view of Kachelhoffer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Bohlender ‘316 with the conductor elements with at least one through hole which enables the conductor elements to make a reduced contact area surface so that more heat can be generated thru the through holes as the through-holes can be provided with conductive adhesive materials that can increase the thermal conductivity of the PTC heating elements.
With respect to claim 4, Bohlender ‘316 discloses the conductor elements (82; para 0053 of Bohlender ‘316) that are formed of sheet metal wherein the conductor elements can be further provided with through holes as taught by Kachelhoffer which allows the conductor elements to be not only securely attached to the PTC heating element but providing an increased thermal capacity via the adhesive conductive material that fills the through holes.
With respect to claim 5, Kachelhoffer also discloses that the conductor elements can be formed by a wire mesh.
With respective claim 6, Kachelhoffer also discloses for the electrically non-conductive mass such as a silicone adhesive mass that is introduced into the through-holes (para 0013 and 0021).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohlender ‘316 in view of Kachelhoffer as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Maher et al (US 2017/0303343).
Bohlender ‘316 in view of Kachelhoffer discloses the heating device claimed including a plurality of PTC elements that are arranged one behind the other at a distance in a longitudinal direction (also, see Figure 2 of Bohlender ‘316) but does not show a width of the conductor elements between the PTC element is reduced by the at least one through-hole.
Maher shows it is known to provide PTC heating elements in contact with a conductor element (3) wherein the conductor element is provided with at least one through holes or slits (5) that is formed in the conductor element which illustrates its width reduced as illustrated in Figure 2 wherein the reduced width allows the conductor element to alleviate thermal stresses caused by thermal extension (para 0023-0026).
In view of Maher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Bohlender ‘316, as modified by Kachelhoffer, with the conductor elements with a reduced width which would alleviate thermal stresses caused by thermal expansion which would improve a lifetime use of the heating device as known in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Maher discloses the conductor element contact surfaces of adjacent PTC elements which are shown by a single tapered web which is illustrated by the tapered or slit (5) as illustrated n Figure 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is further noted that the recited conductor elements having at least one though hole through which an area of the contact surface of the conductor element being reduced is taught by the applied Kachelhoffer reference as stated in the ground of rejection.
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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights