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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the temperature probe and the switching unit recited in claim 3 and the transportation refrigeration unit recited in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer (US 2018/0063886) in view of Prager et al (US 4,841,127).
Shearer discloses the heater claimed including a first heating resistor (22) being a PTC heating element as a thermistor (whose electrical resistance changes in response to temperature variations) and a second protective resistor (24) connected in series wherein the second protective resistor has a constant resistance value (para 0024 discloses for the resistor 24 having a static resistance) which is known to provide an in rush current protection at cold start (para 0018-0019), but Shearer does not show a temperature switch connected in parallel with the second protective resistor which enables or bypasses the second protective resistor as claimed.
Prager discloses it is known to provide a heater having a first heating element (2b; also, see Figure 2B) connected in series with a second heating element (2a), and a temperature switch (33) connected in parallel with the second resistor that enables or bypasses the second resistor wherein a desired temperature is selected according to a temperature of the first heating resistor as the desired/preset temperature can be lower than a high temperature of the first heating resistor (column 4, lines 5-19).
In view of Prager, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Shearer with a temperature switch that is connected in parallel with the second resistor so that the second resistor can be either enabled or bypassed to generate heating that depends on the desired preset temperature according to a surface temperature of the first heating resistor as the preset temperature can be lower than that of the temperature of the first heating resistor.
With respect to claim 2, Shearer discloses that the first resistor is a positive temperature coefficient PTC resistor.
Claim(s) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shearer in view of Prager as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Renault (US 2020/0164738).
Shearer in view of Prager discloses the structure of a heater claimed except for a transport refrigeration unit.
Renault discloses it is known to provide a transport refrigeration unit (22) comprising a heater (48) to provide for the desired heating thereto.
In view of Renault, it would have been obvious to adapt the heater as shown by Shearer, as modified by Prager, in a transport refrigeration unit that is known to provide an effective heating, having a good protection against in-rush current, to its heating/cooling system without being tripped (e.g., being shorted) that could be damaging to the transport refrigeration unit.
With respect to claim 6, Shearer discloses that the second resistor is provided for protection against in-rush currents (para 0018-0019) and the first resistor being a PTC having a resistance-temperature characteristic, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second resistor having a resistance value that is capable of providing the protection according to an operating voltage and a maximum current (of the transport refrigeration unit of Renault) as a matter of routine operations and optimization that is capable of providing protection against in-rush current to the heater.
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to select or determine the resistance value R2 of the second resistor, as a matter of routine operations and optimization, based on the operating voltage, the maximum/allowable current, and the resistance of the first heating element as such elements would contribute to an amount of in-rush currents that the second resistor is provided to protect against.
With respect to claim 8, Renault discloses it is known to provide a transport refrigeration unit (22) that is mounted on a side wall of the transport unit (e.g., a tractor trailer or truck trail).
With respect to claim 9, Shearer in combination of Prager and Renault discloses the method for controlling a heater in a transport refrigeration unit including a first heating resistor (22 in Shearer), a second resistor (24 in Shearer) as a protective resistor having a constant resistance value (para 0024 discloses for the resistor 24 having a static resistance) wherein Prager discloses for a temperature switch (33) connected in parallel with a second resistor (2a of Prager) that enables or bypasses the second resistor and Renault for disclosing the transport refrigeration unit.
And, in view of Prager and Renault, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Shearer with a temperature switch that is connected in parallel with the second resistor so that the second resistor can be either enabled or bypassed to generate heating that depends on the desired preset temperature according to the high temperature of the first heating resistor wherein such heater is known to provide a desired heating in a transport refrigeration unit as taught by Renault.
With respect to claim 10, Shearer discloses the first heating resistor being a positive temperature coefficient PTC resistor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sano et al (US 3,551,644) discloses for a heater having a PTC and a resistor connected in series.
Choi (US 9,422,849) and Offir (US 6,233,397) disclose for a first resistor/heater and a second resistor/heater wherein a temperature switch is connected in parallel with the second resistor.
Martinus et al (US 2016/0185400) discloses for a transport refrigeration unit TRU having a heater (2410).
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