DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lauth et al. (US 2011/0186564)
Regarding Claim 1, Lauth discloses, A heating rod [Electrical heater 10, Fig. 1], comprising:
a tubular housing [Housing 12, Fig. 1] made of metal [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a tubular housing made of stainless steel.);
a plurality of ceramic heating elements [PTCs 16, Fig. 2] arranged inside the housing (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a number of ceramic PTC heaters corresponding to profile parts 26, 28, 26’ and 28’);
a plastic frame [Mounting rack 40, Fig. 1] holding the heating elements [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that the mounting rack is made of plastic and holds the heating elements.); and
a metallic strip [Contact electrodes 18, 20, Figs. 1-2] electrically isolated from the housing [Isolators 22, 24, Figs. 1-2] and electrically contacting the heating elements [Fig. 1, paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses 2 plate shaped contact electrodes that provide current to the PTC heaters made of metal alloy and isolated from the housing by isolators 22, 24.);
wherein, the housing has crimped sections [Beads 36, 38, Figs. 1-2] that fix the plastic frame inside the housing. [Para. 37] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that abutment of “the heating insert 14 on the inner side of the housing 12 is effected subsequently, namely by punching two beads 36, 38 into the housing 12.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Lauth discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein all ceramic heating elements are arranged between the crimped sections. [Beads 36, 38 in Fig. 2, paras. 41-42] (Examiner Note: As the crimped sections are formed on diametrically opposed sides of the housing, the entire structure of the heating device, including the heating elements, is disposed between the beaded8 sections (36, 38) of the housing.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth
Regarding Claim 3, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses a recess [Grooves 30, 32, Fig. 1] which one of the crimped sections [Beads 36, 38 in Fig. 2, paras. 37-38] engages. (Examiner Note: Lauth teaches, “abutment of the profile parts 26, 28 of the heating insert 14 on the inner side of the housing 12 is effected subsequently, namely by punching two beads 36, 38 into the housing 12. The beads 36, 38 are formed into the housing 12, where the grooves 30, 32 of the profile parts 26, 28 are located.”)
Lauth does not disclose wherein the plastic frame has a recess. (Examiner Note: Lauth teaches a mounting rack, but the grooves to engage with the crimped section (beads 36, 38) is provided by the profile parts (26, 28) of the heating insert.)
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the heating device of Lauth such that the plastic frame has the grooves to engage with the beaded section of the housing because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the recess on the plastic frame provides any unexpected advantage as other arrangements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that grooves can be arranged in a variety of locations in the end section to provide engagement with the beaded section to secure the internal components. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect grooves arranged on the frame to work equally as well as the arrangement disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Lauth.
Regarding Claim 4, Lauth as modified above discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, and further discloses wherein the recess is a groove. [Grooves 30, 32, Fig. 1, para. 37]
Claims 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth, in view of Freitag (DE 102019202045)
Regarding Claim 5, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness between one of the crimped sections of the housing and the plurality of ceramic heating elements.
However, Lauth teaches wherein the plastic frame has a section … between one of the crimped sections of the housing and the plurality of ceramic heating elements. [Para. 42] (Examiner Note: Lauth teaches, “to provide an end stop by the mounting rack 40, which presets the desired insertion depth of the heating insert 14 in the housing 12.” As discussed above, since the entirety of the heating device is disposed between the crimped sections of the housing, the end stop is understood to be positioned between the crimped sections and the heating elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lauth with an end stop to secure the axial position of the heating device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both related to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the end stop taught in Lauth to secure the axial positioning of the heating device within the housing and prevent movement of internal components from the environment.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness. (Examiner Note: Although Lauth discloses an end stop and thus provides a section between the crimped sections and heating elements, it does not specifically disclose the shape of the end stop.)
However, Freitag teaches wherein the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness. [Plug 38, Fig 1, para. 28] (Examiner Note: Freitag teaches, “a positioning frame which forms at least one frame receptacle in which the PTC element 26 is received and …forms a plug 38 which is placed on the end side on the free end of the flat tube 8 and which seals off this free end of the flat tube 8.” As the plug (38) formed by the frame increases in thickness towards the free ends, it is understood to teach this limitation.)
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Lauth teaches an end stop that differs from the claimed end stop because it does not increase in thickness. The end stop of Lauth and the plug of Freitag both perform the function of securing the axial position of the heating device. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the end stop of Lauth with the plug of Freitag to achieve predictable results because both references deal with stoppers that function in the same manner in the environment of a heating elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lauth by replacing the end stop of Lauth with the plug of Freitag because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Freitag
Regarding Claim 6, Lauth in view of Freitag discloses all the limitations of Claim 5.
Lauth and Freitag do not disclose wherein the plastic frame tapers from the section of increased thickness towards the plurality of ceramic heating elements. (Examiner Note: Although Lauth in view of Freitag teaches the end stop with increased thickness, it does not specifically disclose the tapered shape as claimed.)
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the end stop to be tapered because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a tapered end stop will function the same as any shape of end stop for securing the axial position of the heater. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that various shapes for electrodes are common in the art to accommodate different housings, and that tapering the end stop would have the predictable effect of providing interference fit with the housing to secure the heating device. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a tapered end stop to work equally as well as the end stop disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Freitag.
Regarding Claim 17, Lauth discloses A heating rod [Electrical heater 10, Fig. 1], comprising:
a tubular housing [Housing 12, Fig. 1] made of metal [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a tubular housing made of stainless steel.);
a plurality of ceramic heating elements [PTCs 16, Fig. 2] arranged inside the housing (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a number of ceramic PTC heaters corresponding to profile parts 26, 28, 26’ and 28’.);
a plastic frame [Mounting rack 40, Fig. 1] holding the heating elements [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that the mounting rack is made of plastic and holds the heating elements.); and
a metallic strip [Contact electrodes 18, 20, Figs. 1-2] electrically isolated from the housing [Isolators 22, 24, Figs. 1-2] and electrically contacting the heating elements [Fig. 1, paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses 2 plate shaped contact electrodes that provide current to the PTC heaters made of metal alloy and isolated from the housing by isolators 22, 24.);
wherein, the housing has crimped sections [Beads 36, 38, Figs. 1-2] that fix the plastic frame inside the housing. [Para. 37] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that abutment of “the heating insert 14 on the inner side of the housing 12 is effected subsequently, namely by punching two beads 36, 38 into the housing 12.”)
Lauth does not disclose wherein, the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness between one of the crimped sections of the housing and the plurality of ceramic heating elements; and wherein, the plastic frame tapers from the section of increased thickness towards the plurality of ceramic heating elements.
However, Lauth teaches wherein the plastic frame has a section … between one of the crimped sections of the housing and the plurality of ceramic heating elements. [Para. 42] (Examiner Note: Lauth teaches, “to provide an end stop by the mounting rack 40, which presets the desired insertion depth of the heating insert 14 in the housing 12.” As discussed above, since the entirety of the heating device is disposed between the crimped sections of the housing, the end stop is understood to be positioned between the crimped sections and the heating elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lauth with an end stop to secure the axial position of the heating device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both related to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the end stop taught in Lauth to secure the axial positioning of the heating device within the housing and prevent movement of internal components from the environment.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness. (Examiner Note: Although Lauth discloses an end stop and thus provides a section between the crimped sections and heating elements, it does not specifically disclose the shape of the end stop.)
However, Freitag teaches wherein the plastic frame has a section of increased thickness. [Plugs 38, Fig 1, para. 28] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Freitag teaches the plug (38) formed by the frame increases in thickness towards the free ends, an thus understood to teach this limitation.)
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Lauth teaches an end stop that differs from the claimed end stop because it does not increase in thickness. The end stop of Lauth and the plug of Freitag both perform the function of securing the axial position of the heating device. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the end stop of Lauth with the plug of Freitag to achieve predictable results because both references deal with stoppers that function in the same manner in the environment of a heating elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lauth by replacing the end stop of Lauth with the plug of Freitag because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lauth and Freitag do not disclose wherein the plastic frame tapers from the section of increased thickness towards the plurality of ceramic heating elements. (Examiner Note: Although Lauth n view of Freitag teaches the end stop with increased thickness, it does not specifically disclose the tapered shape as claimed.)
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the end stop to be tapered because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04]. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a tapered end stop will function the same as any shape of end stop for securing the axial position of the heater. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that various shapes for electrodes are common in the art to accommodate different housings, and that tapering the end stop would have the predictable effect of providing interference fit with the housing to secure the heating device. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a tapered end stop to work equally as well as the end stop disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Freitag.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth, in view of Gogmos et al. (WO 2019086802)
Regarding Claim 7, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the housing is a flat tube
However, Gogmos teaches wherein the housing is a flat tube. [Fig. 3, paras. 51-53]
Gogmos is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to PTC heating devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lauth with the teachings of Gogmos to improve contact between electrodes and the heating element. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth and Gogmos could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both related to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the flat tube shape taught in Gogmos because it improves contact between electrodes and the heating element by removing free space in the housing, and reduces the profile of the device. Accordingly, Claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Gogmos.
Regarding Claim 8, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the housing has opposing broad sides that are connected by narrow sides, wherein fins are provided at the broad sides
However, Gogmos teaches wherein the housing has opposing broad sides [Main surfaces 22, Fig. 3] that are connected by narrow sides, wherein fins [Fins 14, Fig. 2] are provided at the broad sides. [Paras. 51-53] (Examiner Note: Gogmos specifically teaches that fins are fixed to the main surfaces (22) of the tube to increase the area of heat exchange with the air.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lauth with the teachings of Gogmos to improve heating efficiency of the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth and Gogmos could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both related to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the flat tube shape taught in Gogmos because the fins improve the overall heating efficiency of the device, and providing it on a larger surface area further improves thermal capacity of the device. Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Gogmos.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth, in view of Nikoukar et al. (FR 3077459)
Regarding Claim 9, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the metallic strip has multiple slits that extend pairwise from opposite edges and are broadened at their ends away from the edge where they start.
However, Nikoukar teaches, wherein the metallic strip [Electrode 26, Fig. 8] has multiple slits [“Spaces 98 between the enlarged areas 92 form respectively the first and second recesses 68, 70.” Para. 25, Figs. 8-9] that extend pairwise from opposite edges and are broadened at their ends away from the edge where they start. [Paras. 7, 25] (Examiner Note: Nikoukar teaches serpentine shaped electrodes with recesses 68, 70 and thus teaches this limitation.)
Nikoukar is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to PTC heating devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the electrodes of Lauth with the teachings of Nikoukar to improve electrical isolation between electrodes. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth and Nikoukar could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Nikoukar because it specifically teaches that the recesses “lengthens the distance to be travelled on the surface of the heating elements … this limits the risk of short circuits.” (Para. 16) Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Nikoukar.
Regarding Claim 10, Lauth in view of Nikoukar discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the slits comprise a first section curved in a first direction and a second section curved in an opposite direction. [Figs. 8-9] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Nikoukar teaches the electrodes are serpentine, where each section is disposed in opposite directions, and thus teaches this limitation. As a square wave is still considered a continuous curve/wave, similarly, the square serpentine shape of Nikoukar is understood to be a curved surface.)
Regarding Claim 11, Lauth in view of Nikoukar discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein each slit covers only one of the ceramic heating elements. [Paras. 14, 25] (Examiner Note: Nikoukar further teaches the heating elements are evenly distributed along the electrodes along the connection faces 22, 24. The electrodes are arranged opposite to each other such that only 1 recess is exposed to each connection face, and thus teaches a slit to each heating element.)
Regarding Claim 13, Lauth in view of Nikoukar discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the slits comprise straight sections [Enlarged part 94, Figs 8-9] that enclose an angle of less than 90° with a longitudinal direction of the strip. [Figs. 8-9] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Nikoukar is understood to teach a square serpentine slit arrangement on the electrode sheet, and thus discloses straight sections (enlarged part 94) enclosing an angle of 0 degrees with the longitudinal direction of the strip as they are co-linear with each other. Accordingly, Nikoukar teaches this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 16. Lauth discloses A heating rod [Electrical heater 10, Fig. 1], comprising:
a tubular housing [Housing 12, Fig. 1] made of metal [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a tubular housing made of stainless steel.);
a plurality of ceramic heating elements [PTCs 16, Fig. 2] arranged inside the housing (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses a number of ceramic PTC heaters corresponding to profile parts 26, 28, 26’ and 28’.);
a plastic frame [Mounting rack 40, Fig. 1] holding the heating elements [Paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that the mounting rack is made of plastic and holds the heating elements.); and
a metallic strip [Contact electrodes 18, 20, Figs. 1-2] electrically isolated from the housing [Isolators 22, 24, Figs. 1-2] and electrically contacting the heating elements [Fig. 1, paras. 34-41] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses 2 plate shaped contact electrodes that provide current to the PTC heaters made of metal alloy and isolated from the housing by isolators 22, 24.);
wherein, the housing has crimped sections [Beads 36, 38, Figs. 1-2] that fix the plastic frame inside the housing. [Para. 37] (Examiner Note: Lauth discloses that abutment of “the heating insert 14 on the inner side of the housing 12 is effected subsequently, namely by punching two beads 36, 38 into the housing 12.”)
