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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morishita (JP 05-152060) with references made to applicant provided machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Morishita discloses, a sheath heater including a heating wire 23 (corresponding to the first metal wire), a connection terminal 22 (corresponding to the first terminal connected to the first end of the first metal wire) shown on the upper side and connected to the heating wire 2, a stranded wire 26/27 (corresponding to the first conductive flexible member connected to the first terminal) connected to
the connection terminal 24 shown on the upper side, a connection terminal 24 (corresponding to the second terminal connected to the second end of the first metal wire) shown on the lower side and connected to the second end of the heating wire 23 (corresponding to the first metal wire), and a stranded wire 10 (corresponding to the second conductive flexible member connected to the second terminal) connected to the connection terminal 24 shown on the lower side. Here, the stranded wire 26/27 (corresponding to the first conductive flexible member connected to the first terminal) connected to the connection terminal 11 illustrated on the upper side, and the stranded wire 10 (corresponding to the second conductive flexible member connected to the second terminal) connected to the connection terminal 11 illustrated on the lower side are both connected to the crimp terminal 12. Fig 5 shows the third metal wire 26. Fig 5 also shows the heating wire 23 being in a heating zone with the remaining elements not being in the heating zone. Regarding claim 2, the conductive flexible members 26 are a twisted wire.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita (JP 05-152060) in view of Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783).
The teachings of Morishita have been discussed above. Morishita may fail to disclose, the first conductive flexible member and the second conductive flexible member are selected from a metal coil, a twisted wire, and a flat knitted wire.
Kitagawa discloses a conductive flexible wire is a twister wire which is bendable. (See Paragraph [0055]) It would have been obvious to adapt Morishita in view of Kitagawa to provide the twisted wire as this is an obvious variant for a conductive flexible member in a heating device. Regarding claims 3 and 5, The bend would be obvious and arranged based on the desired configuration of the device.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishita (JP 05-152060) in view of Kitagawa (US 2015/0373783) and Oberle et al (US 10, 201,042).
The teachings of Morishita have been discussed above. Morishita fails to disclose, the conductive members are coils where the pitch of a second metal coil is larger than the pitch of a first metal coil.
Oberle discloses using a metal coil in a flexible conductive member. (See Column 7, Line 65 – Column 8, Line 9) The coil density and pitch is selected, and is different across the elements, for applying different heating intensities at different depth intervals. It would have been obvious to adapt Morishita in view of Oberle to provide the conductive members are coils where the pitch of a second metal coil is larger than the pitch of a first metal coil for applying different heating intensities at different depth intervals.
Regarding claim 6, Morishita discloses the metal sheath 1 (See Abstract). It would have been obvious to provide a curvature radius of the bend is more than double the diameter of the metal sheath in order not to collapse the tubular structure, the bending radius must be kept in multiples of the tube diameter. This can be determined through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, insulation fills the sheath and keeps the conductive flexible members at a distance. Selecting a distance of 0.14 mm of more would have been obvious based on the amount of insulation used and the voltage or current through the conductors and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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 at 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 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights