DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure refers to the heating system is “coupled to specialized cables (i.e. 108 or 116).” (Specification, p. 5 L 9) This is understood to mean the heating system is coupled to 108 and 106 in reference to the previously defined cables.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 has limitation “active adjusting circuitry.” This is understood to refer to the circuit components of the “dynamic adjusting network,” in claim 28, but consistent terminology (or at least avoiding using synonyms to describe different components) is suggested in the interest of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Impedance adjusting network in claims 23, 41 and 45
Passive adjusting network in claim 27.
Dynamic adjusting network in claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation, “Impedance adjusting network” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely upon the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. The Specification discloses the impedance adjusting network takes “input power from the STU (“source”) through an input port impedance-adjusted to the STU’s output, and outputs power to target areas (“load”) through an output port that is impedance-adjusted to correspond to the target areas.” [Specification, p.29 L 3-5] Although a further illustration is provided in Fig. 12, it is explicitly disclosed as a “conceptual diagram” of the IAN, and the IAN is merely a black box illustrating the stated function of the claimed structure. Accordingly, the Specification does not provide sufficient structure to carry out the recited function, and will be interpreted according the 112(b) rejection below.
The limitation, “Passive adjusting network” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely upon the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. The Specification discloses the passive adjusting network includes “transformers, L-networks, π-networks, T-networks, and other configurations.” [p. 21 L 6-10] Accordingly, the passive adjusting network will be understood to describe a transformer and any equivalents thereof.
The limitation, “Dynamic adjusting network” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely upon the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. The Specification discloses the dynamic adjusting network includes “dynamic tuning elements can include tunable capacitors and/or tunable inductors. In addition, tunable element examples include: PIN Diodes, BST capacitors, DTC (discrete tuning capacitors), varactor diodes, MEMS, Ferroelectric varactors, Ferromagnetic components, YIG-tuned filters, etc.” [p. 22 L 17-21] Accordingly, the dynamic adjusting network will be understood to describe a variable capacitors, and any equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
Claim 23, 41 and 45 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.
Regarding the claim limitation “an impedance adjusting network” in Claims 23, 41 and 45 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). Applicant provides no further structure to perform impedance adjusting, as it is only described as “configured to adjust an output impedance of the power control system. In some implementations, the IAN is configured to adjust the output impedance of the power control system to match the impedance of the bulk medium.” [Specification, P. 5 L 22-25] Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted to mean any component capable of impedance matching in the AC heating system.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,493. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Reference Patent 1 (US 11,910,493)
21. (New) An aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system comprising:
an array of electrodes spaced apart from one another and coupled to a surface of an aircraft wing, the array extending along a first edge of the wing;
a plurality of cables spaced apart from one another and extending across the surface of the aircraft wing from the first edge; and
AC power control circuitry coupled to each of the electrodes and to each of the cables,
the AC power control circuitry configured to heat the surface of the aircraft wing by supplying an AC current to the electrodes that flows within the aircraft wing along a plurality of current paths,
each current path extending from one of the electrodes and following beneath a corresponding one of the cables,
wherein the current path is directed by another current flowing in the respective cable.
Claim 2: A vehicle de-icing and anti-icing system comprising:
two or more electrodes spaced apart from one another and coupled to a portion of a vehicle;
a power control system coupled to the electrodes and
configured to heat the portion of the vehicle by shaping a density of current along a current path through the portion of the vehicle between the electrodes by: generating an AC current along a current path through the portion of the vehicle between the electrodes and at a frequency between 1 MHz and 50 MHz, wherein the frequency causes the density of the AC current to be shaped in a first direction by tuning a skin-depth of the AC current along the current path; and providing a second current path positioned along at least a portion of the current path through the portion of the vehicle and within a proximity of 10 cm of a surface of the portion of the vehicle, wherein the proximity of the second current path to the surface of the portion of the vehicle causes the density of the AC current to be shaped in a second, different, direction by tuning a proximity effect of the AC current along the portion of the current path.
Claim 21 of the instant application is anticipated by Independent claim 2 of the ‘493 Patent (Reference Patent 1 ).
Claims 21, 23, 25, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 12, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Reference Patent 2 (US 10,708,979)
21. (New) An aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system comprising: an array of electrodes spaced apart from one another and coupled to a surface of an aircraft wing, the array extending along a first edge of the wing; a plurality of cables spaced apart from one another and extending across the surface of the aircraft wing from the first edge; and AC power control circuitry coupled to each of the electrodes and to each of the cables, the AC power control circuitry configured to heat the surface of the aircraft wing by supplying an AC current to the electrodes that flows within the aircraft wing along a plurality of current paths, each current path extending from one of the electrodes and following beneath a corresponding one of the cables, wherein the current path is directed by another current flowing in the respective cable.
Claim 1: A system for heating a bulk medium comprising: two or more electrodes spaced apart from one another and coupled to the bulk medium; and AC power control circuitry coupled to the electrodes, the AC power control circuitry configured to heat the bulk medium by shaping a density of a first current that flows along a first current path between the electrodes, thereby, producing an effective resistance along the first current path in the bulk medium that is greater than the resistance of the bulk medium to a DC current; and a second current path positioned proximate to a surface of the bulk medium and along at least a portion of the first current path through the bulk medium, wherein the AC power control circuitry shapes the density of the first current within a depth of the bulk medium by tuning a skin-depth of the first current, and wherein the AC power control circuitry shapes the density of the first current in a direction across the first current path by supplying a second current to the second current path to tune a proximity effect of the first current.
Claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the bulk medium is one or more of a portion of an aircraft wing, a portion of an aircraft empennage, or a portion of an aircraft fuselage.
23. (New) The system of claim 21, further comprising an impedance adjusting network (IAN) configured to adjust an output impedance of the AC power control circuitry.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 1, wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises an impedance adjusting network (IAN) configured to adjust an output impedance of the AC power control circuitry.
25. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the AC power control circuitry shapes a density of the AC current flowing along each current path in the aircraft wing by tuning a skin- depth of the current, and wherein the another current flowing in each respective cable shapes the density of the of the AC current flowing along each current path in the aircraft wing in a direction across the current path.
Claim 19: An aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system comprising: two or more electrodes spaced apart from one another and coupled to a portion of an aircraft; a power control system coupled to the electrodes and configured to heat the portion of the aircraft by shaping a density of current along a current path through the portion of the aircraft between the electrodes by: generating an AC current along a current path through the portion of the aircraft between the electrodes and at a frequency between 1 MHz and 50 MHz, wherein the frequency causes the density of the AC current to be shaped in a first direction by tuning a skin-depth of the AC current along the current path; and providing a second current path positioned along at least a portion of the current path through the portion of the aircraft and within a proximity of 10 cm of a surface of the portion of the aircraft, wherein the proximity of the second current path to the surface of the portion of the aircraft causes the density of the AC current to be shaped in a second, different, direction by tuning a proximity effect of the AC current along the portion of the current path.
Claim 20: The aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system of claim 19, wherein the second current path shapes a route of the AC current between the electrodes using the proximity effect to extend an overall length of the current path through the portion of the aircraft.
33. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises signal transforming circuitry configured to receive electrical power signals from a power source and convert the electrical power signals to a high frequency AC waveform for transmission to at least a first one of the electrodes and a second one of the electrodes.
Claim 14: The system of claim 1, wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises signal transforming circuitry configured to transform power from a power source to an appropriate AC frequency and voltage for use by the AC power control circuitry.
Claim 21 of the instant application is anticipated by Dependent claim 3 of the ‘979 Patent (Reference Patent 2).
Claim 23 of the instant application is anticipated by Dependent claim 12 of the Reference Patent 2.
Claim 25 of the instant application is anticipated by Dependent claim 20 of the Reference Patent 2.
Claim 33 of the instant application is anticipated by Dependent claim 14 of the Reference Patent 2.
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 21 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by of Petrenko (US 20040149734)
Regarding Claim 21, An aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system comprising (Examiner Note: Petrenko specifically discloses “Systems and methods in accordance with the invention are useful in a wide variety of circumstances and applications to melt ice and to prevent formation of ice, particularly on a solid surface. Examples of surfaces that may be protected in accordance with the invention include, nonexclusively: airplane wings.” (Para. 207)): an array of electrodes spaced apart from one another [Plurality of First electrodes 2972 and Second electrodes 2974, Fig. 26, para. 206] (Examiner Note: Petrenko, discloses, “a plurality of first electrodes 2972 and a plurality of second electrodes 2974 are disposed in alternating manner on solid object 2976 having a surface 2977,” and thus understood to disclose an array of electrodes.) and coupled to a surface of an aircraft wing, the array extending along a first edge of the wing [Surface of Solid object 2977, Para. 332] (Examiner Note: Petrenko specifically discloses that the electrodes are placed on the surface of the solid object (2976), where the solid object includes an airplane wing. As the surface of the wing can be construed as the edge of the wing body, Petrenko is understood to disclose this limitation.); a plurality of cables spaced apart from one another [Cable of Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: Petrenko discloses that each of the plurality of first and second electrodes are respectively connected to each other through the power source (2978). As Petrenko discloses a plurality of first and second electrodes, it necessarily discloses a plurality of cables connecting them, and thus disclose this limitation.) and extending across the surface of the aircraft wing from the first edge [Surface 2977, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: As discusses above, where the first edge is understood as the surface of the wing, Petrenko discloses this limitation.); and AC power control circuitry [Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] coupled to each of the electrodes [Couplings to Electrode 2972 and 2974, Fig. 26] and to each of the cables [Cable of Power Source 2978, Fig. 26], the AC power control circuitry [Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: Functional language in an apparatus claim is anticipated when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114-I). Accordingly, claims merely require an AC power circuit configured to heat the aircraft wings, and direct a current path by the cable. As discussed in detail below, the power source of Petrenko discloses the claimed functions and thus construed as a AC power control circuit.) configured to heat the surface of the aircraft wing by supplying an AC current to the electrodes that flows within the aircraft wing [Surface 2977 of Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26, paras. 212-215] along a plurality of current paths [Current Path from Electrode 2972 to Electrode 2974 through Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: Petrenko discloses the surface of the solid object is an electrical conductor that generates an AEF in response to the AC voltage. The generated AEF creates an induced current within the surface that causes it to heat and melt the ice. As Petrenko specifically discloses an airplane wing as an electrical conductor, it is understood to disclose this limitation.), each current path extending from one of the electrodes [Current Path along Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26] following beneath a corresponding one of the cables [Fig. 26, Para. 36, 206-212] (Examiner Note: As the AEF is generated within the conductive solid object 2976, the current path is below the cables disposed on the surface of the object and thus discloses this limitation. Furthermore, Petrenko specifically discloses that the device “causes the interfacial ice at the contact interface to melt.” (Para. 126) As the cables are above the surface of the object, the current induced in the object will necessarily be below the cables, and thus construed to follow beneath the cables.), wherein the current path is directed by another current flowing in the respective cable [Fig. 26, Paras. 135-138] (Examiner Note: Petrenko discloses that the current path between the electrodes that heats the airplane wing is created by the AEF generated by the AC current that directs an induced current through the conductive solid object. As the current path is induced by the alternating current in the cables, and directed by the alternating polarity between the electrodes, it is understood to disclose this limitation.).
Regarding Claim 43, Petrenko further discloses an aircraft comprising (Examiner Note: Petrenko specifically discloses using the de-icing system with an aircraft., specifically where the surface to be heated is the wing of an aircraft (Para. 215)): a heating system [System 2970, Fig. 26] comprising:
an first array of electrodes [Plurality of First electrodes 2972 and Second electrodes 2974, Fig. 26, para. 206] spaced apart from one another and coupled to a surface of a left wing, the array extending along a first edge of the left wing [Surface of Solid object 2977, Paras. 206-216] (Examiner Note: Petrenko specifically discloses that the electrodes are placed on the surface of the solid object (2976), where the solid object includes an airplane wing. As the surface of the wing can be construed as the edge of the wing body, Petrenko is understood to disclose this limitation. Furthermore, Petrenko specifically discloses that the system is used to “de-ice airplane wings,” (Para. 216), and thus necessarily discloses the system on the left wing.)
a first plurality of cables spaced apart from one another and extending across the surface of the left wing from the first edge of the left wing [Cable of Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: Petrenko discloses that each of the plurality of first and second electrodes are respectively connected to each other through the power source (2978). As Petrenko discloses a plurality of first and second electrodes on the both aircraft wings, it necessarily discloses a plurality of cables connecting them, and thus disclose this limitation.);
a second array of electrodes [Plurality of First electrodes 2972 and Second electrodes 2974, Fig. 26, para. 206] spaced apart from one another and coupled to a surface of a right wing, the array extending along a first edge of the right wing [Surface of Solid object 2977, Paras. 206-216] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko discloses a de-icing system for wings of an aircraft, and thus the electrodes of the deicer are necessarily is disposed on both wings of the aircraft.);
a second plurality of cables spaced apart from one another and extending across the surface of the right wing from the first edge of the right wing[Cable of Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko discloses a plurality of first and second electrodes on the both aircraft wings, and thus it necessarily discloses a plurality of cables connecting them, and thus disclose this limitation.); and
AC power control circuitry coupled to each of the electrodes and to each of the cables [Power Source 2978, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the power source of Petrenko discloses the claimed functions and thus construed as a AC power control circuit.), the AC power control circuitry configured to heat the surfaces of each wing by supplying an AC current to the electrodes that flows within the respective wing [Surface 2977 of Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26, paras. 212-215] along a plurality of current paths [Current Path from Electrode 2972 to Electrode 2974 through Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko specifically discloses the wings of an airplane as an electrical conductor to be used in the de-icing system.), each current path extending from one of the electrodes [Current Path along Solid Object 2976, Fig. 26] and following beneath a corresponding one of the cables [Fig. 26, Para. 36, 126] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko specifically discloses that the device “causes the interfacial ice at the contact interface to melt.” (Para. 126) As the cables are above the surface of the object, the current induced in the object will necessarily be below the cables.), wherein the current path is directed by another current flowing in the respective cable. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko discloses that the current path is induced by the alternating current in the cables, and directed by the alternating polarity between the electrodes.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 22, 31-32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko (US 20040149734).
Regarding Claim 22, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to measure one or more parameters of the aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system and control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on the one or more parameters.
However, an additional embodiment of Petrenko [System 6010, Fig. 55] teaches wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to measure one or more parameters of the aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system and control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on the one or more parameters. [Para. 293] (Examiner Note: Petrenko teaches a de-icing system comprising, “a voltage regulator subsystem 6020 is connected in feedback with power source 6018, and hence with the circuit formed by coating 6012 and ice 6016,” and thus understood to disclose AC power circuitry configured to measure a voltage, and control power based on the detected voltage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the voltage regulator taught in an alternate embodiment to provide feedback control. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with the alternate embodiment with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to AC-heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the voltage regulator taught in Petrenko to provide feedback control of the de-icing system, allowing for more fine control of operating conditions. Accordingly Claim 22 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko.
Regarding Claim 31, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 22, and further discloses, wherein the one or more parameters include voltage, current, temperature, power forward, impedance, phase information, and reflected power. [Para. 293] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko discloses a voltage regulator subsystem (6020) and thus discloses wherein the measured parameter is voltage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the voltage regulator taught in an alternate embodiment to provide feedback control. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with the alternate embodiment with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to AC-heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the voltage regulator taught in Petrenko to provide feedback control of voltage for the de-icing system, ensuring the source voltage stays within the safe/operable range of the device. Accordingly, Claim 31 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko.
Regarding Claim 32, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose one or more ice sensors installed on the aircraft, and wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on measurements from the one or more ice sensors.
However, an additional embodiment of Petrenko [System 2920, Fig. 21] teaches one or more ice sensors [Control electronics 2930, Fig. 21] installed on the aircraft, and wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on measurements from the one or more ice sensors. [Para. 202] (Examiner Note: Petrenko teaches a de-icing system with “control electronics 2930 to detect ice and water on heat exchanger surface 2926 and on interdigitated electrodes 2922, 2924, to measure ice thickness, and to switch "on" and "off" high-frequency power source 2928.” Petrenko further teaches that, “[a]s impedance decreases below a preset level, control electronics 2930 typically decreases the applied high-frequency voltage and switches power source 2928 completely "off" after a preset time, which allows ice to slide down surfaces 2926,” and thus understood to teach this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the ice sensor taught in an alternate embodiment to prevent ice formation on the wings. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with the alternate embodiment with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to AC-heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the ice sensor because it allows the system to detect the formation of ice, and thus, prevent further ice formation on the wings. Accordingly, Claim 32 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko.
Regarding Claim 44, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 43.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to measure one or more parameters of the aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system and control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on the one or more parameters.
However, an additional embodiment of Petrenko [System 6010, Fig. 55] teaches wherein the AC power control circuitry is configured to measure one or more parameters of the aircraft de-icing and anti-icing system and control power transmitted to at least a first one of the electrodes based on the one or more parameters. [Para. 293] (Examiner Note: Petrenko teaches a de-icing system comprising, “a voltage regulator subsystem 6020 is connected in feedback with power source 6018, and hence with the circuit formed by coating 6012 and ice 6016,” and thus understood to disclose AC power circuitry configured to measure a voltage, and control power based on the detected voltage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the voltage regulator taught in an alternate embodiment to provide feedback control. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with the alternate embodiment with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to AC-heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the voltage regulator taught in Petrenko to provide feedback control of the de-icing system, allowing for more fine control of operating conditions. Accordingly Claim 44 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko.
Claims 23, 27 and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko (US 20040149734) in view of Kropielnicki (US 4422077).
Regarding Claim 23, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose an impedance adjusting network (IAN) configured to adjust an output impedance of the AC power control circuitry.
However, Kropielnicki teaches an impedance adjusting network (IAN) configured to adjust an output impedance of the AC power control circuitry. [Col. 2 L 54-62, Matching Circuit 7, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, Kropielnicki teaches a matching circuit (7), “incorporates a transformer T1 and a variable capacitor C.sub.1. The variable capacitor is used to tune the circuitry so that the capacitive impedance appears as a resistive impedance which is matched to the transmitter aerial feeder circuitry connected to the terminal 8 by the transformer T1.”)
Kropielnicki is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to AC-powered heating systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the impedance matching circuit taught in Kropielnicki to provide impedance matching. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kropielnicki could be combined with Petrenko with a reasonable degree of success because they both relate to AC-powered heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kropielnicki because the impedance matching unit helps maximize power transfer between the input source and load. Accordingly, Claim 23 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki.
Regarding Claim 27, Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki discloses all of the limitations of Claim 23. Kropielnicki further teaches, wherein the IAN comprises a passive adjusting network. [Transformer T1, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, Kropielnicki teaches the IAN comprises a transformer, and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the transformer taught in Kropielnicki to provide passive adjusting circuitry for the IAN. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kropielnicki could be combined with Petrenko with a reasonable degree of success because they both relate to AC-powered heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kropielnicki to provide passive impedance adjusting for the IAN. Accordingly, Claim 27 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki.
Regarding Claim 28, Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki discloses all of the limitations of Claim 23. Kropielnicki further teaches wherein the IAN comprises a dynamic adjusting network. [Col. 2 L 54-62, Variable Capacitor C1, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, Kropielnicki teaches the matching circuit (7) has a variable capacitor C1, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Petrenko with the variable capacitor taught in Kropielnicki to provide dynamic adjusting circuitry to the IAN. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kropielnicki could be combined with Petrenko with a reasonable degree of success because they both relate to AC-powered heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kropielnicki to provide dynamic impedance adjusting for the IAN. Accordingly, Claim 28 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko (US 20040149734) as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Elangovan (US 9469408).
Regarding Claim 24, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein at least one of the cables follows a serpentine path, such that current flowing therein directs a corresponding one of the current paths within the aircraft wing to follow the serpentine path.
However, Elangovan teaches wherein at least one of the cables [Induction coil 74, Fig. 7] follows a serpentine path [Path of Coil 74, Fig. 7], such that current flowing therein directs a corresponding one of the current paths [Susceptor 76, Fig. 7] within the aircraft wing to follow the serpentine path. [Col. 10 L 65- Col. 11 L 5, Fig. 7] (Examiner Note: Elangovan teaches a de-icing system wherein an applique consisting of the induction coil (74) made of Litz wire and susceptor (76) comprising ferromagnetic material. Elangovan teaches that the AC generated through the induction coil creates eddy currents in the susceptor that heats the surface. The cable of Elangovan is understood to direct current to follow the susceptor path, as it creates the EMF that induces the current flow. As the current in the susceptor follows the same direction as the current in the cable, and follows the linear direction of the cable, it can be construed to follow the serpentine path, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Elangovan is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to AC-heating systems for de-icing planes, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Elangovan to provide increased heating surface area. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Elangovan could be combined with Petrenko with a reasonable degree of success because they both relate to AC-powered heating devices for de-icing of aircraft. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Elangovan because the serpentine path increases the range and intensity of the AEF such that a larger surface area of the bulk medium can be heated by the induced eddy currents. Accordingly, Claim 24 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Elangovan.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko (US 20040149734) and further in view of Petrenko et al. (US 10473381) [Hereinafter Petrenko 2]
Regarding Claim 25, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
However, Petrenko 2 teaches wherein the AC power control circuitry shapes a density of the AC current flowing along each current path in the aircraft wing by tuning a skin- depth of the current, [Fig. 1, Col 8 L 65- Col 9 L 15] (Examiner Note: Petrenko 2 specifically teaches an AC heating circuit for a de-icing system where the skin effect is used to, “cause the effective resistance of the conductor to increase at higher frequencies where the skin depth is smaller, thus reducing the effective cross-section of the conductor.” Furthermore, Petrenko 2 teaches to “make use of the skin effect and magnetic losses to increase the total resistance by optimizing both the frequency and current for defrosting applications” (Col. 15 L3-5)) and wherein the another current flowing in each respective cable shapes the density of the of the AC current flowing along each current path in the aircraft wing in a direction across the current path [Col. 15 L 10-12, L 42-61]. (Examiner Note: Petrenko 2 teaches a de-icing system for refrigerant tubes where the “proximity effect can significantly increase the AC resistance of adjacent conductors when compared to its (notional) resistance observable in the presence of a DC current.” Specifically, neighboring coils run in opposite current directions to reduce the proximity effect, and provide uniform heating of the coils. As manipulation of the proximity effect, whether maximizing or minimizing its effect, shapes the current density, it is understood to teach this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrenko with the controller taught in Petrenko 2 to provide a low cost voltage regulator. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with Petrenko 2 are they both relate to AC heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Petrenko 2 because it provides optimal heating by increasing the total effective resistance in the system while ensuring unform heating of the target heating area. Accordingly Claim 25 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Petrenko 2.
Regarding Claim 33, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises signal transforming circuitry configured to receive electrical power signals from a power source and convert the electrical power signals to a high frequency AC waveform for transmission to at least a first one of the electrodes and a second one of the electrodes.
However, Petrenko 2 teaches wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises signal transforming circuitry [Electronic Circuit 1400, Fig. 14, Col. 20 L 53-65] configured to receive electrical power signals from a power source [Low frequency power source 1402, Fig. 14] and convert the electrical power signals to a high frequency AC waveform (Examiner Note: Petrenko 2 discloses an electronic circuit 1400 that takes an low frequency AC signal and converts it to a high frequency AC signal, and thus teaches this limitation.) for transmission to at least a first one of the electrodes and a second one of the electrodes [Resistive load 1414, Fig. 14]. (Examiner Note: As an electrode is understood as any conductive material capable of providing Ohmic/joule heating the induction coil in Petrenko 2 teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrenko with the controller taught in Petrenko 2 to provide a low cost voltage regulator. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with Petrenko 2 are they both relate to AC heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Petrenko 2 to configure the device to be used with a standard power source, giving it increased flexibility and field of use. Accordingly Claim 33 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Petrenko 2.
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko in view of Cicoil (Shielded Flat Cables for EMI Protection)
Regarding Claim 26, Petrenko discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein each of the cables comprises a rectangular cross-section, a copper electrical conductor, and at least one shielding layer.
However, Cicoil teaches wherein each of the cables comprises a rectangular cross-section, a copper electrical conductor, and at least one shielding layer. [P. 1] (Examiner Note: Cicoil teaches a copper braid flat shielded cable. As a flat cable is understood to have a rectangular cross section, it teaches this limitation.)
Cicoil is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to electric circuit components, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the cables taught in Cicoil with Petrenko to provide EMF/RFI shielding to the cable. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Cicoil could be combined with Petrenko with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to electric circuit components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the flat shielding copper cables of Cicoil because they provide shielding of RFI/EMF radiation for the cable preventing interference, and provides a lower profile than a round cable, reducing the system envelope. Accordingly, Claim 26 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Cicoil.
Claims 29-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki as applied to Claim 28, and further in view of Petrenko 2
Regarding Claim 29. Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki discloses all of the limitations of Claim 28. Petrenko as modified by Kropielnicki discloses wherein the IAN comprises: active adjusting circuitry [Variable Capacitor C1, Fig. 1, Col. 2 L 54-62] (Examiner Note: The variable capacitor taught in Kropielnicki is understood to teach an active adjusting circuit as it is a circuity component of the dynamic adjusting network.)
Petrenko and Kropielnicki do not disclose wherein the IAN comprises: an adjusting controller configured to: receive input data from an AC current signal sent to and reflected from one or more of the electrodes, and control the active adjusting circuitry to tune an impedance of the active adjusting circuitry in response to the input data.
However, Petrenko 2 teaches wherein the IAN comprises:
an adjusting controller [Voltage and Current Controller 1406, Fig. 14] configured to:
receive input data from an AC current signal sent to and reflected from one or more of the electrodes [Current from Rectifier, Fig. 14] (Examiner Note: The controller of Petrenko 2 is a Zener diode assembly that receives the rectified low frequency AC current from the source (1402) and maintains a constant output voltage to the oscillator. Thus the controller is understood to receive voltage data from an AC current sent to the electrode and thus teaches this limitation.), and
control the active adjusting circuitry to tune an impedance of the active adjusting circuitry in response to the input data. (Examiner Note: The controller of Petrenko 2 is understood to teaching tuning the impedance as it controls both current and voltage to maintain a constant voltage. As impedance is dependent on voltage and current (V=IxR) the control necessarily adjusts the impedance to maintain a constant voltage through variable current.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrenko with the controller taught in Petrenko 2 to provide a logic control for the system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with Petrenko 2 are they both relate to AC heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Petrenko 2 because logic control allows for automatic feedback control and provides a reliable means to control operations of the circuit. Accordingly Claim 29 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Petrenko 2.
Regarding Claim 30, Petrenko in view of Kropielnicki and Petrenko 2 discloses all of the limitations of Claim 29.
Petrenko does not disclose wherein the input data includes one or more of forward power, reflected power, current, voltage, impedance, phase information, and voltage standing wave ratio
However, Petrenko 2 further teaches wherein the input data includes one or more of forward power, reflected power, current, voltage, impedance, phase information, and voltage standing wave ratio. [Voltage and Current Controller 1406, Fig. 14] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Petrenko 2 is understood to teach an adjusting controller where the input data is a voltage and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrenko with the controller taught in Petrenko 2 to provide a low cost voltage regulator. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Petrenko could be combined with Petrenko 2 are they both relate to AC heating circuits for de-icing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the controller taught in Petrenko 2 because voltage control helps prevents damage to electrical components. Furthermore, Petrenko 2 specifically teaches that the disclosed controller allows, “the overall cost of the electronics can be reduced further.” [Col 20 L 65-66] Accordingly Claim 30 is rejected as obvious over Petrenko in view of Petrenko 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-42, 45-47 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.
The following is examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 34-42, 45-47.
The primary reference Petrenko (US 20040149734) teaches a system and metho for de-icing aircraft wings with an array of electrodes are coupled to the surface of an airplane wing to provide an alternating electrical field supplied by AC power control circuitry that creates eddy current paths that flow within the airplane wing beneath cables coupled to the electrodes wherein the current path is directed by current flowing within the cables.
Petrenko 2 (US 10473381) discloses a discloses a high-frequency self-defrosting system with a signal transformation unit that converts standard DC power into high-frequency AC power, but does not disclose, teach or suggest an additional power source with a second STU and a power combiner to output a common high-frequency AC waveform. Petrenko 2 further discloses AC power control circuitry that shapes the current path using skin effect to reduce the effective cross-section of the conductor and manipulation of the proximity effect by running neighboring coils in opposite current directions to provide uniform heating of the coils. Petrenko further teaches the AC power control circuitry is configured to measure the voltage of the de-icing system, and control power transmitted to the electrodes based on the parameter.
Kropielnicki teaches an impedance matching network for a high-frequency AC heater for de-icing a vehicle, that includes a passive adjusting network of a transformer, and a dynamic adjusting network with a variable capacitor
Elangovan teaches a de-icing system wherein the AC generated through the serpentine cable path (i.e. induction coil) creates eddy currents in the susceptor of the wing that follows the same direction as the current in the cable, and follows the linear direction of the cable.
However, the claims as recited are allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims, including the further limitations:
Claim 34: “wherein the AC power control circuitry receives power from a first power source and from a second, different power source, and wherein the AC power control circuitry comprises: a first signal transforming unit (STU) comprising circuitry configured to receive first electrical power signals from the first power source and convert the first electrical power signals to a first high frequency AC waveform; a second signal transforming unit (STU) comprising circuitry configured to receive second electrical power signals from the second power source and convert the second electrical power signals to a second high frequency AC waveform; and a power combiner configured to combine the first high frequency AC waveform and the second high frequency AC waveform into a common high frequency AC waveform output for transmission to at least a first one of the electrodes and a second one of the electrodes.”
Claims 35-42 would be allowable for at least its dependence on claim 34.
Claim 45: “wherein the heating system further comprises an impedance adjusting network (IAN) configured to adjust an output impedance of the AC power control circuitry, wherein each of the cables comprises a rectangular cross-section, a copper electrical conductor, and at least one shielding layer, and wherein at least one of the cables follows a serpentine path, such that current flowing therein directs a corresponding one of the current paths to follow the serpentine path.”
Claims 46-47 would be allowable for at least its dependence on claim 45.
Conclusion
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