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 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:
A motion mechanism in claim 11 wherein the term motion is a functional language with the term mechanism is a generic placeholder for means.
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.
The “motion mechanism” is interpreted that includes a connection rod, a guide pin and a slot rail as disclosed in para 0035 of the specification, or its 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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In claim 10, there is no proper antecedent basis for “the heating region”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiji et al (JP WO2020/100347) in view of Heuel et al (US 3,927,301).
With respect to claim 1, Keiji discloses the structure of the plate shaped heater claimed including a housing (100/101; also, see Figure 8) having its ends in its longitudinal direction, multiple heating elements in a rod shaped heater (103; shown in Figure 9) arranged in the housing, the heating elements extending along a transverse direction of the housing and arranged in a row along the longitudinal direction of the housing, an arrangement density of the heating elements in two end regions approximate two ends of the housing is greater than an arrangement density of the heating elements in a middle region between the two regions (see annotated Figure 9 below), and the heating elements are shown to be heating wires (103A).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Keiji does not explicitly show that the rod shaped heaters are heating tubes with a heater element arranged in the heating tube.
Heuel discloses it is known to provide a heating element in a tubular rod shape heater formed of a heating tube (11) with a heating coil/wire (16) arranged therein as illustrated in Figure 2.
In view of Heuel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keiji with the rod shaped heater formed of a heating tube with a heating wire/coil arranged therein as a known alternative heating element that can predictably provide an effective heat distribution along its heating tube.
With respect to claim 2, Heuel discloses a heating wire in the heating tube wherein in each end regions of the heating tube the heating wire is more densely coiled with a middle region of the tube having less densely coiled heating wire as illustrated in Figure 2 wherein the more densely coiled heating wire would have its length that is greater than the length of the coil in the middle region, and it would have been obvious to provide the heating wire in each end regions having its length that is greater than the length of the middle region so that more densely coiled heating wire can predictably higher heating temperature that can compensate for any heat loss due to its end region locations to maintain a more uniform heating effect.
With respect to claim 3, Keiji as modified by Heuel is capable of covering or heating an object placed on or faced on by the heating tubes wherein the object can be a plurality of clamps or any other elements thereon. It is also noted that the recitation of the plurality of clamps is related as a material or article worked upon by the heater wherein such material or article does not impart patentability to the structure of the heater as claimed. Also, see MPEP 2115.
With respect to claim 4, Keiji as modified by Heuel discloses one end of the housing is adapted to connect a base plate (50L/50R/72 as shown in Figures 1 and 3), the two end regions include a first end region proximate one end of the housing and a second end region approximate a second end of the housing wherein an arrangement density of the heating elements/tubes in the first end region varied and shown to be equal to an arrangement density of the heating tubes in the second end region (also, see the annotated drawing of Figure 9 of Keiji as above), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement density of the first and second end regions to be less than or equal to each other as a matter of routine optimization to predictably achieve a uniform heating temperature across it heating surface as desired.
With respect to claim 5, Keiji as modified by Heuel discloses for a heating wire (103A in Keiji) for each one of the heating tubes, as modified by Heuel, wherein the length of the heating wire in the first and second end regions would be equal as the same heating wire arrangement is made in all the heating tubes arranged in the first and second end regions.
With respect to claim 7, Keiji discloses the structure of the heating unit claimed including a base plate (72 as shown in Figures 1 and 3), a pair of plate shaped heaters each having an end connected to the base plate (via the side plates 50L/50R), each plate shaped heater provided in a housing (100/101) having opposite ends in its longitudinal direction, multiple heating elements in a rod shaped heater (103; shown in Figure 9) arranged in the housing, the heating elements extending along a transverse direction of the housing and arranged in a row along the longitudinal direction of the housing, an arrangement density of the heating elements in two end regions approximate two ends of the housing is greater than an arrangement density of the heating elements in a middle region between the two regions (see annotated Figure 9 below), the pair of plate shaped heaters that are spaced opposite and parallel to each other (see Figures 1 and 3) in a height direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction of the plate shaped heater, and the heating elements are shown to be heating wires (103A)
PNG
media_image1.png
445
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Keiji does not explicitly show that the rod shaped heaters are heating tubes with a heater element arranged in the heating tube.
Heuel discloses it is known to provide a heating element in a tubular rod shape heater formed of a heating tube (11) with a heating coil/wire (16) arranged therein as illustrated in Figure 2; and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keiji with the rod shaped heater formed of a heating tube with a heating wire/coil arranged which is a known form of a heater arrangement as shown by Heuel to predictably provide an effective heat distribution and radiation along its heating tube.
With respect to claim 8, Keiji further discloses that the heating plate is fitted into a groove of the base plate (as illustrated in Figure 2) wherein Keiji further discloses that the heating plates do not have be at equal intervals (see the second para from the bottom of page 2 of the translation), and thus as the heating plates can be positioned along any desired interval, the heaters can be movable relative to the base plate along the height direction that is capable of matching a diameter or a thickness of an object being heated thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9 and 10 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed over the prior art of record, and claim 11 includes an allowable subject matter in combination with the heating unit and the body having a containment chamber located a standby station and a support platform located at a heating station, and cable clamps installed on the support platform wherein a motion mechanism that drives the heating unit between the standby station and the heating station as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuwayama et al (US 3,541,305) and Pauls (US 3,436,524) disclose for a plate shape heater with a plurality of heating tubes arranged thereon.
Kitamura et al (US 4,075,455) disclose for a heating plate with a plurality of heating elements arranged in a varied arrangement density.
Johnson (US 5,575,941) and Mewissen et al (US 5,386,491) disclose for a heating wire having varying density in its heating tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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 W. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights