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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be amended to replace “insatiably” with “insertably.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 27 of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “a housing body.”
¶¶ 44 (once) and 45 (twice) of the as-filed specification should be amended to recite “the induction heating circuit 104.”
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) 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:
The incremental ingression insert adjustment device in claims 4 and 12 (element 102 in the disclosure; the interpretation does not apply to the same limitation in claim 6 because that claim provides sufficient structure).
The administration device in claims 6 and 11 (element 120 in the disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 provides for “a housing body.” However, claim 2 from which it depends already provides for “a housing.” The claim is indefinite because it’s not clear on the difference between the “housing” and the “housing body.” The specification makes clear that the housing is a larger overall structure that encompasses the housing body, but as this claim stands, it seems that the base of the housing is coupled to a separate housing body.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (WO 2019/104576 A1, cited by Applicant, the Office supplies its own translation).
Claim 10: Liu discloses an induction heater module housing comprising:
a base (100) with an electrical coupling (110, 112), the base also couplable to a housing body (200) on a first end of the housing body (via 113 and 114, see fig. 1), and a cover (800) couplable to the housing body on a second end of the housing body (see fig. 1 and ¶ 49).
Claim 11: Liu discloses that the housing receives an induction heating circuit (321, 322) and coil (320), and at least a portion of a receptacle (310) configured for receipt of an administration device (310, having a hollow space, is broadly capable of receiving an element that would qualify as an administration device, said administration device not being positively recited; see MPEP § 2144).
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 1–3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2019/104576 A1, cited by Applicant, the Office supplies its own translation) in view of Rose (US Pub. 2019/0380387 A1).
Claim 1: Liu discloses an induction heater module comprising:
a threaded connector (112 of 100, see fig. 1) couplable to a power source (¶ 34, “the electrode assembly 100 is used to supply power to the heating assembly 300”; ¶ 50, “the outer electrode 110 includes a first mounting portion 111 and a second mounting portion 112”);
an induction circuit (321, 322) electrically connected to the threaded connector (¶ 37, “the induction coil 320 further includes a first induction coil connection pin 321 and a second induction coil connection pin 322 respectively corresponding to the connection electrode assembly 100”); and
an induction coil (320) electrically connected to the induction circuit.
Liu does not disclose a 510 threaded connector.
However, such a connector is well-known in the art, as for example shown in Rose (116, see ¶¶ 45 and 46, and figs. 1–3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a 510 threaded connector, as taught by Rose, for the threaded connector of Liu since it has the benefit of being universal, as taught by Rose.
Claim 2: Liu modified by Rose discloses a housing (200) with a base (100) having the 510 threaded connector thereon (i.e. 110, 112).
Claim 3: Liu discloses that the base is configured for coupling to a housing body (200, via 113 and 114) which is couplable to a cover (800).
Claim 5: Liu discloses a base of an induction heater (110) module comprising:
a threaded connector (112) couplable to a power source (¶ 34, “the electrode assembly 100 is used to supply power to the heating assembly 300”; ¶ 50, “the outer electrode 110 includes a first mounting portion 111 and a second mounting portion 112”) and electrically couplable to an induction heating circuit (321, 322) and induction coil (320);
wherein the base comprises a geometry (via 114) which enables press tit attachment of a housing body (200; ¶ 54, “the outer peripheral wall of the first mounting portion 111 that is inserted into the housing 200 is provided with an annular groove that is circumferentially surrounded, and the annular groove is sleeved with a sealing ring 114, which is outside the sealing ring 114. The surface protrudes from the annular groove for achieving an interference fit between the outer electrode 110 and the housing 200”).
Liu does not disclose a 510 threaded connector.
However, such a connector is well-known in the art, as for example shown in Rose (116, see ¶¶ 45 and 46, and figs. 1–3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a 510 threaded connector, as taught by Rose, for the threaded connector of Liu since it has the benefit of being universal, as taught by Rose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6–9 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4, 6, and 12 each concern the same sort of limitations. Claims 7–9 each depend from claim 6.
The prior art does not show an incremental ingression insert adjustment device insertable into an induction coil.
Prior art that adjusts a position of an induction heater is known. See Batista et al. (US Pub. 2022/0338545), Yoon et al. (US Pub. 2022/0295888), Reevell (US Pub. 2020/0245682), Moloney et al. (US Pub. 2022/0408823), and Worm et al. (US Pub. 2019/0289908)
Prior art with induction coils that mesh with thread-like structures are also known. See Monsalud et al. (US Pub. 2020/0077703), Zhou et al. (CN 212233104 U, cited by the Office), and Warren et al. (WO 2020/239812 A1, cited by the Office).
The prior art does not show or suggest these structures combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
Moorman (US Pub. 2020/0128879), Wu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0057673), Kwon (WO 2020/130752 A1, cited by Applicant), and Wu et al. (JP 2019-134701 A, cited by the Office) are also relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights