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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 2/12/2026, where claim 1 is amended; claims 2-20 are canceled; claims 21-26 are added; and claims 1 and 21-26 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed on 2/12/2026, with respect to previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered. Applicant argued that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the cited prior art. However, Examiner respectfully disagreed. Viswanathan further teaches the amended limitations, see rejection below. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argued that rejections should be withdrawn for the dependent claims 2-20 as they have been canceled. The arguments are persuasive in view of the amendment. As such, the rejections for claims 2-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes amended claim language; however, claim 1 does not have the corresponding claim status label, e.g., Currently Amended, Canceled, or New. Applicant is reminded to provide the appropriate claim status label when making an amendment to all claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and thus includes all limitations and elements of the claim it depends from. Claim 22 includes the limitation of a ceramic base of the emitter comprises a series of grooves. Claim 23 further recites that the ceramic emitter base of the emitter comprises a series of dimples. However, the specification does not provide support that the ceramic base of the emitter includes both the series of grooves and the series of dimples. At best, the specification provides support that they are alternate of each other, see para. [0038] of the specification. As such, the subject matter of the instant claim includes new matter and that the specification fails to provide the necessary support.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 24 recites the limitation of “one or more actuators to move the emitter longitudinally relative to the parabolic reflector to modify divergence of the collimated beam of the thermal radiation.” However, the specification is silent with respect to said limitation. At best, the specification provides support for having actuator(s) to direct the head source towards an area, see para. [0005] and [0006]. As such, the subject matter of the instant claim includes new matter and that the specification fails to provide the necessary support.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites the limitation of “select a second target area within the environment in response to absence of the target person within the environment…cause the one or more actuators to set the orientation of the heat source to direct the collimated beam of thermal radiation-toward the second target area.” However, the specification is silent with respect to said limitation. At best, the specification provides support for having actuator(s) to direct the head source towards a second area if the targeted person has moved from the first area, see para. [0016]. As such, the subject matter of the instant claim includes new matter and that the specification fails to provide the necessary support.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Because claim 22 depends on itself; therefore, it does not further limit the subject matter of the claim it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination, Examiner has interpreted the instant claim as depending from claim 21.
Claim 23 is rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim it depends from.
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 1 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viswanathan, (US 20170051926 A1) (hereinafter Viswanathan).
Referring to claim 1, Viswanathan teaches a heating system, comprising:
a heat source (¶ [0126], fig. 1A, “FIG. 1 illustrates an example installation of the extensible networked multi-modal environment conditioning system 100 where various units of the present invention are used in conjunction with each other to heat the occupants of the room”) comprising:
an emitter (¶ [0064], heat sources); and
a parabolic reflector defining a concave surface configured to reflect thermal radiation emitted by the emitter to form a collimated beam of thermal radiation (¶ [0064], figs. 6a-7b, “The optical elements of the SPOT-EMU contemplated within the present invention include parabolic reflectors…The parabolic reflectors are made of materials highly reflective of radiation from the heating element”);
one or more actuators configured to set an orientation of heat emitted by the heat source (¶ [0145], fig. 15, “In the present invention as shown in FIG. 15, a collapsible stand 3 for the use of mounting and supporting a Haser 1 or other device has a power button 53 and articulation points 49 on both the top and at the bottom for flexible stacking configurations. In the fully extended mode the stand may be of a height of an adult human 65 or in a range of approximately 1 to 2.5 meters to properly direct radiant heat from the system 100.” ¶ [0078], “The present invention is further related to a method of thermally conditioning an environment, comprising the steps of…detecting movement of an animate object through gestures within the setting, determining a point of need on the animate object, directing electromagnetic radiation to the point of need, adjusting the body temperature of the animate object”);
one or more sensors that capture sensor data about an environment (¶ [0151], fig. 28-29, “The Haser 132 may include one or more HotHeads, a Tilt/Pan device, environment monitoring sensors”);
a processor; and
programming instructions that are configured to, when executed (¶ [0152]), cause the processor to:
process the sensor data to identify a target person in the environment and a first target area on the target person (¶ [0015], “In a first embodiment of the conditioning system of the present invention comprises a controller, a heating element with focusing optics and an infrared pass-through (band-pass) filter on a robotic tilt-pan tray on which is also fitted a digital camera providing a video feed to the controller. The software in the controller performs image processing on the video feed to detect and track people in the video frame and directs the tilt-pan robot to move such that the heat is focused on a selected person.” ¶ [0077], “at least one electromagnetic radiation unit, and wherein at least one control unit directs the electromagnetic radiation unit to a moving animate object and radiates the animate object only at a desired point of need area to selectively adjust the body temperature of the animate object.” Examiner recognizes the first target area on the target person as the desired point of need area of the moving animate object),
active the heat source to output the collimated beam of thermal radiation,
cause the one or more actuators to set the orientation of the heat source to direct the collimated beam of thermal radiation toward the first target area (¶ [0015], “The software in the controller performs image processing on the video feed to detect and track people in the video frame and directs the tilt-pan robot to move such that the heat is focused on a selected person.” ¶ [0077], “at least one electromagnetic radiation unit, and wherein at least one control unit directs the electromagnetic radiation unit to a moving animate object and radiates the animate object only at a desired point of need area to selectively adjust the body temperature of the animate object.” ¶ [0058], “The HotHead is a module comprising a heating element, at a minimum, optical elements that focus the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the heating element in as collimated a beam as possible…An EMU targets and heats only the desired areas”),
track positional changes of the target person within a field of view of the one or more sensors, and
cause the one or more actuators to set adjust the orientation of the heat source to track the collimated beam of thermal radiation toward the first target area during positional changes of the target person within a field of view of the one or more sensors (¶ [0058], “All types of heating elements for producing a highly focused (i.e. collimated) beam of EM radiation are contemplated, including the following. In the present invention, such a device is referred to as an Electromagnetic Radiation Unit (“EMU”). An EMU targets and heats only the desired areas”. ¶ [0077], “The present invention is related to an extensible networked multi-modal autonomous environment conditioning system, comprising at least one control unit, at least one electromagnetic radiation unit, and wherein at least one control unit directs the electromagnetic radiation unit to a moving animate object and radiates the animate object only at a desired point of need area to selectively adjust the body temperature of the animate object.”)
Referring to claim 24, Viswanathan further teaches the heating system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions are further configured to, when executed, cause the processor to cause the one or more actuators to move the emitter longitudinally relative to the parabolic reflector to modify divergence of the collimated beam of thermal radiation (Examiner notes, the specification does not disclose such limitation; therefore, the above limitation has been interpreted to be consistent with para. [0015] of the specification. ¶ [0145], fig. 15, “In the present invention as shown in FIG. 15, a collapsible stand 3 for the use of mounting and supporting a Haser 1 or other device has a power button 53 and articulation points 49 on both the top and at the bottom for flexible stacking configurations. In the fully extended mode the stand may be of a height of an adult human 65 or in a range of approximately 1 to 2.5 meters to properly direct radiant heat from the system 100.” ¶ [0078], “The present invention is further related to a method of thermally conditioning an environment, comprising the steps of…detecting movement of an animate object through gestures within the setting, determining a point of need on the animate object, directing electromagnetic radiation to the point of need, adjusting the body temperature of the animate object”.)
Referring to claim 25, Viswanathan further teaches the heating system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions are further configured to, when executed, cause the processor to:
process the sensor data to scan for the target person in the environment,
select a second target area within the environment in response to absence of the target person within the environment,
activate the heat source to output the collimated beam of thermal radiation, and
cause the one or more actuators to set the orientation of the heat source to direct the collimated beam of thermal radiation-toward the second target area (Examiner notes, the specification does not disclose such limitation; therefore, the above limitation has been interpreted to be consistent with para. [0016] of the specification. ¶ [0078], “The present invention is further related to a method of thermally conditioning an environment, comprising the steps of…detecting movement of an animate object through gestures within the setting, determining a point of need on the animate object, directing electromagnetic radiation to the point of need, adjusting the body temperature of the animate object”.)
Referring to claim 26, Viswanathan further teaches the heating system of claim 1, wherein the programming instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the processor to:
cause the one or more actuators to set the orientation of the heat source to direct the collimated beam of thermal radiation-away from the second target area and toward the first target area in response to presence of the target person within the environment (¶ [0053], “If a waving hand (or arm) is detected at another location, the processor disengages from the current object being tracked and starts tracking the new object. It targets the Rover to point at the new location.”)
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 of this title, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Presto, (“HeatDish Plus Footlight parabolic electric heater”) (hereinafter Presto)
Referring to claim 21, Viswanathan teaches the heating system of claim 1. Viswanathan further teaches the emitter including a filament (¶ [0138], “A first exemplary embodiment of a WIRE HotHead comprising a parabolic reflector 41 is shown in FIG. 7a. In this first embodiment, the WIRE-EMU has a high-resistance wire 45”). However, Viswanathan does not explicitly teach the emitter comprises:
a ceramic emitter base that:
encases the filament;
absorbs heat from the filament;
re-radiates heat absorbed from the filament as thermal radiation toward the parabolic reflector.
Presto teaches the emitter comprises:
a ceramic emitter base that:
encases the filament;
absorbs heat from the filament;
re-radiates heat absorbed from the filament as thermal radiation toward the parabolic reflector (Pg. 2 lines 27-38, “The heat is produced by a coiled wire element wrapped around a ceramic cone. This heat is directed in a concentrated beam, by a parabolic reflector…the ceramic cone, after it is heated by the element, will retain heat. Even when the thermostatic control is positioned to cycle ON/OFF, the ceramic cone will emit heat when the power is OFF”).
Viswanathan and Presto are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with heater for heating an object (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Viswanathan and Presto before them to substitute the parabolic heater as taught by Presto for the generic heater of Viswanathan. Because both Viswanathan and Presto teach methods of heating object(s), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of heater technology. The motivation would have been to improve comfort with uniform feeling of heat as suggested by Presto (pg. 2 lines 27-38).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan in view of Presto as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lee, (KR 200188983 Y1) (hereinafter Lee)
Referring to claim 22, Viswanathan in view of Presto teach the heating system of claim 22. Viswanathan further teaches project thermal radiation toward the parabolic reflector (¶ [0064], “The parabolic reflectors are made of materials highly reflective of radiation from the heating element”).
However, Viswanathan in view of Presto do not explicitly teach the ceramic emitter base of the emitter comprises a series of grooves configures to:
increase an effective surface area of the emitter;
increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector.
Lee teaches the ceramic emitter base of the emitter comprises a series of grooves configures to:
increase an effective surface area of the emitter;
increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector (Pg. 3 lines 40-52, figs. 2-5, “The heat generating part 50 according to the present invention is a heating hole 52 and a mounting hole 51 which are spirally wound and installed in a groove 51 of a substantially semi-circular cross section formed on the outer circumference or the outer circumference of the mounting hole. It consists of a ceramic coating layer 53 surrounding the outer peripheral surface of the heating wire 52 together. 2 is a partial cross-sectional view and a partially enlarged view of an electric heater to which the first embodiment of the present invention is applied, in which a ceramic heating wire 52 is wound around a groove of a substantially semi-circular cross-section formed on an outer circumferential surface of the mounting hole 51.” Examiner notes, the increase effective surface area of the emitter and increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector are inherent result of having a ceramic emitter base with a series of grooves.)
Viswanathan, Presto, and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with heater for heating an object (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee before them to substitute the ceramic emitter base with a series of grooves as taught by Lee for the generic ceramic emitter base of Viswanathan in view of Presto. Because both Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee teach methods of heating object(s), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of heater technology. The motivation would have been to improve emission effect of the rays as suggested by Lee (Pg. 2 lines 60-66).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kojima et al., (US 20040130897 A1) (hereinafter Kojima)
Referring to claim 23, Viswanathan teaches the limitations above. Viswanathan further teaches project thermal radiation toward the parabolic reflector (¶ [0064], “The parabolic reflectors are made of materials highly reflective of radiation from the heating element”). However, Viswanathan does not explicitly teach ceramic emitter base. Presto further teaches the ceramic emitter base (Pg. 2 lines 27-38, “The heat is produced by a coiled wire element wrapped around a ceramic cone.”) However, Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee do not explicitly teach a series of dimples configured to:
increase an effective surface area of the emitter;
increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector.
Kojima teaches a series of dimples configured to:
increase an effective surface area of the emitter;
increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector (¶ [0048], “In another aspect of the electro-optical device encased in a mounting case of the present invention, at least one of the first surface-area increasing portion and the second surface-area increasing portion includes fins formed to be protruded from the surface of the cover and/or dimples formed to form recesses on the surface of the cover.” ¶ [0049], “According to the aspect, the surface area of the cover can be relatively easily increased.” Examiner notes, the increase effective surface area of the emitter and increase a view factor between the ceramic emitter base and the concave surface of the parabolic reflector are inherent result of having a material with a series of dimples.)
Viswanathan, Presto, Lee, and Kojima are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with devices that radiate energy (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee and Kojima before them to substitute the material with a series of dimples as taught by Kojima for the generic material of Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee. Because both Viswanathan in view of Presto and Lee and Kojima teach devices that radiate energy, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one known method for the other to achieve the predictable result of radiation device technology. The motivation would have been to provide an easy way to increase surface area as suggested by Kojima (¶ [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 7,918,100 (Breed) – discloses method for monitoring temperature of an occupant and controlling a HVAC based on the monitoring.
US 3,789,853 (Reinhard) – discloses radiant energy heating system for temperature control of living subjects.
US 20190212759 (Laski) – discloses networked local heating system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5817. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118