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 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: a heating part in claim 1 wherein heating is a functional language with the term part being a generic placeholder for means; and a heat dissipation part in claim 1 wherein heat dissipation is a functional language with the term part 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.
A heating part is interpreted as a container or a vessel formed with a bottom portion and a side portion (para 49), or equivalents thereof, that holds a heated liquid including electrolyzed water; and a heat dissipation part is interpreted as a layer or a base (para 0008-0011 and 0087-0088), 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 § 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 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al (JP 2527019) in view of Tadahiko et al (JP 2001-108775).
Maki discloses a boiler claimed including a heating part (8) that provides a heated liquid for heating fluid contained a body part (1) that is overlapped with the heating part, a heating element (9) disposed in the heating part, and a heat dissipation part (shown by a heat transfer plate/base 3) disposed between the heating part and the body part that transfer heat from the heating part to the body part as illustrated in Figure 1. Also, see para 0015. But, Maki does not show the heating part including electrolyzed water heated by an electrode part having a plurality of electrodes as claimed.
Tadahiko discloses it is known to provide a heating part (1) having electrolyzed water (4; electrolyte) disposed therein with an electrode part having a plurality of electrodes (2, 3) applying current to generate thermal energy for heating electrolyte whose thermal energy is then extracted for heating fluid/water in a body part (5). Tadahiko teaches that such heating device allows for low cost thermal energy with a simple structure for hot water supply systems (see Abstract; para 0037-0038).
In view of Tadahiko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Maki with the heating part having electrolyte (electrolyzed water) heated by a plurality of electrodes as an alternative heating assembly substitution which can be provided with a low cost heating/thermal energy having a simplified structure that also predictably provides a hot water supply from the body part as desired by the user.
With respect to claim 3, Maki discloses at least one region of each of the heating part (3), the body part (1), and the heat dissipation part (3) including a region (shown by extended width region) that extends from a side surface, and overlapping and coupled to each other as illustrated in Figure 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki in view of Tadahiko as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0172653).
Maki in view of Tadahiko discloses the device claimed except for the heat dissipation part including an insulating layer formed on one side facing the electrolyzed water.
Kim discloses it is known to provide an insulating layer (shown by a Teflon resin layer) for a body portion (110) that contains or in contact with electrolyzed water (para 0049, 0050).
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Maki, as modified by Tadahiko, with the heat dissipation part (shown by the base 3) that comes in contact with electrolyzed water is provided with an insulating layer such as a resin layer for the protection of the heat dissipation part from corrosion or contamination thereof.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki in view of Tadahiko as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Cardoso (US 2015/0110478).
Maki in view of Tadahiko discloses the device claimed including a plurality of heat transferring tubes (7) disposed in the fluid of the body part but does not show the heat dissipation part with a plurality of heat dissipation protrusions that protrude from the base to face the fluid in the body part.
Cardoso shows it is known to provide a heat exchanging device having a base (150) with a plurality of protrusion (210) that extend from the base as shown in Figure 10.
In view of Cardoso, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Maki, as modified by Tadahiko, with the heat dissipation part having a plurality of heat dissipation protrusions formed to protrude from the base of the heat dissipation part as an alternative substituted arrangement that makes more thermal/heat transfer/exchanging thermal contacts with the fluid to predictably increase or enhance heat transfer from the heat dissipation part to the fluid.
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