Lauth does not disclose wherein, the metallic strip has multiple slits that extend pairwise from opposite edges and are broadened at their ends away from the edge where they start.
However, Nikoukar teaches, wherein the metallic strip [Electrode 26, Fig. 8] has multiple slits [“Spaces 98 between the enlarged areas 92 form respectively the first and second recesses 68, 70.” Para. 25, Figs. 8-9] that extend pairwise from opposite edges and are broadened at their ends away from the edge where they start. [Paras. 7, 25] (Examiner Note: Nikoukar teaches serpentine shaped electrodes with recesses 68, 70 and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the electrodes of Lauth with the teachings of Nikoukar to improve electrical isolation between electrodes. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth and Nikoukar could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Nikoukar because it specifically teaches that the recesses “lengthens the distance to be travelled on the surface of the heating elements … this limits the risk of short circuits.” (Para. 16) Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Nikoukar.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth in view of Nikoukar, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 2017/0303343)
Regarding Claim 12, Lauth in view of Nikoukar discloses all the limitations of Claim 9.
Lauth and Nikoukar do not disclose wherein the broadened ends of the slits comprise circular holes that have a diameter that is larger than a section of the slit leading to the end.
However, Maher teaches wherein the broadened ends of the slits [Slits 5, Fig. 2] comprise circular holes [Circular Hole, Fig. 2] that have a diameter. [Paras. 23-27] (Examiner Note: Maher teaches a slit (5) extending over the width of the contact sheet that comprises a circular hole at the end of the slit. As the slit can be understood to be broadened in the longitudinal direction by extending across the width of the contact sheet, the circular hole is understood to be at the broadened end of the slit and thus teaches this limitation.)
Maher is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to PTC heating devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
Maher does not disclose diameter that is larger than a section of the slit leading to the end. (Examiner Note: Maher specifically discloses that the slits decrease in width, and thus the circular hole is understood to be a smaller diameter than the section leading to end of the slit.)
Under MPEP 2144-IV-A, changes in size/proportion are within the ordinary skill of an artisan absent a novel or unexpected advantage, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the electrode sheet of Lauth in view of Nikoukar such that the circular hole of the slit has a larger outside diameter than entrance of the slit because changes in proportion/size are an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a smaller diameter hole in the slit would function the same as a larger diameter hole in the slit for alleviating stresses caused by thermal expansion/contraction. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that variable sizes of electrode slits are common in the art, and that increasing the diameter of the hole in the slit would provide the predictable result of creating more clearance for thermal expansion/contraction of the electrode. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect a larger diameter slit hole to work equally as well as the smaller diameter slit hole disclosed in the prior art, and thus, the limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Nikoukar and Maher.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauth, in view of Bilhöfer et al. (US 2017/0151858)
Regarding Claim 14, Lauth discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Lauth does not disclose wherein the plastic frame is made of fiber-reinforced polyphenylene sulfide.
However, Bilhöfer teaches wherein the plastic frame is made of fiber-reinforced polyphenylene sulfide. [Para. 21] (Examiner Note: Bilhöfer teaches a support element for an electrical heating device produced from PPS GF 40 (polyphenylene sulfide with 40% glass fiber by weight) because it is a thermally high grade plastic, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Bilhöfer is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to PTC heating devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the plastic frame of Lauth with the PPS GF 40 material taught in Bilhöfer to improve thermal conductivity of the heater. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Lauth and Bilhöfer could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to PTC heating devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bilhöfer because it specifically teaches that PPS GF 40 is a thermally high grade plastic, and thus would improve the thermal conductivity of the device. (Para. 21) Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected as obvious over Lauth in view of Bilhöfer.
Regarding Claim 15, Lauth in view of Bilhöfer discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, and further discloses wherein the frame comprises 10% to 50% by weight of glass fiber or 10% to 40% by weight of carbon fiber. [Para. 21] (Examiner Note: PPS GF 40 is 40% glass fiber reinforced, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, Steven 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
