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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, claims 14-15 in the reply filed on 6/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is found persuasive for at least the reasons described on p. 9 of the Remarks; and claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-14, 16-24 are herein examined for patentability.
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 12 and 23 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 12 and 23. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See two instances in claim 12, two instances in claim 23.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claims as if not positively requiring the “in particular” limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16-22, and 24 are allowed.
Claims 12 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
JP 2001017517 A to Yonemoto represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Yonemoto.
Regarding claim 1. Yonemoto teaches a method for level regulation of feed water in a chamber of a steam sterilizer or in a steam generator with a chamber of a steam sterilizer connected therewith (abstract, “In this steam sterilization apparatus wherein a chamber 2 in which an object to be sterilized can be stored, a heater 3 provided in the chamber 2 for heating and evaporating water 9 fed in the chamber 2 and a temp. measuring means 4 for measuring gas temp. in the chamber 2 are provided” as seen in fig. 1, copied below),
wherein the feed water is heated by means of a heating element and steam thereby is generated for the chamber (abstract, “a heater 3 provided in the chamber 2 for heating and evaporating water 9 fed in the chamber 2”),
PNG
media_image1.png
271
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a temperature change rate is determined (figs. 2 and 3, the temperature rate of the chamber is determined after the heater is turned off, p. 5 fourth to last paragraph, “the heating by the heater 3 is temporarily stopped (step 51)” After being turned off, the system takes two temperature measurements and determines a rise rate, step 54 in fig. 3 and seen in fig. 2) and a refeeding with feed water is effected in dependence on the determined temperature change rate (p. 6 para. 3, “If it is determined that there is no water 9, the operator supplies water (step 59), cancels an alarm or the like, and returns to the step of energizing the heater 3.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art fails to particularly teach, “a temperature change rate of the heating element is determined”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Yonemoto teaches against placing the temperature sensor close to the heating element, see p. 2 third to last paragraph, labeled para. 7. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the heater of Yonemoto to measure the temperature of the heating element, as claimed, for the above reason and additionally since the system is intended to measure the gas temperature, p. 3 para. 4, “Based on the knowledge that the behavior of temperature rise due to heat conduction by air is different, the method of measuring the temperature of gas has been improved, the operating device of the steam sterilizer has been improved, and a configuration capable of detecting empty heating has been realized.” See also p. 5 para. 6, “… a temperature measuring means 4 for measuring a gas temperature in the chamber 2 …”
Regarding claim 14. The claim is allowable for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1, above. Where the apparatus of Yonemoto would not have been configured to carry out the method comprising determining a temperature change rate of the heating element.
The pertinent prior art elements cited below fail to overcome the deficiencies of Yonemoto.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 1658798 A1, teaches a steam generating chamber 54 with a high point described in the abstract, see attached translation, “In a boil dry condition (over threshold), the high point of the heater plate begins to overheat first such that a temperature sensor mounted to the heater plate at the high end of the heater plate can operate to prevent overheating of the heater plate.” While the system can be configured to refill the water when a high temperature is sensed, the temperature sensor does not detect a rate of temperature increase, as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
785
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US 20140177772 A1, directed to a system for regulating water level based on other than a rate of heating element temperature change.
PNG
media_image4.png
436
667
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights