DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-4 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 is directed toward an apparatus (i.e., a liquid heating device) while claim 1 includes a process limitation (“in a process in which….”) which renders the claim indefinite as a mixed-type claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p) II: Product and Process in the Same Claim A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).) Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-4 are rejected for at least the reason of their respective dependencies from independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2019196878) in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 2020/0296802).
With regard to claim 1, Kawai teaches liquid heating device (FIG. 2) comprising: a container (2a/20) having an internal space, and an inlet (10) and an outlet (12) for a liquid which communicate with the internal space (FIG. 2, pg. 2, ln. 50 to pg. 3, ln. 5, pg. 3, ln. 17-21); and a ceramic heater (3) of which a front-end portion is located in the internal space (FIG. 2) and of which a base-end portion is retained by the container so that the ceramic heater (3) is attached to the container (2a/20) (FIGS. 2 & 4; pg. 2, ln. 50 to pg. 3, ln. 5, pg. 3, ln. 17-21), the ceramic heater (3) including a ceramic base (30) extending in an axial-line direction (FIG. 2) and a ceramic sheet (31) which has a heat generation portion (32; FIG. 8) wherein a gap (S1/S2) is formed between the container (2a/20) and the ceramic heater (3)(FIG. 2), in a process in which the liquid is introduced from the inlet (10) and flows through the internal space to the outlet (12), the liquid is heated by the ceramic heater (3) (pg. 2, ln. 45-49), the outlet (12) is located apart from the inlet (10) in the axial-line direction (FIG. 2), and a first-axis direction in a vicinity of an opening end facing the internal space, of the outlet (12), crosses the axial-line direction (FIG. 2), and a front end of the heat generation portion (end of the ceramic heater, opposite to the end where the leads 33 are located) is located on the base-end portion side relative to the outlet (12)(FIG. 2).
Kawai does not explicitly teach the ceramic sheet is wrapped around an outer circumference of the ceramic base such that, at a wrap-meeting part of the ceramic sheet, a slit extending in the axial-line direction is formed as a non-heat generation portion; however, Nakanishi directed toward the same field of endeavor of a fluid heating device teaches the aforementioned limitation: the ceramic sheet (61) is wrapped around an outer circumference of the ceramic base (17) such that, at a wrap-meeting part of the ceramic sheet, a slit (21, FIG. 2) extending in the axial-line direction is formed as a non-heat generation portion (FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kawai reference, to include the ceramic sheet is wrapped around an outer circumference of the ceramic base such that, at a wrap-meeting part of the ceramic sheet, a slit extending in the axial-line direction is formed as a non-heat generation portion, as suggested and taught by Nakanishi, for the purpose of providing heating at predetermined locations.
With regard to claim 2, with regard to the limitation of the ceramic heater has a watt density not less than 100 W/cm2, it is submitted that although the primary prior art citation does not provide the specific heating value, it is submitted that such an adaptation of the heater of Kawai would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as a result-effective variable to achieve a desired heating of a predetermined liquid/fluid within the container of the heating device.
With regard to claim 3, Kawai teaches a plurality of the ceramic heaters are provided in the container, and the ceramic heaters extend in the same direction, and the front ends of the heat generation portions of all the ceramic heaters are located on the base-end portion side relative to the outlet (“Further, in the fluid heating device 1 of the above-described embodiment (see FIG. 7 and the like), as the ceramic heater 3, an internal hollow metal or ceramic case member 31 is used as a frame, and the metal body layer 32 is formed as a molded product. However, the configuration of the ceramic heater 3 is not limited to this, and for example, a plurality of ceramic heater bodies 30 are fixed by the metal layer 32. Alternatively, the ceramic heater main body 30 may be configured to be covered only with the metal body layer 32 without using the case member 31. The same applies to the ceramic heater 4. “, pg. 6, ln. 1-5).
With regard to claim 4, Kawai teaches the heat generation portion (32) is embedded in the ceramic sheet (31) (“A metal or ceramic case member 31, and a metal body layer 32 formed by sintering and / or melting metal powder between the ceramic heater body 30 and the case member 31, The outer surface and the lower surface of the ceramic heater body 30 are covered with the metal body layer 32, and the ceramic heater body 30 and the case member 31 are fixed.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights