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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535).
Regarding claim 1, ‘493 discloses “an electric heating assembly for a consumer appliance, the electric heating assembly comprising: a sheath defining an enclosed volume along a longitudinal length between a first end portion and a second end portion; a resistive wire disposed within the enclosed volume to generate heat in response to an electrical current; a thermally conductive electrical insulation radially positioned between the resistive wire and the sheath” (claim 1);
‘493 is silent regarding a tubular body disposed radially inward from the sheath and defining a vent channel extending from a vent inlet disposed within the sheath to a vent outlet held outside of the sheath.
Curwick et al. teaches “a tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) “disposed radially inward from the sheath” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body disposed radially inward from the sheath 12 and 18. Examiner noted that the tubular body is disposed within and coaxial with the sheath so that the tubular pipe is radially inward relative to pipe. (hence, examiner interpret that “radially inward” means the relative radial position) and “defining a vent channel extending from a vent inlet disposed within the sheath” (the tubular body defining a vent channel at one end of 12 (vent inlet) disposed within the sheath 12. See annotated fig.4) to “a vent outlet held outside of the sheath” (the vent outlet at around 56 which is outside the sheath 12 and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Curwick et al., by adding Curwick et al.’s tubular body to ‘493, to for supporting heating elements and guiding fluid.
Regarding claim 2, ‘493 discloses discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends along “an axial direction” (Curwick et al., 51 pointed at an axial direction) between “a terminal internal end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (Curwick et al., sheath 12 and 18) and “a terminal external end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (Curwick et al., 12 and 18), and wherein “the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) is defined proximal to “the terminal internal end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) relative to “the axial direction” (Curwick et al., 51 pointed at a line refers to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 3, ‘493 discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends longitudinally within the sheath” (Curwick et al., sheath 12 and 18) “as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly).
Regarding claim 4, ‘493 discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) defines “a plurality of radial entry passages” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4 show plurality of arrows within 48 represents the plurality of radial entry passages) in fluid communication with “the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) as at least a portion of the vent inlet.
Regarding claim 5, ‘493 discloses “the vent outlet is defined as an axial aperture” (Curwick et al., the vent outlet at around 56), coaxial with the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., the vent outlet at around 56 which is coaxial with the vent inlet).
Claims 6-7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) as applied in claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Vincent (US 4728776).
Regarding claims 6, ‘493 discloses “the vent channel extends along an axial direction and thereby defines an axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body. The tubular body defines the axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet), wherein “the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within the tubular body” (Curwick, the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within at least a segment of the tubular body 26).
‘493 is silent regarding the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500.
Vincent teaches “the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500” (col.8 at lines 50-65, i.e., conduit tube 300 having an overall length of 5.236 inches … at point 803 … the tube diameter (0.072 inches) is unchanged. 5.263 inches / 0.072 inches = 73.09. The ratio 73.09 is within 50 and 1500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Vincent, by modifying ‘493s vent channel length and diameter according to Vincent’s ratio of length and diameter, to deliver a concentrate and high velocity stream of heat over a targeted and narrow area.
Regarding claims 7, ‘493 discloses the minimum radial diameter is between approximately 0.01 and approximately 0.1 inches” (Vincent, the tube diameter 0.072 inches which is within 0.01 and 0.1 inches).
Claims 8-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) as applied in claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Vicory, Sr. (US 5626156).
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘493 discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel.
Vicory, Sr. teaches “a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel” (the nozzle of hair dryer is the tubular body, the coupler 22 is considered as a solid tip formed on the tubular body of hair dryer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Vicory, Sr., by adding Vicory, Sr.’s solid tip to ‘493’s device, to provide concentrate heating area.
Regarding claim 9, ‘493 discloses “the solid tip is tapered, narrowing away from the vent channel” (Vicory, Sr., 32 is narrowing away from the vent channel of hair dryer).
Claims 11-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535).
Regarding claim 11, ‘493 discloses “an oven appliance, comprising: a cabinet defining a cooking chamber for receiving food items for cooking; and an electric heating assembly mounted within the cabinet, the electric heating assembly comprising a sheath defining an enclosed volume along a longitudinal length between a first end portion and a second end portion, a resistive wire disposed within the enclosed volume to generate heat in response to an electrical current, a thermally conductive electrical insulation radially positioned between the resistive wire and the sheath” (claim 10).
‘493 is silent regarding a tubular body disposed radially inward from “the sheath and defining a vent channel extending from a vent inlet disposed within the sheath to a vent outlet held outside of the sheath.
Curwick discloses “a tubular body” (48, 50 and 26 collectively defines a tubular body) disposed radially inward from “the sheath” (12 and 18) and “defining a vent channel” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body, the tubular body defining a vent channel) extending from “a vent inlet” (annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (12 and 18) to “a vent outlet” (annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (outside 12 and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Curwick et al., by adding Curwick’s tubular body to ‘493 device, to provide support and guiding the fluid.
Regarding claim 12, ‘493 discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends along “an axial direction” (Curwick et al., 51 pointed at an axial direction) between “a terminal internal end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (Curwick et al., sheath 12 and 18) and “a terminal external end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (Curwick et al., 12 and 18), and wherein “the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) is defined proximal to “the terminal internal end” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) relative to “the axial direction” (Curwick et al., 51 pointed at a line refers to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 13, ‘493 discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends longitudinally within the sheath” (Curwick et al., sheath 12 and 18) “as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly).
Regarding claim 14, ‘493 discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick et al., 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) defines “a plurality of radial entry passages” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4 show plurality of arrows within 48 represents the plurality of radial entry passages) in fluid communication with “the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., annotated fig.4) as at least a portion of the vent inlet.
Regarding claim 15, ‘493 discloses “the vent outlet is defined as an axial aperture” (Curwick et al., the vent outlet at around 56), coaxial with the vent inlet” (Curwick et al., the vent outlet at around 56 which is coaxial with the vent inlet).
Claims 16-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) as applied in claims 11-15 above, and further in view of Vincent (US 4728776).
Regarding claims 16, ‘493 discloses “the vent channel extends along an axial direction and thereby defines an axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body. The tubular body defines the axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet), wherein “the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within the tubular body” (Curwick, the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within at least a segment of the tubular body 26).
‘493 is silent regarding the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500.
Vincent teaches “the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500” (col.8 at lines 50-65, i.e., conduit tube 300 having an overall length of 5.236 inches … at point 803 … the tube diameter (0.072 inches) is unchanged. 5.263 inches / 0.072 inches = 73.09. The ratio 73.09 is within 50 and 1500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Vincent, by modifying ‘493s vent channel length and diameter according to Vincent’s ratio of length and diameter, to deliver a concentrate and high velocity stream of heat over a targeted and narrow area.
Regarding claims 17, ‘493 discloses the minimum radial diameter is between approximately 0.01 and approximately 0.1 inches” (Vincent, the tube diameter 0.072 inches which is within 0.01 and 0.1 inches).
Claims 18-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18478493 in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) as applied in claims 11-15 above, and further in view of Vicory, Sr. (US 5626156).
Regarding claim 18, modified ‘493 discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel.
Vicory, Sr. teaches “a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel” (the nozzle of hair dryer is the tubular body, the coupler 22 is considered as a solid tip formed on the tubular body of hair dryer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify ‘493 with Vicory, Sr., by adding Vicory, Sr.’s solid tip to ‘493’s device, to provide concentrate heating area.
Regarding claim 19, ‘493 discloses “the solid tip is tapered, narrowing away from the vent channel” (Vicory, Sr., 32 is narrowing away from the vent channel of hair dryer).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig.5, 340 is not mentioned in the specification of instant application.
Fig.5, 336 is not mentioned in the specification of instant application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curwick et al. (US 5909535) in view of Schlipf (US 10076002).
Regarding claim 1, Curwick discloses “an electric heating assembly” (abstract and fig.4 and fig.2, 12 and 18) “for a consumer appliance” (intended use), the electric heating assembly comprising:
“a sheath” (12 and 18) defining “an enclosed volume along a longitudinal length between a first end portion and a second end portion” (12 and 18 defines the sheath has two ends);
“a resistive element fig.2, electrical resistance elements 72a-72n) disposed within the enclosed volume to generate heat in response to an electrical current;
“a thermally conductive electrical insulation” (a ceramic body 63. Examiner noted that ceramic is thermally conductive at some degree while provide electrical insulation) radially positioned between “the resistive wire” (72a-72n) and “the sheath” (12 and 18); and
“a tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) “disposed radially inward from the sheath” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body disposed radially inward from the sheath 12 and 18. Examiner noted that the tubular body is disposed within and coaxial with the sheath so that the tubular pipe is radially inward relative to pipe. (hence, examiner interpret that “radially inward” means the relative radial position) and “defining a vent channel extending from a vent inlet disposed within the sheath” (the tubular body defining a vent channel at one end of 12 (vent inlet) disposed within the sheath 12. See annotated fig.4) to “a vent outlet held outside of the sheath” (the vent outlet at around 56 which is outside the sheath 12 and 18).
Curwick is silent regarding a resistive element is a wire.
Schlipf teaches “a resistive element is a wire” (col.8 at lines 15-20, i.e., self- supporting electric resistance wire 102). One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Curwick’s heating element with Schlipf’s heating wire are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of heating. MPEP 2144.06.
PNG
media_image1.png
1126
1586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Curwick discloses “the tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends along “an axial direction” (51 pointed at an axial direction) between “a terminal internal end” (annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (sheath 12 and 18) and “a terminal external end” (annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (12 and 18), and wherein “the vent inlet” (annotated fig.4) is defined proximal to “the terminal internal end” (annotated fig.4) relative to “the axial direction” (51 pointed at a line refers to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 3, Curwick discloses “the tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends longitudinally within the sheath” (sheath 12 and 18) “as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly).
Regarding claim 4, Curwick discloses “the tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) defines “a plurality of radial entry passages” (annotated fig.4 show plurality of arrows within 48 represents the plurality of radial entry passages) in fluid communication with “the vent inlet” (annotated fig.4) as at least a portion of the vent inlet.
Regarding claim 5, Curwick discloses “the vent outlet is defined as an axial aperture” (the vent outlet at around 56), coaxial with the vent inlet” (the vent outlet at around 56 which is coaxial with the vent inlet).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curwick et al. (US 5909535) in view of Schlipf (US 10076002) as applied in claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Vincent (US 4728776).
Regarding claims 6, modified Curwick discloses “the vent channel extends along an axial direction and thereby defines an axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body. The tubular body defines the axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet), wherein “the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within the tubular body” (Curwick, the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within at least a segment of the tubular body 26).
Modified Curwick is silent regarding the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500.
Vincent teaches “the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500” (col.8 at lines 50-65, i.e., conduit tube 300 having an overall length of 5.236 inches … at point 803 … the tube diameter (0.072 inches) is unchanged. 5.263 inches / 0.072 inches = 73.09. The ratio 73.09 is within 50 and 1500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Curwick with Vincent, by modifying Curwick’s vent channel length and diameter according to Vincent’s ratio of length and diameter, to deliver a concentrate and high velocity stream of heat over a targeted and narrow area.
Regarding claims 7, modified Curwick discloses “the minimum radial diameter is between approximately 0.01 and approximately 0.1 inches” (Vincent, the tube diameter 0.072 inches which is within 0.01 and 0.1 inches).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curwick et al. (US 5909535) in view of Schlipf (US 10076002) as applied in claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Vicory, Sr. (US 5626156).
Regarding claim 8, modified Curwick discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel.
Vicory, Sr. teaches “a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel” (the nozzle of hair dryer is the tubular body, the coupler 22 is considered as a solid tip formed on the tubular body of hair dryer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Curwick with Vicory, Sr., by adding Vicory, Sr.’s solid tip to Curwick’s device, to provide concentrate heating area.
Regarding claim 9, modified Curwick discloses “the solid tip is tapered, narrowing away from the vent channel” (Vicory, Sr., 32 is narrowing away from the vent channel of hair dryer).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7766003) in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) and Schlipf (US 10076002).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. discloses “an oven appliance” (abstract and fig.1), comprising:
“a cabinet defining a cooking chamber” (The body 10 includes an inner case 12 defining the cooking chamber 20 and thermally insulated to reduce the loss of heat to the outside, and an outer case 13 defining the outer appearance) “for receiving food items for cooking” (the chamber for receiving food for cooking); and
“an electric heating assembly” (fig.2) mounted within the cabinet, the electric heating assembly comprising “a sheath” (fig.2, 31) defining an enclosed volume along a longitudinal length between “a first end portion and a second end portion” (31 has two ends), “a resistive wire” (fig.2 shows the heating wire inside the sheath 31) disposed within the enclosed volume to generate heat in response to an electrical current.
Kim et al. is silent regarding a tubular body disposed radially inward from the sheath and defining a vent channel extending from a vent inlet disposed within the sheath to a vent outlet held outside of the sheath.
Curwick discloses “an electric heating assembly” (abstract and fig.4 and fig.2, 12 and 18) “for a consumer appliance” (intended use), the electric heating assembly comprising:
“a sheath” (12 and 18) defining “an enclosed volume along a longitudinal length between a first end portion and a second end portion” (12 and 18 defines the sheath has two ends);
“a resistive element fig.2, electrical resistance elements 72a-72n) disposed within the enclosed volume to generate heat in response to an electrical current;
“a thermally conductive electrical insulation” (a ceramic body 63. Examiner noted that ceramic is thermally conductive at some degree while provide electrical insulation) radially positioned between “the resistive wire” (72a-72n) and “the sheath” (12 and 18); and
“a tubular body” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) disposed radially inward from “the sheath” (12 and 18) and “defining a vent channel” (48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body, the tubular body defining a vent channel) extending from “a vent inlet” (annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (12 and 18) to “a vent outlet” (annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (outside 12 and 18).
Curwick is silent regarding a resistive element is a wire.
Schlipf teaches “a resistive element is a wire” (col.8 at lines 15-20, i.e., self- supporting electric resistance wire 102). One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Curwick’s heating element with Schlipf’s heating wire are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of heating. MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim et al. discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends along “an axial direction” (51 pointed at an axial direction) between “a terminal internal end” (Curwick, annotated fig.4) disposed within “the sheath” (Curwick, sheath 12 and 18) and “a terminal external end” (Curwick, annotated fig.4) held “outside of the sheath” (Curwick, 12 and 18), and wherein “the vent inlet” (Curwick, annotated fig.4) is defined proximal to “the terminal internal end” (Curwick, annotated fig.4) relative to “the axial direction” (Curwick, 51 pointed at a line refers to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim et al. discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) extends longitudinally within the sheath” (Curwick, sheath 12 and 18) “as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body as a cold pin of the electric heating assembly).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim et al. discloses “the tubular body” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body) defines “a plurality of radial entry passages” (Curwick, annotated fig.4 show plurality of arrows within 48 represents the plurality of radial entry passages) in fluid communication with “the vent inlet” (Curwick, annotated fig.4) as at least a portion of the vent inlet.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim et al. discloses “the vent outlet is defined as an axial aperture” (Curwick, the vent outlet at around 56), coaxial with the vent inlet” (the vent outlet at around 56 which is coaxial with the vent inlet).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7766003) in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) and Schlipf (US 10076002) as applied in claims 11-15 above, and further in view of Vincent (US 4728776).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim discloses “the vent channel extends along an axial direction and thereby defines an axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet” (Curwick, 48, 50, 26 collectively defines a tubular body. The tubular body defines the axial channel length from the vent inlet to the vent outlet), wherein “the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within the tubular body” (Curwick, the vent channel defines a minimum radial diameter within at least a segment of the tubular body 26).
Modified Kim is silent regarding the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500.
Vincent teaches “the vent channel defines a channel ratio of the axial channel length over the minimum radial diameter that is between 50 and 1500” (col.8 at lines 50-65, i.e., conduit tube 300 having an overall length of 5.236 inches … at point 803 … the tube diameter (0.072 inches) is unchanged. 5.263 inches / 0.072 inches = 73.09. The ratio 73.09 is within 50 and 1500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Kim with Vincent, by modifying Kim’s vent channel length and diameter according to Vincent’s ratio of length and diameter, to deliver a concentrate and high velocity stream of heat over a targeted and narrow area.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim discloses “the minimum radial diameter is between approximately 0.01 and approximately 0.1 inches” (Vincent, the tube diameter 0.072 inches which is within 0.01 and 0.1 inches).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7766003) in view of Curwick et al. (US 5909535) and Schlipf (US 10076002) as applied in claims 11-15 above, and further in view of Vicory, Sr. (US 5626156).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel.
Vicory, Sr. teaches “a solid tip is formed on the tubular body across a longitudinal passage defining at least a portion of the vent channel” (the nozzle of hair dryer is the tubular body, the coupler 22 is considered as a solid tip formed on the tubular body of hair dryer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Kim with Vicory, Sr., by adding Vicory, Sr.’s solid tip to Kim’s device, to provide concentrate heating area.
Regarding claims 19, modified Kim discloses “the solid tip is tapered, narrowing away from the vent channel” (Vicory, Sr., 32 is narrowing away from the vent channel of hair dryer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights