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 .
Status of Claims
In the response dated 04/20/2026, the status of the claims are as follows:
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 19-20 have been newly added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of independent claim 1, as amended”. However, as noted in the previous office action, the method of claim 1 comprises contingent limitations which are not required to be taught in order to teach the method. Therefore, while Ma and Braier do not teach “acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump together with a respective time of the operation of the heating rod” and “outputting a message and performing a control intervention”, these limitations do not need to be taught for the prior art to read on the claim since these method steps are contingent upon “when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature” and “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. The 35 USC § 103 rejections to claim 7 have been withdrawn. However, these amendments raise new rejections in view of 35 USC § 112.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the acquired values of the outside temperature, the runtime of the heating rod and the energy consumed by the heating rod” should read “the acquired values of the outside temperature and the runtime of the heating rod”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds the second limit value” should read “an energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds a second limit value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 10 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the first limit value or the second limit value” should read “wherein the first limit value or a second limit value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the energy consumed by the heating rod and as a function of the first or second limit value” should read “an energy consumed by the heating rod and as a function of the first limit value or a second limit value”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 7: “a control device for controlling an operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod;”
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 control device recited in claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 16, the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is understood to be a computer. Although the written disclosure doesn’t explicitly say “computer,” and Fig. 2 assigns number 10 to the control device shown as a box, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control device 10 is a computer based on the entirety of the disclosure. For example, referencing the 06/01/2023 specification, [0055] states “The control device 10 is communicatively connected to a server 20 and a cloud 30 via a network 40” and [0057] states “The server 20 and/or the cloud 30 are used as a memory and/or computing device for storing and evaluating data acquired and transmitted by the control device”.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 states “outputting a message and performing a control intervention when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”. While the original claim supports “outputting a message when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time” and [0027] of the 06/01/2023 specification supports “performing a control intervention when the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, the amended claim reads as both “outputting a message” and “performing a control intervention” as dependent upon both factors of “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time” and “the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, which is not supported by the original disclosure. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim to state “outputting a message when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time” and “performing a control intervention when the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours” a separate steps in the method.
Claim 7 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as rejected claim 1. Claims 2-6, 11-15 and 20 are rejected based on their dependence to rejected claim 1. Claims 8-10 and 16-19 are rejected based on their dependence to rejected claim 7.
Additionally, newly added claims 19 and 20 state “output the message, when the runtime exceeds the first limit value within the specified period of time, the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time, and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”. While the [0020] of the 06/01/2023 specification supports “output the message, when the runtime exceeds the first limit value within the specified period of time, the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time”, the amended claim reads that the message is dependent upon all three factors of “when the runtime exceeds the first limit value within the specified period of time”, “the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time”, and “the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, wherein outputting the message when “the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours” is not supported by the original disclosure.
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 1-20 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. The term “regularly” in claims 1, 7 and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regularly” 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. Therefore, the claimed phrase “the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours” is rendered indefinite since it is unclear how often or how many times the heating rod has to be used to qualify as being “regularly” used for heating in the morning hours.
Claims 2-6, and 11-15 and 20 are rejected based on their dependence to rejected claim 1. Claims 8-10 and 16-19 are rejected based on their dependence to rejected claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
NOTE: “acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump, when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature” and “outputting a message and performing a control intervention, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours, wherein the control intervention comprises: setting an earlier time for starting heating process by the heat pump” of the method of claim 1 are contingent limitations, and are not required to be taught in order to teach the method.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches
a method for operating a heat pump that transfers heat to a fluid heat transfer medium circulating in a heating circuit (“The invention relates to the technical field of indoor hot water supply, in particular to a heat storage device and a heat supply method for a regenerative electric boiler and an air source heat pump”) [002], said method comprising:
acquiring an outside temperature (via outdoor temperature sensor 42);
acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump together with a respective time of the operation of the heating rod ,when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature (this step is depending upon “when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature”, and is thus not required to be taught when the outside temperature is not higher than a limit temperature)
outputting a message and performing a control intervention when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours, wherein the control intervention comprises: setting an earlier time for starting heating process by the heat pump (this step is depending upon “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, and is thus not required to be taught when a runtime does not exceed a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is not regularly used for heating in the morning hours)
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the message is a warning that is output by a control device of the heat pump to a terminal of a user of the heat pump or via a display device of the control device (this step is depending upon “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, and is thus not required to be taught when a runtime does not exceed a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is not regularly used for heating in the morning hours)
Regarding claim 3, Ma teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation (this step is depending upon “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, and is thus not required to be taught when a runtime does not exceed a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is not regularly used for heating in the morning hours)
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the acquired values of the outside temperature, the runtime of the heating rod and the energy consumed by the heating rod from a control device of the heat pump via a network to a cloud or a server, wherein the cloud or the server: evaluates the transmitted values as a function of the first limit value and the second limit value; and generates and outputs the message (this step is depending upon “when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature”, and is thus not required to be taught when the outside temperature is not higher than a limit temperature)
Regarding claim 5, Ma teaches the method of claim 4,
wherein the cloud or server: determines optimized control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod and transmits the optimized control parameters via the network to the control device of the heat pump, when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeds the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds the second limit value (this step of the method is further dependent on claim 4, which is not required to be taught for being dependent upon the contingent limitation of claim 1)
Regarding claim 11, Ma, teaches the method according to claim 2,
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation (this step is depending upon “when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours”, and is thus not required to be taught when a runtime does not exceed a first limit value within a specified period of time and the heating rod is not regularly used for heating in the morning hours)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Wagner (DE102014014325A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 6, Ma does not teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the first limit value of Ma, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Ma does not teach the method according to claim 2,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Ma does not teach the method according to claim 3,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Ma, does not teach the method according to claim 4,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Ma, does not teach the method according to claim 5,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 16-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the subject matter not found includes “wherein the control device is connected to a cloud or a server via a network and the control device is further configured to: transmit the acquired values of the outside temperature, the runtime of the heating rod and the energy consumed by the heating rod to the cloud or the server via the network; receive optimized control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod via the network from the cloud or server, when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeds the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds the second limit value; and control the operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod depending on the optimized control parameters”, in combination with the other elements of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. The closest art of record is Ma in view of Braier (US20190107293A1) and Leibfried (DE102016015503A1), as applied in the previous office action, however a modification to include the amended claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. While Leibfried (as applied in the previous office action) teaches a computing unit 8 capable of receiving values of outside temperature, heat pump power consumption, etc. for optimizing parameters , it does not does not teach specifically optimizing control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeding the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeding the second limit value; and controlling the operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod depending on the optimized control parameters. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are indicated as allowable based on their dependence to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Hayashida (EP2799784A2) [0080-0081], which teaches a similar cloud server control system to that claimed
Braier (US20190107293A1), which teaches outputting a message, when the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time, as applied in the previous office action
Im (KR20000024491A), which teaches wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation, as applied in the previous office action
Leibfried (DE102016015503A1), which teaches wherein the control device is configured to determine a storage temperature of the heat store as a function of the acquired runtime of the heating rod or the energy consumed by the heating rod and as a function of the first or second limit value, as applied in the previous office action
Chikamawari (JP2017096582A), which teaches performing a control intervention when the heating rod is regularly used for heating in the morning hours, wherein the control intervention comprises: setting an earlier time for starting heating process by the heat pump [0035-0036]
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 BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights