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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 03/01/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of DE102021001082.5 application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate both pipe and heating element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
electric heating element in claim 1, interpreted as heater as described in Fig. 2 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
integral structures in claim 1, interpreted as pipe as described in Fig. 2 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laging et al., WO 2020035178 (hereafter Laging), and further in view of Koo, KR 20140050930 (hereafter Koo), and Ida, US 5056501 (hereafter Ida).
Regarding claim 1,
A device for heating a medium and air, comprising: (abstract)
a heating source, (10)
a heat exchanger, (21)
at least one electric heating element, (Page 5, paragraph 5 teaches “heating source 11 configured as an electrical heat source”)
…wherein: the heating source generates thermal energy by the combustion of a fuel-air-mixture, (Page 5, paragraph 2 of the attached machine translation teaches “a heating source 10 which, for. B. generates thermal energy via the combustion of propane and / or butane.”)
…the heat exchanger has an interior space into which flue gas generated during combustion of the fuel-air-mixture flows, (heat exchanger 21 in Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Laging
…the heat exchanger transmits the thermal energy produced by the heating source to the medium pipe, (Fig. 3)
the electric heating element generates thermal energy, (Page 5, paragraph 5 teaches “heating source 11 configured as an electrical heat source”)
Laging is silent about and at least one medium pipe, the heat exchanger serves to heat air passed along an exterior side, the heat exchanger has a fin structure on the exterior side, the heat exchanger having integral structures for at least partially accommodating the electric heating element and the medium pipe,
the medium pipe is guided around the interior space of the heat exchanger, and the electric heating element is guided around the interior space of the heat exchange.
Koo teaches and at least one medium pipe, (pipe 17 in Fig. 12 in Koo)
PNG
media_image2.png
551
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 in Koo
the heat exchanger having integral structures for at least partially accommodating the electric heating element and the medium pipe, (Fig. 12 in Koo teaches electric heating element 59 and medium pipe 17.)
the medium pipe is guided around the interior space of the heat exchanger, and the electric heating element is guided around the interior space of the heat exchanger. (Fig. 12 in Koo)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the medium pipe and heating element as guided around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Primary combination of references is silent about the heat exchanger serves to heat air passed along an exterior side, the heat exchanger has a fin structure on the exterior side.
Ida teaches the heat exchanger serves to heat air passed along an exterior side,
(Fig. 2 in Ida)
PNG
media_image3.png
437
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Ida
the heat exchanger has a fin structure on the exterior side, (Ida teaches in column 4, lines 41-47 “a plurality of fins 20 are formed on an outer peripheral surface of the inner cylinder 8d in a manner axially extending and arranged at circumferentially equal intervals so that heating air introduced from the heating air inlet hole 15a is efficiently heated by the heat of the inner cylinder 8d while travelling in the heating air passage B.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the heat exchanger to heat the air along exterior side and add fins to the exterior side as taught in Ida to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “heating air introduced from the heating air inlet hole 15a is efficiently heated by the heat of the inner cylinder 8d while travelling in the heating air passage B” as taught in column 4, lines 41-47 in Ida.
Regarding claim 2,
The device according to claim 1, wherein the medium pipe and the electric heating element are guided parallel to each other. (Primary combination of references is silent about this. Fig. 12 in Koo teaches medium pipe 17 and heating element 59 are guided parallel to each other.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the medium pipe and heating element as guided around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Regarding claim 3,
The device according to claim 1, wherein the medium pipe and the electric heating element are in thermal contact with each other. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Koo teaches the heat generated by heating element 59 is transferred to the water in pipe 17. It is understood that they are in thermal contact.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the medium pipe and heating element as guided around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Regarding claim 4,
The device according to claim 1,wherein the integral structures of the heat exchanger are configured in a tubular shape. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 12 in Koo teaches tubular shaped pipe and heating element.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the medium pipe and heating element as guided around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Regarding claim 5,
The device according to claim 1, wherein the device has two electric heating elements, and the integral structures at least partially accommodates the two electric heating elements. (The claim is interpreted as duplicating the heating element. MPEP 2144.04-VI-B sets forth that “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of
flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although
the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”)
Regarding claim 7,
The device according to claim 1, wherein the medium pipe is guided concentrically around the interior space of the heat exchanger. (Fig. 12 in Koo.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to guide the medium pipe concentrically around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Regarding claim 8,
The device according to claim 1, wherein the electric heating element is guided concentrically around the interior space of the heat exchanger. (Fig. 12 in Koo.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to guide the heating element concentrically around the interior of heat exchanger as taught in Koo to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger comprises a heat-conducting coil where a heat conducting medium, a refrigerant or a heat medium, and a hollow coil which is attached and comes in contact with the heat conducting coil along the lengthwise direction so as for a second fluid to exchange heat with the heat conducting medium and expand the surface areas of the heat exchange. The efficiency of the heat exchange between the heat-conducting medium and the second fluid can be thereby improved” as taught in abstract in Koo.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laging, Koo, and Ida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collmer, US 11312209 (hereafter Collmer).
The device according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger is at least partially made of a die-cast or of a sintered material. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Collmer teaches in column 3, lines 30-32 “The heat exchanger housing is preferably a cast metal component for reasons of strength,”.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design part of heat exchanger as a die-cast as taught in Collmer to the device in Laging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The heat exchanger housing is preferably a cast metal component for reasons of strength,” as taught in column 3, lines 30-32 in Collmer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761