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 .
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0295613A1) in view of Qin et al. (US 2013/0191985A1).
Kim discloses in reference to claim:
1. A PTC heater 1 with modular fastening and heating components (“at least one heating module”—Abstract), comprising a electrode plate (terminal plate 120), a PTC ceramic plate 130, a thermally conductive silicone part (insulating pad 140--The insulating pad 140 may be formed of a material that is electrically insulating and thermally conductive. The insulating pad 140 may be a silicon pad ), and a U-shaped fastening aluminum part (outer clip 150-- It is preferable that the outer clip 150 may be a metallic clip that is formed of a metal having a strength that is higher than that of silicon. It is preferable that the outer clip 150 is a metallic clip having a high thermal conductivity, and it is more preferable that the outer clip 150 be an aluminum clip.), wherein the thermally conductive silicone part 140 is arranged in the U-shaped fastening aluminum part and are suitable for the fastening aluminum part (See fig. 12), wherein the PTC ceramic plate 130 is placed inside the thermally conductive silicone part, and wherein the electrode plate 120 is positioned on a side of the PTC ceramic plate 130 and is arranged inside the thermally conductive silicone part –See Fig. 13.
PNG
media_image1.png
774
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1026
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
677
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1026
756
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the use of copper electrode plates for providing power to the PTC ceramic plates of the heater. The use of copper as an electrode material is well known in the art at evidenced by Qin et al. Qin discloses a PTC heating component including two oppositely positioned electrode plates 12, generally made of silver, copper, aluminum or other materials with good conductive performance.
Since Qin discloses the use of copper for the material of the electrodes in similar heating device it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the Kim device to use copper as the material for the electrode plates under KSR rationales A, B, or C
2. The PTC heater according to claim 1, wherein the U-shaped fastening aluminum part is fastened to a water tank 2 . See figure 4
3. The PTC heater according to claim 1, wherein the U-shaped fastening aluminum part is provided with symmetrical bending portions on a side. See Figure 13 at 153 or 154
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights