CTNF 18/232,657 CTNF 72382 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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: deflection devices in claim 1 wherein deflection is a functional language with “devices” as a generic placeholder for means; a contacting device in claim 2 wherein contacting is a functional language with “device” being a generic placeholder for means; and control device in claim 2 wherein control is a functional language with “device” being a generic placeholder for means. 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. The deflection devices are interpreted as 90 degree elbow elements that reflect a fluid flow (also, see para 0030 of the specification) or its equivalents thereof; the contacting device is interpreted as a conductor track (para 011 of the specification) or its equivalents thereof, and the control device as a wiring circuit board (para 0031) or its 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 1 recites for deflection devices wherein “each of which is configured to deflect flow from a first cartridge to a second cartridge” which appears to claim that all of the deflection devices deflect the flow from the one/first cartridge (e.g., 4.1) to another/second adjacent cartridge (e.g., 4.2) which is not illustrated by the drawing figures (e.g., see Figure 4) that illustrates flow is deflected from one cartridge to another cartridge by only one set of deflection devices but not by all of the deflection devices. Thus, for purposes of examination, the recited “each of which” is interpreted as --one of which--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 6,330,395) . Wu discloses the electrical heating device claimed including several cartridges (see Figure 1 showing an upper cartridge and a lower cartridge) each of which has at least two openings (111/114 for the upper cartridge; 112/113 for the lower cartridge) wherein one of the openings forms an inlet (e.g., 111) and another forms an outlet (e.g., 114) as a flow channel extends between the inlet and the outlet, deflection devices (411, 421, 422) wherein a fluid flow is deflected by the deflection device (421) from a first (upper) cartridge to a second (lower) cartridge, and a PTC heating device (3) that is provided between two adjacent cartridges and is in a thermally conductive manner to flow channels in the two adjacent cartridges as illustrated in Figure 1. With respect to claim 5, Wu discloses the cartridges having lid elements (41 and 42) which oppositely disposed thereof wherein the lid elements cover a frame element, which is shown by the cartridge member, forming the openings wherein the PTC heating element (3) is provided between the lid elements. With respect to claim 9, Wu discloses that the cartridges are shown by two identical cartridges joined together as illustrated in Figure 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 6,330,395) in view of Kominami et al (US 2016/0069588) . Wu discloses the heating device claimed including the cartridges that are arranged in a stack having an edge wherein the PTC heating element (3) is provided with electrical connection terminals (31), but Wu does not explicitly show the connection terminals with lugs that are exposed on the side thereof and contacted by a common contacting device to a control device associated with the cartridge as claimed. Kominami discloses it is known to provide a heating device including a PTC heating element (18) with connection lugs (39) that protrude from a side surface of the PTC heating element wherein in the lug is contacted with a common terminal mount (46) as a common contacting device of a control device shown by a control board/substrate (13) In view of Kominami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Wu with the PTC heating element with electrical connection lugs that protrude from the side of the PTC heating element as a known electrical connection means that is mounted or contacted with a contacting device or terminal mount of a control device so that the PTC heating element can be electrically connected to the control device for predictably supplying and controlling the PTC heating element thereof. With respect to claim 4, Kominami further discloses a power transistor (45) on the control device for controlling a supply power to the heating element wherein the power transistor is in thermal contact a flow channel of a heat exchange tube wherein heat generated by the power transistor is cooled (0018) wherein it would have been obvious to further adapt Wu with the control device having a power transistor that is known for controlling the heating element wherein heat generated by the transistor is dissipated so as to cool and stabilize a performance of the power transistor as known in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kominami as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bohlender et al (US 9,273,882) . Wu in view of Kominami discloses the control device including a circuit board (13) with the connection lugs (39) as shown by Kominami but does not explicitly show the connection lug that is in plugged connection with the circuit board as claimed. Bohlender discloses it is known for a connection lug that is mounted and locked to a carrier plate in a plugged connection via a lug receptacle for its electrical connection (see Abstract; and column 4, lines 25-36). In view of Bohlender, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Wu, as modified by Kominami, with the connection lugs that are mounted to the circuit board in a plugged connection via lug receptacle so that the connection lugs can be predictable and securely locked onto the circuit for more secured attachment of the connection lugs thereof as known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 6,330,395) in view of Withers (US 2010/0108689) . With respect to claims 6 and 7, Wu discloses the heating device claimed including the lid elements (41 and 42) disposed opposite the PTC heating device but does show the lid elements having an inner surface that has a surface design which disrupts formation of a laminar flow. Withers shows it is known to provide a flow channel having an embossing pattern that creates an omnidirectional flow that aids in heat dispersion of the flow (para 0032) wherein Withers further discloses for using a sheet metal for embossing with an embossing pattern (see Abstract). In view of Withers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Wu with the lid having its inner surface provided with a surface design, which includes embossed pattern, that is known to create an omnidirectional which would prevent a laminar (smooth) flow which would further increase in heat dispersion in the flow which would predictably and effectively improve the heat distribution of the flow heated by the PTC heating element. With respect to claim 7, Withers discloses the flow channel made of a metal sheet with an embossing pattern, and it would also have been obvious to form the surface pattern of the lid element of Wu, which forms a part of the flow channel, that is made of a metal sheet with the embossing pattern which would provide not only a good heat dispersion but also a good mechanical strength to the lid element . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F. 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 at 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/232,657 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761