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 .
An OA on the merits of claims 1-17 as follows:
Priority
Since the related application(s) under the title has been matured into US patent No., therefore, the Application(s) should be updated to: --“, now US patent No. _______ issued dated ____“--.
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 subject matter of claims 14-17 entirely 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrases:
“providing a heating element, the heating element including a flat electrically conductive heating element including a mesh strip including an alternating sequence of mesh section having a first mesh density and a second mesh density” (claim 1, lines 4-7) is awkwardly worded in that it is not known as t how each of the elements as following the heating element is/are connectively attached to one another. Also. The”,” (about end of line 6) should be updated to:--“;”.
“the providing a heating element including,” (claim 1, line 6-7) should be in line 7 of claim 1 and rewritten to:
--wherein the providing of the heating element further comprise” --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
It is not clear as to how the elements of” a flat electrically conductive heating element, a mesh strip, and an alternating sequence of mesh section” (see lines 4-7 of claim 1) is/are connectively attached or coupled to one another, since no connection between them elements.
whether or not “a heating element” (claim 1, about lines 6-7) as same as that previous cited in line 4?
“a heating element” (claim 2, line 1) should be updated to: -- “the heating element” --, as so to reflect one that previous cited in line 4, of claim 1.
Claim 2 is not under stood since no wire or loose wire associated with the process prior to claim 2.
Claim 3 directed to product limitation should be updated to method limitation (e.g., providing the cap further comprise a hollow body with . . .”. to reflect method limitation formats.
Claim 5 appears to be directed to material properties should be in method claim formats, since no active method limitation in claim 5.
“wherein over-molding a cap on edge areas of one side of the heating element further comprises:” (claim 6, line 1) should be updated to: -- “wherein the over-molding the cap on edge areas of one side of the heating element further comprising:”--.
Similar to claim 6 above occurrence in claim 7, lines 1-2.
“wherein cutting” (claim 8, lines 1-2) should be updated to:--“wherein the cutting”--.
Claim 9 is in product claim formats should be updated to active method limitation instead.
“the mesh” (claim 9, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basic.
“is cut” (claim 10, line 1) is not positive method claim formats (the use of: --cutting the mesh within . . . “ --, is/are suggested.
The joining step in claim 11 appears to be incomplete it is suggested that additional step such as –“providing at least two electrically conductive contact areas”--, must be done prior to “joining” them.
“wherein joining” (claim 12, line 1) should be: --"wherein the joining” --, for clarity of the claim.
Claims 14-17 is/are not understood since scope of the claims directed to the making a fluid permeable heater assembly, and claim 14-17 directed to the obtaining of “the heater assembly” does not agree with that in line 1 of base claim 1. Further, claims 14-17 appears to be directed to invention other than that in claim 1-13 since no inventive method efforts existed thereto only visually inspecting and testing by measuring resistance occurrence in these claims.
“the heater assembly” (claim 14, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“the electrical resistance” (claim 15, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 should be deleted, since it does not further limit the making of the manufacturing a fluid permeable heater assembly as set forth in base claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No 11980228, hereinafter the ‘228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the instant application is fully claimed by the ‘228.
The ‘228 reference claims the method for manufacturing a fluid permeable heater assembly, the method comprising:
providing a cap (compare claim 1, line 3 of the ‘228);
providing a heating element, the heating element including a flat electrically conductive heating element including a mesh strip including an alternating sequence of mesh section having a first mesh density and a second mesh density, the providing a heating element including, die cutting bevelled window slots out of each side of a mesh section of the first mesh density (compare claim 1, lines 4-10 of the’228); and
over-molding the cap on edge areas of one side of the heating element (compare claim 1, lines 15-16).
Limitations of claims 2-13 are also met by the ‘228 (see claims 1-8, respectively).
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, 11, 14-17 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando (WO 2016096497).
Fernando discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a fluid permeable heater assembly, the method comprising:
providing a cap (as readable on 44/46, see Fig. 2);
providing a heating element 26, the heating element including a flat electrically conductive heating element including a mesh strip including an alternating sequence of mesh section having a first mesh density and a second mesh density” (see discussed in abstract, line 7, and Fig. 2),
the providing a heating element 26 including die cutting beveled window slots out of each side of a mesh section of the first mesh density (see inlet and outlet sections of the 26 as shown in Fig. 2); and
over-molding the cap 44/46 on edge areas of one side of the heating element 26 (see Fig. 2).
Furthermore, regarding to the heating element including an alternating sequence of mesh section having a first mesh density and a second mesh density” is met by the applied reference base on the discussion in ¶ [0004] of the Fernando, which discussed the heating element in form of a mesh structure includes low and high densities sections/areas which representing the alternating sequence of mesh section as claimed.
As applied to claim 2 appears to meet by the above since no loose wire associated w/ the process prior to removing in claim 2 (see also 112 set forth above).
Limitations of claims 3-4 directed to structure elements which is/are not method limitation and is met by the applied reference to Fernando (see Fig. 2, which depicts such structure elements and the positioning of the heating element 26 with respect to the cap 44/46 thereto.
Limitation of claim 5 is also met by the applied reference for same reason as previous discussed on bottom of claim 1 above. Also, no inventive method feature existed in claim 5 only material properties in term of density configurations.
Limitation of claim 11 is also met by the above (see Fig. 2, which depict such configurations).
Claims 14-17 directed to process includes obtaining the “heater assembly “which does not agree with the scope of the base claim 1 (see 112 issues above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt