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 § 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.
Claim 1 recites “a heater loop around each of the one or more port openings”’ however, such a limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how a structure (e.g., “a heater loop”) can be arranged by a negative limitation (e.g., “port opening”). The Applicant may consider furthering an amendment which clarifies the location of the heater loop in relation to the structure surrounding/adjacent to the port openings as it appears the loops are formed around channels extending from the port openings. Claim 14 includes a similar limitation and is similarly rejected as claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “one or more ports extending through a respective one of the one or more port openings”; however, the term “port” is improper as utilized herein as a port is an opening, whereas it appears the Applicant is intending to claim a channel, etc. extending from the port openings and the channel being situated within the housing body. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “forming the one or more heater loops in the heater element”; however, claim 1 from which claim 14 depends recites that the heater element is shaped to form a heater loop; accordingly, the instant claims recitation of the loops being formed in the heater element is inconsistent with that of claim 1 from which it depends. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their respective direct and/or indirect dependency from independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polifke et al. (DE 102019103209).
With regard to claim 1, Polifke describes a heater assembly (FIG. 1) comprising: a heater assembly housing (20) having a housing body (pg. 4, ln. 42-52) with one or more port openings formed therethrough (annotated FIG. 1 below – even if the openings are not explicitly illustrated as being “formed therethrough”, the openings are inherently present to allow connection of the injectors 14 to the housing body) ; and a heater element (18) located within the housing body (“housing body”, annotated FIG. 1) and shaped to form a heater loop (annotated FIG. 1 below) around each of the one or more port openings (“port”, annotated FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Polifke describes the heater element (32) has a wire or yarn structure (“In a first alternative, the heating element can be a heating wire which extends at least partially around the connecting piece. The heating element can extend on the outside of the connecting piece.”) having first and second ends (end portions terminate at injector 14 adjacent to inlet port 26) and wound or bent to form the one or more loops between the first and second ends (see annotated FIG. 1 for several heater loops at a plurality of port locations).
With regard to claim 5, Polifke describes a connector (12) to provide connection between a power supply (via electrical connection 24 provided with electrical power) and the heater element (32) (FIG. 1 & 3).
With regard to claim 6, Polifke describes the connector (12) is attached to first and second ends of the heater element (32) (FIG. 1, 2A, & 3: see annotated FIG. 3 below).
With regard to claim 12, Polifke describes A fill port assembly comprising: a heater assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see correlations presented above); and one or more ports extending through a respective one of the one or more port openings (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
352
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 14, as the claim recites a method of providing a heater assembly as claimed in claim 1 for a fill port assembly having one or more fill ports, and as the claim (i.e., claim 14) recites limitations that are somewhat similar to independent claim 1 which is directed toward a heater assembly, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 15, Polifke teaches applying current to the heater element to generate heat (“There is also a heating element 22nd shown that via electrical connections 24 is supplied with electrical power.”).
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polifke et al. (DE 102019103209)
With regard to claim 10, Polifke teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above, and further teaches the housing body is formed of an insulating material (“The water distribution pipe can have a housing, wherein the connecting piece and the hose piece are arranged in the housing and wherein the housing is made of a thermally insulating material.”). However, Polifke does not explicitly teach that one of the insulating materials are ceramic. However, it is submitted that since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, and as ceramic materials are known to be thermally insulating materials, Polifke’s teaching of a thermally insulating material would encompass the selection of a ceramic material.
With regard to claim 11, with regard to the limitation of the housing is rectangular, and wherein the connector is in the form of a plug attached to an end of the housing, it is submitted that as the instant patent application does not identify any unexpected results, such adaptations to the cited prior art would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that the shape of the housing being rectangular, would have been an obvious change in shape (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) (see MPEP 2144.04 - Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale - IV.B. – Change in Shape) ) and a power plug being detachable would have been obvious as being made separable (see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”) (see MPEP 2144.04 - Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale - V.C. – Making Separable)).
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polifke et al. (DE 102019103209) in view of Shah et al. (US 20110024409).
With regard to claim 3, Polifke teaches the heater element as described above; however, the citation does not teach that the heater element is formed of a carbon nanotube (CNT) material. However, Shah from the same field of endeavor directed toward a CNT-based resistive heating for deicing composite structures teaches the aforementioned limitation: “a composite structure that includes a matrix material and a carbon nanotube (CNT)-infused fiber material including a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) infused to a fiber material. The CNT-infused fiber material is disposed throughout a portion of the matrix material and the composite structure is adapted for application of a current through the CNT-infused fiber material to provide heating of the matrix material to heat the composite structure.”, para. [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Polifke reference, such that the heater element is formed of a carbon nanotube (CNT) material, as suggested and taught by Shah, for the purpose of providing a desired current in a responsive and expedient manner to thereby operate as a resistive heating element (para. [0010]).
With regard to claim 4, Shah teaches the heater element is formed of a CNT yarn (“wherein the fiber material is selected from a filament, a tow, a yarn, a tape, a unidirectional tape, a fiber-braid, a woven fabric, a non-woven fiber mat, a fiber ply, and a 3D woven structure.”, cl. 16).
With regard to claim 7, Shah teaches a resin formed around each of the one or more heater loops (“the composite structure is adapted for application of a current through said CNT-infused fiber material to provide heating of the matrix material to heat the composite structure. … said matrix material is selected from the group consisting of an epoxy, a phenolic resin, a cement, a glass, a thermoplastic, and a thermoset.”, cl. 1 & 5; “Fibers 110 infused with carbon nanotubes 120 are incorporated in a thermoset plastic matrix (e.g., an epoxy resin matrix) 140 to create composite material 100.”, para. [0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Polifke reference, such that the heater element with heater loops is substituted with the heater element including a resin, as suggested and taught by Shah, for the purpose of providing a desired current in a responsive and expedient manner to thereby operate as a resistive heating element (Shah: para. [0010]).
With regard to claim 8, Shah teaches the resin is one of epoxy, silicone or ceramic (“the composite structure is adapted for application of a current through said CNT-infused fiber material to provide heating of the matrix material to heat the composite structure. … said matrix material is selected from the group consisting of an epoxy, a phenolic resin, a cement, a glass, a thermoplastic, and a thermoset.”, cl. 1 & 5; “Fibers 110 infused with carbon nanotubes 120 are incorporated in a thermoset plastic matrix (e.g., an epoxy resin matrix) 140 to create composite material 100.”, para. [0070]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polifke et al. (DE 102019103209) in view of Xu (CN 2658643)
With regard to claim 9, Polifke teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above; however, the citation does not teach a copper sleeve within the one or more loops. However, Xu from the same field of endeavor directed toward an energy-saving water heating device teaches: “the heating device is composed of a water sleeve and which is wrapped on the jacket of copper.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the one or more loops in the Polifke reference, utilizing a copper sleeve around a heating element, as suggested and taught by Xu, for the purpose of providing an enclosure/securing function.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polifke et al. (DE 102019103209) in view of Yang et al. (CN 2231381).
With regard to claim 13, Polifke teaches the heater assembly housing comprises a port (as detailed above) which includes a fill port (26; FIG. 1). However, Polifke does not teach an overflow port. As an initial matter it is submitted that the instant patent application does not provide any teachings indicating that the claimed overflow port would provide unexpected results and/or criticality to the subject invention. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Polifke to arrive at a second port as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious duplication of parts to provide a water removal function (see MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: B. Duplication of Part) as no new and unexpected results are achieved with the overflow port. Assuming it was determined that the aforementioned rationales were not persuasive, Yang directed to the same field of endeavor of an energy-saving heating device of a water heater as the instant patent application is cited herein for its teachings related to an overflow port (“water overflowing from the 6 full after the water overflow port”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Polifke reference, such that an overflow port is included, as suggested and taught by Yang, for the purpose of providing an overflow function to the subject device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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 on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights