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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
Receipt of the replacement drawings, amended abstract, substitute specification, and claim amendments filed on December 22, 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 through 4, all as amended via the amendments filed on December 22, 2025, are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are generally not persuasive for the reasons set forth below except as otherwise noted hereinbelow.
Applicant has attempted to traverse the objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for not showing every feature of the invention as specified in the claims as set forth by the examiner in the previous Office action. Applicant’s traversal appears to be on the grounds that the features which are currently claimed but not shown in the drawings as required constitute well-known components of recreational vehicles in general, that almost all of the commercially available recreational vehicles are equipped with the same, and that not showing these features and/or their respective connections in the drawings “will not hinder the implementation of related technical solutions provided herein” and “will not hinder those skilled in the art from implementing the technical solution of the present application”.
Prior to addressing each of applicant’s traversal arguments with regard to the objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a), 37 CFR 1.83(a) as cited in the MPEP is provided for applicant’s consideration:
1.83 Content of drawing (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
As cited above, the drawings in a nonprovisional application MUST (emphasis added) show every feature of the invention specified in the claims; in other words, it is not optional to do so. However, 37 CFR 1.83(a) does allow for conventional features which are disclosed and claimed to be illustrated in the drawings without showing the details thereof (i.e., by using a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled box). Since applicant has admitted that the various claimed features which are not shown in the drawings (i.e., the vehicle-mounted water heater, the water storage tank of the RV, and the temperature sensor) could be shown schematically in the drawings instead of being shown in detail. However, nowhere does 37 CFR 1.83(a) allow for features to be claimed without being shown in the drawings in some form or fashion. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments relating to enablement are respectfully not relevant to the objections to the drawings, and applicant’s arguments relating to the implementation of “the technical solution of the present application” are similarly not relevant to the objections to the drawings insofar as this application is not a National Stage application to which the existence or lack of a “technical solution” might be relevant. Applicant’s traversal remarks are therefore unpersuasive relative to the objections to the drawings and the aforementioned objections are repeated hereinbelow.
On the other hand, applicant’s remark that the replacement sheet of the drawings as filed on December 22, 2025 has improved line quality is found to be persuasive by the examiner and the corresponding objections to the drawings are not repeated hereinbelow.
Applicant has stated that the informalities to the specification have been corrected and that a withdrawal of the corresponding objections is respectfully requested.
In response, the examiner notes that the amended abstract as filed on December 22, 2025 obviates the objections to the abstract as cited by the examiner in the previous Office action and the objections to the abstract are not repeated hereinbelow.
However, applicant’s proposed amendments to the specification as filed on December 22, 2025 are not being entered because applicant’s reply has failed to provide the required statement that the substitute specification does not include any new matter and applicant’s general remarks relating to the specification as a whole (i.e., relating to both the actual specification and to the abstract) are at least partially unpersuasive and the objections to the specification per se are being repeated hereinbelow by the examiner.
Applicant has stated that applicant’s amendments to the claims have corrected the informalities in the claims as cited by the examiner in the previous Office action. The examiner concurs that the previously cited objections to the claims have been overcome by the amendments to the claims and therefore these objections are not repeated hereinbelow.
Applicant has further stated that applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the examiner’s rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as cited in the previous Office action. While the amendments to the claims filed on December 22, 2025 have obviated the specific indefiniteness rejections of the claims as cited in the previous Office action, these amendments have introduced new indefiniteness issues into the claims, which new issues are addressed by the examiner in the corresponding section hereinbelow.
Finally, applicant has argued that applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the prior art rejections as cited by the examiner in the previous Office action. However, applicant’s remarks relating to the prior art rejections have not been found persuasive by the examiner for at least the following reasons.
First of all, applicant has stated that “Claim [sic] 1 through 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA A), second paragraph, as being anticipated by Kiarostami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,685 B2)”, emphasis added. However, claims 1 through 3 were not rejected in the alternative “under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA A), second paragraph, as being anticipated by Kiarostami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,273,685 B2)”. Instead, claims 1 through 3 were rejected both under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA A), second paragraph, with only the former relating to the anticipation of the claims by Kiarostami et al.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 of the instant application is not anticipated by Kiarostami et al. because, for example, Kiarostami et al. discloses that “the coolant input from the tank (100) to the two loop coolant circuits is a cold coolant fluid (instead of a hot coolant fluid) for carrying the heat away from the radiator, and the two loops do not communicate with the radiator (interpreted by the Examiner to correspond to the heat exchanger claimed herein)”. In response to applicant's argument that the Kiarostami et al. reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the coolant input from the tank (100) to the two loop coolant circuits is a cold coolant fluid (instead of a hot coolant fluid) for carrying the heat away from the radiator, and the two loops do not communicate with the radiator (interpreted by the Examiner to correspond to the heat exchanger claimed herein)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Neither the previously rejected claim 1 nor the currently pending claim 1 as amended (nor any of the remaining previously rejected and currently pending claims) recite either “a hot coolant fluid” or “two loops” communicating with the radiator/heat exchanger. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant presents additional arguments relating to the purported non-applicability of the Kiarostami et al. reference by referring to “the point marked by ‘red’ in the modified Fig. 4 of Kiarostami (provided below as reference) should be considered as ‘cold water inlet’ instead of ‘heating water inlet’”; however, the reply filed on December 22, 2025 (including “the modified Fig. 4 of Kiarostami”) is in black ink as it appears in the instant file and it is therefore not clear at all which point is purported to be “marked by ‘red’”. Furthermore, applicant also presents similar additional arguments relating to the purported non-applicability of the Kiarostami et al. reference by referring to “the point marked by ‘green’ in the modified Fig. 4 should be ‘heating water inlet’ and by stating that “obviously, neither ‘the cold water inlet’ nor ‘the heating water inlet’ of Kiarostami does not communicate with the ’radiator’”; again, the reply filed on December 22, 2025 (including “the modified Fig.4”) is in black ink as it appears in the instant file and it is therefore not clear at all which other point is purported to be “marked by ‘green’”. Lastly, as written, the aforementioned remark that “obviously, neither ‘the cold water inlet’ nor ‘the heating water inlet’ of Kiarostami does not communicate with the ’radiator’” appears to include an inadvertent typographical informality in the form of a double negative, which renders this particular remark unclear as written. Therefore, applicant’s aforementioned arguments are generally unclear, at least somewhat incomprehensible ,and thus also unpersuasive when taken as a whole.
Lastly, applicant’s remarks relating to the purported non-applicability of the Kiarostami et al. reference as set forth beginning with the last three paragraphs on page 11 and ending with the third paragraph on page 12 of the Remarks/Arguments section of the reply filed on December 22, 2025 reference various newly added limitations in base claim 1 which are purportedly not disclosed by the Kiarostami et al. reference. However, the above cited newly added limitations in base claim 1 were, on one hand, not present in claim 1 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the previous Office action.
On the other hand, the above cited newly added limitation in base claim 1 appear to be interpreted in an overly narrow manner not suitable for pending claims. For example, applicant’s arguments seem to suggest that merely reciting that one element “communicates” with another element associated with the same inventive apparatus somehow clearly recites that the two “communicating” elements are not only operably connected but are also directly in fluid communication with each other.
It is hereby noted that reciting that two given elements communicate with each other merely requires that these two elements are at least indirectly in communication with each other, which could be understood to mean that these two elements are indirectly or directly in thermal communication with each other, indirectly or directly in structural communication with each other (i.e., meaning that intervening elements are not precluded), indirectly or directly operably connected to each other (i.e., via a common control means), and/or indirectly or directly in fluid communication with each other, among other possible broad interpretations. It is similarly reiterated by the examiner that reciting that reciting that “the heating module is provided with a heating water inlet, a heating water outlet and a cold water inlet” is rather broad as written and is broader than (and not equivalent to in scope) reciting the heating module as comprising, for example, “a heating water inlet for introducing heating water into the heating module”, “a heating water outlet for removing heating water from the heating module”, and “a cold water inlet for introducing cold water” into whichever element the cold water is to be introduced. The narrow interpretation of the claims as suggested by applicant’s aforementioned remarks is not appropriate for pending claims and applicant is respectfully reminded that pending claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation by the examiner during examination, as opposed to importing limitations from the disclosure into the claims. Therefore, taken as a whole, applicant’s patentability arguments are unpersuasive and the claims as amended have not overcome the prior art of record.
Notwithstanding applicant’s unpersuasive arguments relating to the applicability of the prior art rejections of the claims as set forth by the examiner in the previous Office action, upon careful reconsideration of the closest prior art of record (i.e., Kiarostami et al.) in view of the amendments to the claims and in view of the entire file wrapper history of the instant application, the examiner hereby withdraws the prior art rejections of the claims because the prior art of record does not disclose nor reasonably suggest, in combination, all of the elements of the inventive heating module which are operably and structurally interrelated as recited by base claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims: a vehicle-mounted water heater as recited in claim 1; a water storage tank of the RV as recited in claim 1; and, a temperature sensor in an RV as recited in claim 2. No new matter should be entered.
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 substitute specification filed on December 22, 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing.
The disclosure is still objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “is communicated with” (i.e., appearing in each of paragraph [0006] and [0020]) is idiomatically/grammatically informal and should be replaced with “communicates with” or “is in communication with” or similar to correct the idiomatic/grammatical informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, base claim 1 now recites a heating module “wherein the heating module is provided with a heating water inlet, a heating water outlet and a cold water inlet” followed by “an inlet end of the heat exchanger communicates with the heating water inlet of the heating module” and “the heating water inlet of the heating module communicates with a water outlet of a vehicle-mounted water heater”. It is noted, however, that the limitations “the heating module is provided with a heating water inlet” in claim 1 do not require that the heating water inlet is a heating water inlet to the heating module, instead merely requiring that the inventive heating module (i.e., the one to which the preamble refers as well) has an associated heating water inlet of some element which is part of, or otherwise operatively associated with, the inventive heating module and which therefor does not necessarily refer to a heating water inlet of the heating module (i.e., of an inlet to the heating module through which heating water enters the heating module). Therefore, the limitations “the heating water inlet of the heating module” (both occurrences) also lack proper antecedent basis in the claims because the claim previously only recites “a heating water inlet” and not “a heating water inlet of the heating module” per se.
Claim 1 has been similarly further amended so as to include the limitations “the heating water outlet of the heating module” and the “cold water inlet of the heating module”, with each of these limitations introducing further indefiniteness into claim 1 for reasons similar to those as set forth above, thus further rendering claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom indefinite.
The aforementioned indefiniteness issue(s) can be overcome by deleting the newly added limitations “wherein the heating module is provided with a heating water inlet, a heating water outlet and a cold water inlet”, reinstating the originally positively recited limitations “a heating water inlet; a heating water outlet; and, a cold water inlet”, and amending the limitations “a heating water inlet; a heating water outlet; and a cold water inlet” as “a heating water inlet of the heating module; a heating water outlet of the heating water inlet of the heating module; and a cold water inlet of the heating module” to provide proper antecedent basis for the newly recited limitations “the heating water inlet of the heating module”, “the heating water outlet of the heating module”, and “the cold water inlet of the heating module”, respectively.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 through 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose nor reasonably suggest, in combination, all of the elements of the inventive heating module which are operably and structurally interrelated as recited by base claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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-1center 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763