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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 27, 2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US Patent Number 3,211,169) in view of Dickenson (US Patent Number 4,874,925).
Re claim 5, Webb discloses a valve body (including 12), the valve body comprising: a plurality of ports (inlet/outlet port 27 and the port 14); and a thermally conductive heating wire (13) embedded in the valve body therein to which electric power (from power source 18 controlled by control means 20) is applied to cause the thermally conductive heating wire to generate heat in the valve body (see col. 2, lines 36-38); wherein a channel (unnumbered channel that 13 is in) is defined within the valve body around one or more of the plurality of ports (port 14), the heating wire located within the channel.
Re “a valve body formed by additive manufacture” and “wherein a channel is defined within the valve body around one or more of the plurality of ports during additive manufacture of the valve body”, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, the patentability of the product does not depend on whether the valve body and channel are cast or machined or formed by additive manufacture.
Webb is silent as to details of the heating wire in the channel and specifically being electrically insulated from the valve body. Dickenson discloses a similar heating arrangement around a flow path. Dickenson discloses high-resistance electrical wire heating elements in Figs 1-3 (as well as alternate PTC elements in Figs. 5-10). Dickenson also discloses a filler material (144) covering the heating element and being electrically insulative (see col. 8, lines 33-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added the filler material (and the heating wire) of Dickenson to Webb in order to electrically insulate the valve body from the heating wire as taught by Dickenson.
Re claim 7, the modified Webb discloses the valve body of claim 5, further comprising a filler material (144 in Dickensen modified into Webb as outlined above) around the heating wire within the valve body.
Re claim 8, the modified Webb discloses the valve body of claim 7, wherein the filler material is a thermally conductive filler material (otherwise the heat from the heating wire would not transfer).
Re claims 13-15, the modified Webb discloses the valve body of claim 5. But the modified Webb is silent as to the cross-section of the heating wire being non-circular, or splined cross-section, or X-shaped.
Dickenson discloses a similar heating arrangement for a fluid handling device. Dickenson discloses high-resistance electrical wire heating elements in Figs 1-3 as well as PTC elements in Figs. 5-10. The Fig. 9 shape with four splined fingers forming an X is seen as teaching the cross-section being non-circular, or splined cross-section, or X-shaped (see also col. 8, lines 25-48). Dickenson discloses that the alternate shape provides for a larger heating element area for a given size. This teaching is relevant to modify the heating wire as well for the same reasons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the heating wires in the modified Webb to have a non-circular cross-section which is splined and has an X-shaped cross-section in order to provide the known shape of a heating element that provides for a larger heating element area as taught by Dickenson (see col. 8, lines 25-48).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Dickensen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fahrner et alia (US Patent Number 9,851,020), hereinafter “Fahrner”.
Re claim 8, although the modified Webb would seem to disclose that the filler material is a thermally conductive filler material, the teaching is not explicit. Alternatively, Fahrner discloses a similar valve body further comprising a filler material (66 and the epoxy adhesive around the heating wire that secures the heating arrangements to the valve body) around the heating wire within the valve body (see Fig. 4, col. 4, lines 19-24 and col. 2, lines 55-58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the filler material of Fahrner with the modified Webb in order to conduct heat via the thermally conductive filler material (see col. 4, lines 19-24) as taught by Fahrner.
Re claim 9, the modified Webb discloses the valve body of claim 8, wherein the filler material is epoxy resin (see col. 2, lines 55-58 in Fahrner).
Re claim 10, although most epoxy resin filler material is electrically insulative, it is not inherent. So, Fahrner is silent as to whether the filler material is electrically insulative. However, Dickenson discloses the similar filler material (144) being electrically insulative (see col. 8, lines 33-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the filler material of Fahrner to be electrically insulative in order to provide an electrically insulative property to the filler material as taught by Dickenson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights