Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “the tube interior” limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a misspelling of a word “train” at line 2. It should be written as “grain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "granulate grains" at line 17 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these granulate grains are the same as the ones recited at line 13. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "an electrically insulating material" at lines 14-15 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this electrically insulating material is the same as the one recited at line 4. If it is so, then “an” should be replaced with "the" or "said".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "sections" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these sections are the same as the ones recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 17. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "components" at line 5 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these components are the same as the ones recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 18. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "components" at line 5 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these components are the same as the ones recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 18. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "granulate grains" at line 20 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these granulate grains are the same as the one recited at line 17. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "edges and protrusions" at line 20 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether these edges and protrusions are the same as the one recited at line 18. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "can be” renders the claim indefinite for not providing positive limitation because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the limitation "an electrically insulating material" at line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this electrically insulating material is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 8 at line 9. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "tube-shaped metal jacket" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this tube-shaped metal jacket is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrob (US 3,582,616) in view of Wrob et al. (US 4,112,410).
Regarding claim 1, Wrob ‘s 616 discloses an electrical heating device (abstract; Fig. 1 H, i.e. electrical heaters) with an electrical heating element (3), which is arranged, without a carrier (see figure 2), inside the tube interior of a tube-shaped metal jacket (1) and is electrically insulated from the metal jacket (1) with a compacted (i.e. filled), electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) (col. 2, lines 55-75), the electrical heating element (3) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
233
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
coils (i.e. called helical wires) with a flat ribbon geometry (col. 2, lines 57-60, i.e. a helical wire although other conventional forms, such as of rod, tubular, mesh, and ribbon
construction), wherein the coils (i.e. called helical wires) geometry have an inner diameter (I, see annotated figure 2 above), an outer diameter (O, see annotated figure 2 above), and a spacing (S, see annotated figure 2 above) between adjacent coil and are shaped such that a flat side of the coils (not shown) runs parallel to a coil axis (not shown, i.e. along the conductors 5, 5’), at least in portions of an interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket that borders at least one of the coils the compacted electrically insulating material (7, 17) is a compacted granulate (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) (col. 2, lines 55-75).
Wrob ‘s 616 discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for the granulate grains of different sizes with edges and protrusions or a compacted molded part made from the electrically insulating material, at least one surface of at least one coil of the coils has sections, in which either granulate grains or components of the molded part produced during the compaction of the molded part are pressed at least partially into the electrical heating element under local deformation of the electrical heating element.
However, Wrob ‘s 410 teaches the granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles) of different sizes with edges and protrusions (not shown) or a compacted (i.e. poured) molded part (i.e. powder of magnesium oxide material) made from the electrically insulating material (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO)), at least one surface of at least one coil of the coils (15, i.e. called heating strip) has sections, in which either granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles) or components of the molded part produced during the compaction of the molded part are pressed at least partially into the electrical heating element (15) under local deformation of the electrical heating element (15) (col. 3, lines 12-27).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 and Wrob ‘s 410 before him or her, to include such a heating strip and electrically insulating material particles of Wrob ‘s 410 because the heater is uniformly compressed or compacted along its length by a diameter reduction process, such as by swaging, to uniformly reduce the diameter of sheath and to uniformly compact insulation layers. This results in a uniform layer of electrical insulation between conductor and heating element and between the heating element and sheath to prevent electrical shorting of heating element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides maximum heat transfer from the heating element to the sheath while maintaining adequate electrical insulation between the heating element and the sheath (col. 1, lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 2, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein the compacted (i.e. filled) granulate (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating powder particles) is impregnated at least in sections (see figure 2).
With respect to claims 3, 16, and 17, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein the granulate grains (i.e. powder particles) are bonded with each other by an impregnating medium and subsequent heat treatment (col. 1, lines 25-48).
With respect to claim 4, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein the coil axis (not shown, i.e. along the conductors 5, 5’) runs parallel to a tube center axis (see figure 1) of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1).
With respect to claim 5, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 410 further discloses wherein at least one coil of the coils (15, i.e. called heating strip) has multiple surfaces in which the granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles) or components of the molded part produced during the compaction of the molded part, under local deformation of the electrical heating element, are pressed at least partially into the electrical heating element (col. 1, lines 15-32; col. 2, lines 1-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 and Wrob ‘s 410 before him or her, to include such heating strip surfaces of Wrob ‘s 410 because the heater is uniformly compressed or compacted along its length by a diameter reduction process, such as by swaging, to uniformly reduce the diameter of sheath and to uniformly compact insulation layers. This results in a uniform layer of electrical insulation between conductor and heating element and between the heating element and sheath to prevent electrical shorting of heating element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides maximum heat transfer from the heating element to the sheath while maintaining adequate electrical insulation between the heating element and the sheath (col. 1, lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 6, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 410 further discloses wherein a relative increase in a surface contact between the electrical heating element (w, i.e. a resistance element) and the electrically insulating material (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO)) is different for at least two different surfaces in which the granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles), under local deformation of the electrical heating element, are pressed at least partially into the electrical heating element (col. 3, lines 12-27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 and Wrob ‘s 410 before him or her, to include such heating strip surfaces of Wrob ‘s 410 because the heater is uniformly compressed or compacted along its length by a diameter reduction process, such as by swaging, to uniformly reduce the diameter of sheath and to uniformly compact insulation layers. This results in a uniform layer of electrical insulation between conductor and heating element and between the heating element and sheath to prevent electrical shorting of heating element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides maximum heat transfer from the heating element to the sheath while maintaining adequate electrical insulation between the heating element and the sheath (col. 1, lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 7, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 410 further discloses wherein a relative increase in a surface contact between the electrical heating element (w, i.e. a resistance element) and the electrically insulating material (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO)) is greatest for a surface facing the tube-shaped metal jacket (3), in which the granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles) or components of the molded part produced during the compaction of the molded part, under local deformation of the electrical heating element (w, i.e. a resistance element), are pressed at least partially into the electrical heating element (w, i.e. a resistance element) (col. 1, lines 15-32; col. 2, lines 1-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 and Wrob ‘s 410 before him or her, to include such heating strip surface contact of Wrob ‘s 410 because the heater is uniformly compressed or compacted along its length by a diameter reduction process, such as by swaging, to uniformly reduce the diameter of sheath and to uniformly compact insulation layers. This results in a uniform layer of electrical insulation between conductor and heating element and between the heating element and sheath to prevent electrical shorting of heating element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides maximum heat transfer from the heating element to the sheath while maintaining adequate electrical insulation between the heating element and the sheath (col. 1, lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 8, Wrob ‘s 616 discloses a method for producing an electrical heating device (abstract; H, i.e. electrical heaters) with an electrical heating element (3), which has, at least in some sections, coils (i.e. called helical wires) with a flat ribbon geometry (col. 2, lines 57-60, i.e. a helical wire although other conventional forms, such as of rod, tubular, mesh, and ribbon construction), wherein the coils (i.e. called helical wires) have an inner diameter (I, see annotated figure 2 above), an outer diameter (O, see annotated figure 2 above), and a spacing (S, see annotated figure 2 above) between adjacent coils (i.e. called helical wires) and are shaped such that a flat side (not shown) of the coils (i.e. called helical wires) runs parallel to a coil axis (not shown, i.e. along the conductors 5, 5’), the electrical heating element (3) is arranged inside a tube interior of a tube-shaped metal jacket (1) and is electrically insulated from the metal jacket (1) with an electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) (col. 2, lines 55-75), the method comprising:
- producing the electrical heating element (3),
- arranging the electrical heating element (3) in the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1),
- introducing the electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically
insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) into the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1), and
- compacting the electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically
insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide),
wherein the electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically
insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) is a granulate (i.e. magnesium oxide powder) (col. 2, lines 55-75).
Wrob ‘s 410 discloses granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles) of different sizes with edges and protrusions (not shown) or a molded part (i.e. powder of magnesium oxide material), wherein the granulate grains or the molded part is compacted in a radial direction such that sections of granulate grains (i.e. magnesium oxide (MgO) powder particles), especially edges and protrusions (not shown), or components of the molded part (i.e. powder of magnesium oxide material)produced during the compaction of the molded part, under local deformation of the electrical heating element (15), are pressed into at least one surface of at least one coil of the coils (col. 3, lines 12-27, i.e. called heating strip).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 and Wrob ‘s 410 before him or her, to include such a heating strip and electrically insulating material particles of Wrob ‘s 410 because the heater is uniformly compressed or compacted along its length by a diameter reduction process, such as by swaging, to uniformly reduce the diameter of sheath and to uniformly compact insulation layers. This results in a uniform layer of electrical insulation between conductor and heating element and between the heating element and sheath to prevent electrical shorting of heating element. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides maximum heat transfer from the heating element to the sheath while maintaining adequate electrical insulation between the heating element and the sheath (col. 1, lines 29-32).
With respect to claim 9, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein the introduction of the electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating,
heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) into the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1) is realized at least partially such that the granulate grains of the granulate can be slowly added into the tube-shaped metal jacket from one end under a vibrating motion (col. 2, lines 55-75).
With respect to claim 11, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein a part of the electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) is introduced as a molded body into the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1).
With respect to claim 12, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein an impregnating medium, in particular, a silicone resin, is introduced as an electrically insulating material (7, 17, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide) into the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket and a heat-treatment step is performed, such that the granulate grains are bonded with each other (col. 2, lines 55-75).
With respect to claim 18, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein an impregnating medium is introduced into the tube interior of the tube-shaped metal jacket (1) and a heat-treatment step is performed such that the granulate grains are bonded with the tube-shaped metal jacket (1) (col. 2, lines 55-75).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrob (US 3,582,616) in view of Wrob et al. (US 4,112,410) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Crandel (US 20040211771).
Regarding claim 10, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the electrically insulating material has a tapped density of less than 2.45 g/cm3 before the compacting step.
However, Crandel teaches wherein the electrically insulating material (22, i.e. a magnesium oxide) has a tapped density of less than 2.45 g/cm3 before the compacting step (¶ 0005-0006).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a swaged cartridge heating element or heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 and Crandel before him or her, to include such insulating material density of Crandel because an insulating filler having an optimum combination of relatively high thermal conductivity and relatively low electrical conductivity is used to fill the space between the coil and the inner wall of the sheath. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves dielectric and thermal conductive properties (¶ 0006).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrob (US 3,582,616) in view of Wrob et al. (US 4,112,410) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gunther (US 20020102322).
Regarding claim 13, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein a high pressure is used during the compacting step and produces a plastic deformation of the electrical heating element.
However, Gunther teaches wherein a high pressure is used during the compacting step and produces a plastic deformation of the electrical heating element (50) (¶ 0002, 0045).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 and Gunther before him or her, to include the compacting process of Gunther because the structure that can be manufactured and mounted economically and that guarantees reliable operation. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it produces at low cost and to be mounted quickly, reliable functioning also being very important (0007).
With respect to claim 19, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 and Gunther discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Gunther further discloses wherein the elastic deformation reduces a cross- section of the electrical heating element (¶ 0048).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 and Gunther before him or her, to include the compacting process of Gunther because the structure that can be manufactured and mounted economically and that guarantees reliable operation. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it produces at low cost and to be mounted quickly, reliable functioning also being very important (0007).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrob (US 3,582,616) in view of Wrob et al. (US 4,112,410) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Batliwalla et al. (US 5,925,276).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 20, Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including of which Wrob ‘s 616 further discloses wherein the granulate is comprised of a magnesium oxide granulate (col. 2, lines 55-75, i.e. a granular electrically insulating, heat-conductive refractory material such as magnesium oxide), except for the magnesium oxide granulate has a grain size distribution, a maximum grain size distribution is in the range between 30 µm and 300 µm; wherein a full width half maximum of the grain size distribution of the magnesium oxide granulate is greater than approximately 30 µm; and wherein a full width half maximum of the grain size distribution of the magnesium oxide granulate is in a range of 30 µm to 100 µm.
However, Batliwalla teaches the magnesium oxide granulate has a grain size distribution, a maximum grain size distribution is in the range between 30 µm and 300 µm; wherein a full width half maximum of the grain size distribution of the magnesium oxide granulate is greater than approximately 30 µm; and wherein a full width half maximum of the grain size distribution of the magnesium oxide granulate is in a range of 30 µm to 100 µm (col. 5, lines 15-34).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a strip heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wrob ‘s 616 in view of Wrob ‘s 410 and Batliwalla before him or her, to include such grain size distribution of the magnesium oxide of Batliwalla because the resistive element is surrounded by an insulating jacket to provide electrical insulation and environmental protection. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides environmental protection and electrical insulation, it is common for the resistive element to be covered by a dielectric layer (col. 6, lines 4-6).
Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schlipf (US 20100147826; US 20070023418). Mann (US 4,112,577). Ginder (US 2,284,862). Skogland (US 3,813,771). Lindroth et al. (US 3,881,163). Kochman et al. (US 5,824,996).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 W. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights