DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, as exemplified by GB 2506097. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a run-on type sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 claims 1 and 10, recitations of “it” (multiple recitations in each claim) are indefinite and must be replaced with recitations of specific element(s), due to the equivocal nature of the term.
Claim 5 recites relative distances between claimed parts and an unclaimed surface. This is indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 11-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claims 1 and 10.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (GB 2506097) in view of Chiodo et al. (U.S. Patent 11,041,277).
Jones discloses an apparatus having a combustion chamber (12) containing a plate/screen (14) having through holes (19). This appears to be only a single layer; i.e., not a plate and screen. Chiodo teaches a plate (Figure 3A, for example) having through holes (34) and a screen (22) configured as claimed in a road surface heating apparatus (figure 3B, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Jones in the manner of Chiodo in order to heat the surface as desired, as taught by Chiodo and in accordance with the teaching of Jones.
Regarding claim 2, given the screen of Chiodo, at least some of the holes would naturally be aligned. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the holes in this manner in order to accommodate flow as desired.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used relative dimensions as desired to suit a particular application. There is no patentable distinction in relative sizes.
Regarding claim 4, Chiodo teaches the metal mesh (column 3, lines 62-63, for example).
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches height adjustment as desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the apparatus relative to a work surface as desired in order to work the surface. This is sufficient to meet claim recitations. Note the 112 rejection, above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used additional components as necessary in order to, for example, work a larger surface area. For at least this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus as claimed. Note that this is a duplication of existing parts, which cannot patentably distinguish an apparatus.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, there is a controller (not labeled) and temperature sensing means (17).
Given the combination of Jones and Chindo, the method claims would be met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach surface heaters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights