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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbering of Figure 2 is confusing. It is unclear whether the claimed method starts at step 8, or is only illustrating part of the claimed process (i.e. steps 1-7 of process are omitted). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the control unit” as described in the specification. (Specification, pg. 8 L 25-26) Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “numbered paragraph X” (Pg. 10 L 31 – Pg. 13 L 1) need to be fixed. Either all of the paragraphs are numbered or none of them should be numbered.
Arrangement of the Specification is improper – there are no titles or clear demarcation between sections. (Proper form is provided below)
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5 and 9 use “wherin” instead of “wherein.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-10 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The claims recite an abstract idea of mathematical concepts, specifically mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons detailed below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (detailed below).
First, one must consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of claims 1-9 are directed to a process, and claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, and thus falls within a statutory category (Step 1).
Each of Claims 1-9 recites at least one step or instruction for determining the temperature of a fluid, which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Note below, the underlined portions of the claim indicate limitations directed to an abstract idea, and the bolded portions indicate additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
Specifically Claim 1 recites, a Method for determining an output temperature of a fluid after flowing through a PTC heater heating the fluid with a PTC heating element, wherein in the method:
a current of the PTC heating element, a supply voltage of the PTC heating element and a duty cycle of the supply voltage are determined, (Mathematical Calculations which are grouped as an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)) and
the output temperature of the fluid is calculated based on the current, the supply voltage and the duty cycle. (Mathematical Calculations which are grouped as an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C))
The aforementioned method for “determining an output temperature of a fluid” comprising a “ a current of the PTC heating element, a supply voltage of the PTC heating element and a duty cycle of the supply voltage are determined, and the output temperature of the fluid is calculated based on the current, the supply voltage and the duty cycle,” covers mathematical calculations. (Mathematical Concepts under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C))
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010). The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.
When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’.").
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea.
Under BRI, determining the output temperature of the fluid is calculated based on a calculated current, the supply voltage and the duty cycle, can be understood as a mathematical calculation. The claim recites specific mathematical concepts (specific variables/inputs to be used with a specific equation) for calculating the heat of the fluid, and requires nothing more than the mere calculations. [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)] (“a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations”)
Under Prong 2a, the additional elements of PTC heater heating the fluid with a PTC heating element presents mere field of use application, namely generally linking the mathematical calculations for temperature of a fluid to the environment of PTC heating. Furthermore, this limitation does not provide any meaningful limitations, as the method is applied to PTC heaters generally. Under MPEP 2106.05(h), generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to integrate into a practical application, and thus the aforementioned elements do not pass muster.
In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, the PTC heater heating the fluid with a PTC heating element, do not add significantly more to the judicial exception as exhibited by the courts in Parker v Flook. Under MPEP 2106.05(h)(iii), when the additional elements merely provide a limitation to general field of use, and does not provide any particularity with regard to its application, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199) (Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim.)) The claimed process is understood as merely using specific heat transfer equations in the environment of the PCT heater without adding significantly more. Therefore, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim 2 further recites, wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated independently of an input temperature of the fluid before flowing through a PTC heater, and/or the output temperature of the fluid is calculated without a measurement of temperatures prevailing in the PTC heater and/or in the fluid, and/or the output temperature of the fluid is calculated exclusively based on the supply voltage, the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the current with the addition of a predetermined characterization constant of the PTC heater.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, all equations relate to mathematical formulas and calculations, as each of the 3 equations relate to calculation of temperature without a known input temperature. (independent of input temperature, and/or without measuring input temperature, and/or using variables not related to input temperature, namely, current, voltage and duty cycle with a pre-determined constant (heat transfer coefficient of the PTC).
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 2 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports more mathematical concepts, namely specific variables to perform a mathematical calculation based on known mathematical relationships and equations, into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 3 further recites, wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated exclusively from an electrical heating power of the PTC heating element, a temperature (T_CERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Claim 3 merely sets conditions for the mathematical calculations to be performed. Specifically, it requires that temperature is calculated using heating power, temperature of the ceramic and the heat transfer coefficient (characterization constant), which is simply establishing the known variables for finding the change in temperature of a fluid.
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 3 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports more mathematical concepts, namely specific variables to perform a mathematical calculation based on known mathematical relationships and equations, into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 4 further recites, wherein the electrical heating power of the PTC heating element is calculated as a product of the supply voltage, the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the current.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 is merely the electrical power equation applied to an electric PTC heater. (Power = Voltage x Current)
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 4 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports the electrical power equation into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 5 further recites, wherein when calculating the output temperature of the fluid, an electrical resistance (R_CERAMIC) of the PTC heating element is calculated from the supply voltage and the current.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, Specifically, Claim 5 is merely Ohm’s Law applies to an electric PTC heater. (Voltage = Current x Resistance)
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 5 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports Ohm’s Law into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 6 further recites, wherein when calculating the output temperature of the fluid, the temperature (T_CERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element is read out from a predetermined matrix ({f, U, R_CERAMIC, T_CERAMIC}) depending on the supply voltage, the frequency of the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the calculated electrical resistance (R_CERAMIC) of the PTC heating element.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, Claim 6 merely incorporates a matrix of known relationship between resistance and temperature in a PTC heater, and values calculated using known equations that are to be used for the calculations using the known equations in Claims 7-9. In other words, Claim 6 imports more known concepts of heat transfer in the context of PTC heaters.
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 6 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports more mathematical concepts, namely a known relationship between T/R in PTC heaters with calculated values using known heat transfer equations, into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 7 further recites, wherein the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater is a product of a heat-transferring area of the PTC heater which is flowed around by the fluid and a factor which indicate an electrical heating power per surface per Kelvin transmitted by the PTC heating element to the fluid.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Claim 7 merely claims the product of the area of the PTC in contact with the fluid and a heat transfer coefficient of the device, in other words, the specific heat of the system.
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 7 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports using a heat transfer coefficient, into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 8 further recites, wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated as a difference of the temperature (T-_CERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a double quotient of the electrical heating power (PEL) of the PTC heater by the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, Claim 8 is merely an equation for calculating temperature applied to the context of PTC heaters.
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 8 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports more mathematical concepts, namely known temperature equations and mathematical relationships of PTC heaters, into the claims. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claim 9 further recites, wherein the output temperature of the fluid is compared with a predetermined limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD), wherein the electrical heating power (PEL) is reduced and the method is continued when the limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD) is exceeded, and wherein the method is continued without the reducing of the electrical heating power (PEL) when the limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD) is not exceeded, and/or the output temperature of the fluid is output to a user
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The BRI of this step encompasses a mathematical concept. Specifically, it requires that output temperature is displayed, or that the power is controlled to keep temperature within a threshold range. However, as PTC heaters are well-known as “self-regulating heaters,” due to their positive temperature coefficients, this power control limitation merely claims a known behavior in PTC heaters. Furthermore, displaying results of an otherwise abstract idea is a mere field of use application and does not amount to integration into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(h) “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claim 9 provides no further structure or limitations to add significantly more than the judicial exception, and merely imports a known behavior of PTC with a field of use application, namely displaying it. As this is understood to simply link a judicial exception to a particular field of use (PTC heaters), without any particularity to the machine used, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(h), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding Claim 10, as it falls in a different statutory category, a new 101 analysis is required. As stated above, claim 10 is directed to an apparatus, and thus falls within a statutory category (Step 1).
Claim 10, for the same reasons as above, is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Specifically Claim 10 recites, wherein the PTC heater can be flowed through by a fluid and is provided for heating the fluid to an output temperature (TOUT), characterized in that the PTC heater is provided for carrying out the method according to claim 1.
The additional elements of PTC heater provided for carrying out the method presents mere field of use application, namely generally linking the mathematical calculations for determining the temperature of a fluid to the environment of PTC heating. Furthermore, this limitation does not provide any meaningful limitations, as the method is applied to PTC heaters generally. Under MPEP 2106.05(h), generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to integrate into a practical application, and thus the aforementioned elements do not pass muster.
In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, the (additional element), appears to be routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by the courts. The additional limitations amount to mere field of use applications as the well-known mathematical equations and relationships that govern heat transfer are applied to PTC heaters generally. (see MPEP 2106.05(h): see also, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199 (Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ([L]imiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.). Furthermore, while the field of use is integrated into a machine, it is integrated into a generic heater, namely a heater comprising merely of a PTC heating element, that does not integrate steps of the method, as it is solely provided for the purpose of providing heat for which the claimed calculations are made, and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(b), see Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939) (Demonstrating a high level of specificity of the particular machine must be claimed to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception)) Similarly, the additional elements amount to extra solution activity implemented into an insignificant application, as the PTC heater merely provides heat to the fluid that is somehow measured by the claimed invention, and does not relate at all to the calculations performed. (MPEP 2106.05(g), In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Providing an analogous example of insignificant application)).
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-10 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bao et al. (US 2022/0273903).
Regarding Claim 1, Bao discloses a Method for determining an output temperature of a fluid after flowing through a PTC heater heating the fluid with a PTC heating element [Fig. 6 (122), Fig. 7(122, 136), para. 331] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses a system with a heating element (122) comprising a PTC heater (136), reference to either element will be understood to be referring to the PTC heating element.), wherein in the method:
a current of the PTC heating element, a supply voltage of the PTC heating element and a duty cycle of the supply voltage are determined [paras. 332, 354] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses a device that determines the temperature of the fluid through a PTC heating element (122) using a voltage and current sensors, with an AC power supply, and thus discloses this limitation.), and
the output temperature of the fluid is calculated based on the current, the supply voltage and the duty cycle. [Para. 332]
Regarding Claim 2, Bao discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, Bao further discloses wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated independently of an input temperature of the fluid before flowing through a PTC heater, [Para. 332] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses that the temperature is determined using the determined voltage/current and a resistance-temperature look up table to determine the fluid temperature, and thus discloses this limitation.) and/or
the output temperature of the fluid is calculated without a measurement of temperatures prevailing in the PTC heater and/or in the fluid, [Para. 332] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses the device determines "[t]he thermal property of PTC heater element (136) … without needing to use a temperature sensor for sensing temperature," and thus discloses this limitation.) and/or
the output temperature of the fluid is calculated exclusively based on the supply voltage, the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the current with the addition of a predetermined characterization constant of the PTC heater. (Examiner Note: As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, only one of the claimed conditions must be met to anticipate the claim.)
Regarding Claim 9, Bao discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, Bao further discloses the output temperature of the fluid is compared with a predetermined limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD), wherein the electrical heating power (PEL) is reduced and the method is continued when the limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD) is exceeded, and wherein the method is continued without the reducing of the electrical heating power (PEL) when the limit temperature (T_THRESHOLD) is not exceeded, [Bao: paras. 332, 356] (Examiner Note: Bao specifically discloses that the PTC heater may optionally be provided with a feedback loop, "to control the power provided to the heater element, based on the proportional relationship between the power provided and the temperature of the heater element," and thus understood to disclose this limitation. Furthermore, Bao discloses that the PTC device provides inherent power and temperature control as PTCs exhibits a non-linear temperature-resistance relationship, "so that above a composition-dependent threshold temperature, the resistance of the PTC material in the heater element 136 increases rapidly/exponentially, causing the PTC material in the heater element 136 to act as its own temperature controller." As resistance is inversely proportional to electrical power, the electrical power will inherently be reduced at the threshold temperature as a result of the exponential increase in resistance in the PTC heating element.)
and/or the output temperature of the fluid is output to a user. (Examiner Note: As this limitation is claimed in the alternative, only one of the claimed conditions must be met to anticipate the claim.)
Regarding Claim 10, Bao further discloses A PTC heater with a PTC heating element, wherein the PTC heater can be flowed through by a fluid and is provided for heating the fluid to an output temperature (T_OUT), characterized in that the PTC heater is provided for carrying out the method according to claim 1. [Para. 331-332] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Bao discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses a PTC device configured to perform this method, and thus discloses this limitation.)
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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Physics Formula Sheet (cited in 892 form).
Regarding Claim 3, Bao discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated. [Para. 332]
Bao does not specifically disclose exclusively from an electrical heating power of the PTC heating element, a temperature (TCERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater. (Examiner Note: While Bao does not specifically disclose this equation, the device is Bao determines the output temperature based on the current, voltage and resistance, and the power equation is dependent on voltage, resistance and current, and thus the calculation performed in Bao can be understood to be based exclusively on the power and PTC temperature. Furthermore, the characteristic constant is a known pre-determined constant based on the selected heating material, and thus will not patentably distinguish over prior art.)
However, Physics Formula Sheet teaches exclusively from an electrical heating power of the PTC heating element, a temperature (TCERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater. [Pg. 5] (Examiner Note: Physics Formula sheet disclose the power and heat transfer equations relied upon in the specification, and thus discloses this limitation. (Specification pg. 3-4))
Physics Formula Sheet in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to heat transfer and electrical power calculations, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Bao teaches determining an output temperature without the inlet temperature that differs from the claimed equation because the calculation is not exclusively based on the electrical heating power and characterization constant. Both equations perform the function of determining the output temperature of a PTC heating element without an inlet temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the equations could be substituted with the equations in Physics Formula Sheet to achieve the predictable result of calculating the output temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Bao to perform calculations using the equations disclosed in Physics Formula Sheet because substitution of one know element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Bao in view of Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3. Bao further teaches wherein the electrical heating power of the PTC heating element is calculated as a product of the supply voltage, the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the current. [Bao: para. 332, 356] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses that heating power is controlled " based on the proportional relationship between the power provided and the temperature of the heater element." (para. 356) As the temperature is determined using the measured current/voltage and the electrical heating power is defined by the voltage, current, and resistance (P=I^2R=V^2/R), Bao necessarily relies upon this equation to perform this operation.)
Regarding Claim 5, Bao in view of Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3. Bao further discloses when calculating the output temperature of the fluid, an electrical resistance (RCERAMIC) of the PTC heating element is calculated from the supply voltage and the current. [Bao: para. 332] (Examiner Note: Bao discloses that resistance is calculated from the measured current and voltage, and thus necessarily relies on Ohm's Law as the equation merely describes the proportional relationship between voltage, current and resistance in a circuit.)
Regarding Claim 6, Bao in view of Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3. Bao further discloses when calculating the output temperature of the fluid, the temperature (TCERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element is read out from a predetermined matrix ({f, U, RCERAMIC, TCERAMIC}) depending on the supply voltage, the frequency of the duty cycle of the supply voltage and the calculated electrical resistance (RCERAMIC) of the PTC heating element. [Para. 332] (Examiner Note: Bao teaches the output temperature is calculated based on a table correlating the determined resistance to the temperature. As the determined resistance is dependent upon the measured voltage, current and duty cycle (via Ohm’s Law), the correlation table disclosed in Bao is necessarily dependent upon resistance, voltage, current and duty cycle, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Bao in view of Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3.
Bao does not specifically teach wherein the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater is a product of a heat-transferring area of the PTC heater which is flowed around by the fluid and a factor which indicate an electrical heating power per surface per Kelvin transmitted by the PTC heating element to the fluid. (Examiner Note: While Bao does not specifically disclose this constant (understood as a heat transfer coefficient), it necessarily relies upon a heat transfer coefficient as the composition-specific thermal properties (i.e. heat transfer coefficient) in order to determine the temperature of the heating element. (Para. 332))
However, Physics Formula Sheet teaches wherein the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater is a product of a heat-transferring area of the PTC heater which is flowed around by the fluid and a factor which indicate an electrical heating power per surface per Kelvin transmitted by the PTC heating element to the fluid. [Pg. 4-5] (Examiner Note: As the characterization constant is understood as the convective heat transfer coefficient, this equation sheet discloses this limitation. Furthermore, the characterization constant is merely the heat capacity of the device, which is also disclosed in the Formula sheet (heat capacity of materials pg. 1; R-value pg. 4), and an inherent property of any material.)
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Bao teaches determining output temperature in the PTC that differs from the claimed equation because Bao does not specifically disclose a characterization constant. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the calculations in Bao could be substituted with the equations in Physics Formula Sheet to achieve the predictable result of calculating the heat capacity of the PTC heater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Bao to perform calculations using the constant disclosed in Physics Formula Sheet because substitution of one know element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, Bao in view of Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3.
Bao does not specifically teach wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated as a difference of the temperature (TCERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a double quotient of the electrical heating power (PEL) of the PTC heater by the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater (Examiner Note: While Bao does not specifically disclose this equation, it performs temperature and power calculations which necessarily rely upon the known heat transfer and power equations (Spec. pg. 3 L 30-31) Furthermore, merely rearranging variables of well-known mathematical equations is not patentably distinguishable over prior art. (Para. 332))
However, Physics Formula Sheet teaches wherein the output temperature of the fluid is calculated as a difference of the temperature (TCERAMIC) prevailing at the PTC heating element and a double quotient of the electrical heating power (PEL) of the PTC heater by the characterization constant (K-S) of the PTC heater. [Pg. 4-5] (Examiner Note: Physics Formula Sheet discloses all of the equations relied upon in the mathematical proof provided in the Specification that leads to this equation. This equation is derived from the disclosed Ohm's Law, power equation, heat transfer equation, and thus disclosure of these equations will teach the claimed limitation. It is well within the ordinary skill in the art to apply undergraduate heat transfer and electrical equations to describe a mathematical relationship.)
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Bao teaches determining output temperature of a fluid in a PTC that differs from the claimed equation because Bao does not specifically disclose the claimed equation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the heat transfer and power equations relied upon in Bao could be rearranged using well-established mathematical relationships between power and voltage/current/resistance and the steady state heat transfer equation to achieve the predictable result of calculating the temperature of the fluid in a PTC heater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Bao to perform calculations using the equation disclosed in Physics Formula Sheet because substitution of one know element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Belkaid et al. (EP 3672360 A1, submitted in IDS dated 9/14/2023) also discloses a method for calculating the output temperature of a fluid in a PTC heater without the inlet temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights