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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II and Species B in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal of the election requirement between Groups I and II is on the ground(s) that the tube invention of Group I is specifically configured to work with the breastmilk warming system of Group II in the same way as depicted by Group II. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is hereby withdrawn. The traversal of the election requirement between the species A-D is on the ground(s) that there would not be an increased search burden in searching the separate species. This is not found persuasive because the recited species are not obvious variants of one another and the search burden would continue to increase exponentially with subsequent office actions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 20-24 and 26-29, drawn to Species B of Groups I and II, are being examined in this office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 20-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (US 9931279) in view of Sweeney (US 10350379).
Regarding claim 1, Hyun discloses a tube configured to be received, at least in part, by a breastmilk warmer, the tube comprising: a first segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above); a second segment (see annotated Fig. 9 below), the second segment fluidly coupled to the first segment and received in the labyrinthine channel of the breastmilk warmer (Figs. 8 and 9, second segment seated in channel 116 of 112); a third segment (see annotated Fig. 9 below), the third segment fluidly coupled to the second segment (see annotated Fig. 9 below); and a fluid lumen extending from the first segment through the second segment and to the third segment (Fig. 9: single lumen from first segment through the third segment), the fluid lumen having a uniform diameter from the first segment to the third segment (Fig. 9: the same tubing with the same dimensions used for all three segments). However, Hyun fails to disclose any details about the thermal conductivity of the segments of the tubing.
Sweeney teaches an analogous segmented tubing for delivering heated contents to a patient, the tube comprising: a first segment having a first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4: segment 406A; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7); a second segment having a second thermal conductivity different from the first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4: segment 406B; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7), the second segment fluidly coupled to the first segment (Fig. 4: dotted lines of lumen and arrows depicting flow connecting the first and second segments); a third segment having a third thermal conductivity different from at least one of the first and second thermal conductivities (Fig. 4: segment 406C; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7), the third segment fluidly coupled to the second segment (Fig. 4: dotted lines of lumen and arrows depicting flow connecting the second and third segments); and a fluid lumen extending from the first segment through the second segment and to the third segment (Fig. 4: lumen shown by dotted line extending through all three segments). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer diameters of the Hyun tube by increasing/decreasing the outer diameters between the three segments to increase/decrease their thermal conductivities, as taught by Sweeney, in order to control and optimize the heat loss as the fluid travels through the different segments before reaching the patient.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
1447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9. Hyun
Regarding claim 2, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 3, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least fifteen percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least fifteen percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least fifteen percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least twenty-five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty-five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty-five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 5, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least thirty-five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the first segment has a first shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: first cross-sectional shape shown for 406A), a cross-section of the second segment has a second shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: second cross-sectional shape shown for 406B), and a cross-section of the third segment has a third shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: third cross-sectional shape shown for 406B), the second shape being different than at least one of the first shape and the third shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: the second cross section is different from the first and third cross sections).
Regarding claim 20, Hyun discloses a breastmilk warming system, comprising: a breastmilk warmer (10; Fig. 8: 100; col. 5, lines 60-63, the fluid heater used to warm breastmilk), comprising: a housing (Fig. 8: 110 and Fig. 10: 118, 124); a labyrinthine channel disposed within the housing (Fig. 9: channel 116; col. 9, lines 47-50); and a warming assembly in communication with the labyrinthine channel and configured to increase a temperature of the labyrinthine channel (Fig. 8: heater assembly 112); and a tube configured to be coupled to a source of fluid and a feeding apparatus (Fig. 9: tube 104; col. 6, lines 14-22), the tube comprising: a first segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above); a second segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above), the second segment fluidly coupled to the first segment and received in the labyrinthine channel of the breastmilk warmer (Figs. 8 and 9, second segment seated in channel 116 of 112); a third segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above), the third segment fluidly coupled to the second segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above); and a fluid lumen extending from the first segment through the second segment and to the third segment (Fig. 9: single lumen from first segment through the third segment), the fluid lumen having a uniform diameter from the first segment to the third segment (Fig. 9: the same tubing with the same dimensions used for all three segments). However, Hyun fails to disclose any details about the thermal conductivity of the segments of the tubing.
Sweeney teaches an analogous segmented tubing for delivering heated contents to a patient, the tube comprising: a first segment having a first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4: segment 406A; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7); a second segment having a second thermal conductivity different from the first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4: segment 406B; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7), the second segment fluidly coupled to the first segment (Fig. 4: dotted lines of lumen and arrows depicting flow connecting the first and second segments); a third segment having a third thermal conductivity different from at least one of the first and second thermal conductivities (Fig. 4: segment 406C; col. 7, lines 54-56; col. 8, lines 4-7), the third segment fluidly coupled to the second segment (Fig. 4: dotted lines of lumen and arrows depicting flow connecting the second and third segments); and a fluid lumen extending from the first segment through the second segment and to the third segment (Fig. 4: lumen shown by dotted line extending through all three segments). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer diameters of the Hyun tube by increasing/decreasing the outer diameters between the three segments to increase/decrease their thermal conductivities, as taught by Sweeney, in order to control and optimize the heat loss as the fluid travels through the different segments before reaching the patient.
Regarding claim 21, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 20, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 22, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 20, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least fifteen percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least fifteen percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least fifteen percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 23, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 20, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least twenty-five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty-five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty-five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 24, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 20, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach second thermal conductivity of the second segment is at least thirty-five percent greater than the first thermal conductivity of the first segment and the third thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Sweeney teaches that the size and outer diameter and/or thickness of the tube directly affects the thermal conductivity of that tube segment (col. 8, lines 4-7). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun in view of Sweeney to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun in view of Sweeney by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 27, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 20, as described above, wherein a first cross-section of the first segment has a first shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: first cross-sectional shape shown for 406A), a second cross-section of the second segment has a second shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: second cross-sectional shape shown for 406B), and a third cross-section of the third segment has a third shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: third cross-sectional shape shown for 406B), the second shape being different than at least one of the first shape and the third shape (Sweeney: Fig. 4: the second cross section is different from the first and third cross sections).
Claims 8, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (US 9931279) in view of Sweeney (US 10350379) in further view of Bleckmann (US 4008845).
Regarding claim 8, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the tube of claim 7, as described above, wherein one of the first shape of the first cross-section and the third shape of the third cross-section is a circle (Sweeney: Fig. 4: first and third cross sections of 406A and 406C are circular), but fails to teach the cross-sectional shape of the second section being a triangle.
Bleckmann teaches an analogous segmented tube that passes through a heater section, wherein the second shape of the second cross-section is a triangle (Fig. 15: the middle/second section has a triangular cross section seen in Fig. 18) and at least one of the first shape of the first cross-section and the third shape of the third cross-section is a circle (Fig. 15: the first and third sections have circular cross sections seen in Fig. 17). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hyun-Sweeney tube by incorporating the triangular cross-sectional shape of the second section, as taught by Bleckmann, in order to further effectively increase the thermal conductivity of the section by increasing the surface area contacting the heater.
Regarding claim 28, Hyun in view of Sweeney teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 27, as described above, wherein one of the first shape of the first cross-section and the third shape of the third cross-section is a circle (Sweeney: Fig. 4: first and third cross sections of 406A and 406C are circular), but fails to teach the cross-sectional shape of the second section being a triangle.
Bleckmann teaches an analogous segmented tube that passes through a heater section, wherein the second shape of the second cross-section is a triangle (Fig. 15: the middle/second section has a triangular cross section seen in Fig. 18) and at least one of the first shape of the first cross-section and the third shape of the third cross-section is a circle (Fig. 15: the first and third sections have circular cross sections seen in Fig. 17). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hyun-Sweeney tube by incorporating the triangular cross-sectional shape of the second section, as taught by Bleckmann, in order to further effectively increase the thermal conductivity of the section by increasing the surface area contacting the heater.
Regarding claim 29, Hyun in view of Sweeney in further view of Bleckmann teaches the breastmilk warming system of claim 28, as described above, wherein the labyrinthine channel of the breastmilk warmer has a triangular cross-section that receives the second cross-section of the second shape of the second segment (Bleckmann: Fig. 35: 46 having a right-angled shape to accommodate the triangular segment 52). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the labyrinthine channel of the Hyun breastmilk warmer to be triangular to accommodate the triangular cross section of the second section of the tube, as a matter of obvious design choice and as taught by Bleckmann, in order to maintain the highest amount of contacting surface area between the tube and the heater.
Claims 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (US 9931279) in view of Bleckmann (US 4008845).
Regarding claim 11, Hyun discloses a tube configured to be received, at least in part, by a breastmilk warmer, the tube comprising: a first segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above), the first segment configured to be coupled to a source of fluid (Fig. 9: tube 104; col. 6, lines 14-22); a second segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above), the second segment configured to be disposed in a labyrinthine manner within a breastmilk warmer (Figs. 8 and 9, second segment seated in channel 116 of 112); a third segment (see annotated Fig. 9 above) fluidly coupled to the second segment and configured to be coupled to a feeding apparatus (Fig. 9: tube 104; col. 6, lines 14-22); and a fluid lumen extending from the first segment through the second segment and to the third segment (Fig. 9: single lumen from first segment through the third segment), the fluid lumen having a uniform diameter from the first segment to the third segment (Fig. 9: the same tubing with the same dimensions used for all three segments). However, Hyun fails to disclose the second segment having an outer surface shape different from the first and third segment outer shapes in order to increase the thermal conductivity of the second segment.
Bleckmann teaches an analogous segmented tube that passes through a heater section with a first segment having a first outer surface having a first shape (Fig. 15: the first and third sections have circular cross sections seen in Fig. 17), and a second segment having a second outer surface having a second shape (Fig. 15: the middle/second section has a triangular cross section seen in Fig. 18), wherein the second shape increases a thermal conductivity of the second segment relative to a thermal conductivity of the first segment and a thermal conductivity of the third segment (col. 6, lines 27-31, the higher degree of surface area in contact with the heater increases the thermal conductivity). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hyun tube by incorporating the triangular cross-sectional shape of the second section, as taught by Bleckmann, in order to effectively increase the thermal conductivity of the section by increasing the surface area contacting the heater.
Regarding claim 12, Hyun in view of Bleckmann teaches the tube of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second shape of the second segment increases the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent greater than the thermal conductivity of the first segment and the thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Bleckmann teaches that the amount of contacting surface area of the tube due to its shape affects the thermal conductivity of that segment of tube (col. 6, lines 27-31). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, Hyun in view of Bleckmann teaches the tube of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second shape of the second segment increases the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least ten percent greater than the thermal conductivity of the first segment and the thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Bleckmann teaches that the amount of contacting surface area of the tube due to its shape affects the thermal conductivity of that segment of tube (col. 6, lines 27-31). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least ten percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least ten percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 14, Hyun in view of Bleckmann teaches the tube of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second shape of the second segment increases the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty percent greater than the thermal conductivity of the first segment and the thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Bleckmann teaches that the amount of contacting surface area of the tube due to its shape affects the thermal conductivity of that segment of tube (col. 6, lines 27-31). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least twenty percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 15, Hyun in view of Bleckmann teaches the tube of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the second shape of the second segment increases the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent greater than the thermal conductivity of the first segment and the thermal conductivity of the third segment. However, this parameter of the percent difference in thermal conductivities is a result effective variable. Bleckmann teaches that the amount of contacting surface area of the tube due to its shape affects the thermal conductivity of that segment of tube (col. 6, lines 27-31). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hyun to have increased the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments in order to be more efficiently heated as it passes through the heater section. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hyun by increasing the thermal conductivity of the second segment by at least thirty-five percent relative to the first and third segments as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 17, Hyun in view of Bleckmann teaches the tube of claim 11, as described above, wherein the second outer surface is a triangle (Bleckmann: Fig. 15: the middle/second section has a triangular cross section seen in Fig. 18) and at least one of the first outer surface and a third outer surface of the third segment is a circle (Bleckmann: Fig. 15: the first and third sections have circular cross sections seen in Fig. 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATERINA ANNA WITTLIFF whose telephone number is (703)756-4772. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9-7ET.
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 TSAI can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/K.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights