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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in combination, does not disclose the room heating device wherein in the event that an amount of air conveyed by the conveying device is below a set value during the preparatory step, the control unit controls the drain valve such that liquid flows out of the medium tank via the liquid outlet or controls the air valve such that air enters the medium tank via the air inlet or the control unit closes the supply valve.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/290,893 (US 2024/0247836) (reference application) in view of Paine (US 2010/0004786). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of US 2024/0247836 discloses Regarding claim 1:
A device for heating room air and a liquid, comprising an energy unit (Line 3), a heat exchanger (Line 3, heat transfer device), a medium tank (Line 3, medium container), a medium line (Line 4,), a conveying device (Line 4) and a control unit (Line 4), wherein the energy unit (Line 11) generates thermal energy, wherein the heat exchanger transfers the thermal energy generated by the energy unit to the room air and the liquid (Lines 12-14), wherein the medium tank serves to take up liquid and air, (Lines 15-16) wherein the medium line serves to conduct liquid and air, wherein the heat exchanger and the medium line are configured and arranged relative to each other such that the heat exchanger transfers thermal energy to liquid present in the medium line (Lines 18-21), wherein the conveying device serves to move liquid and air from the medium tank to the medium line (Lines 22-25), wherein the control unit controls the conveying device (Line 26-27), wherein in the event that the device is intended to heat only room air in an air mode, the control unit controls the conveying device in a preparatory step such that the conveying device moves air from an air cushion in the medium tank through the medium line (Line 29-32), but does not disclose that the control unit monitors a pumping behavior of the conveying device.
However, Paine (US 2010/0004786) discloses a control system for a water heater (Abstract) wherein the control unit monitors a pumping behavior of the conveying device (Claim 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to in the process of controlling the pump include monitoring its characteristics to ensure that the pump is performing as desired.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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 located in claim 1 are: conveying device and energy unit.
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.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term, control unit, does not have any structural features enumerated in the written disclosure of the invention.
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 1-10 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. The term, control unit, does not have any structural features enumerated in the written disclosure of the invention and so the Office unsure as to exactly what it is.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the air inlet” should be “and air inlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Consadori et al. (US 2019/0212033).
Regarding claim 1, Consadori (C) discloses a device for heating room air and a liquid (100, Abstract, Figure 7), comprising an energy unit (275), a heat exchanger (250), a medium tank (200, i.e., radiator), a medium line (138), a conveying device (170, i.e., pump) and a control unit (350), wherein the energy unit generates thermal energy ([0208]), wherein the heat exchanger transfers the thermal energy generated by the energy unit to the room air and the liquid ([0210,0242]), wherein the medium tank serves to take up liquid and air (radiators contain both), wherein the medium line serves to conduct liquid and air (contents of the radiator), wherein the heat exchanger and the medium line are configured and arranged relative to each other such that the heat exchanger transfers thermal energy to liquid present in the medium line, wherein the conveying device serves to move liquid and air from the medium tank to the medium line, wherein the control unit (controls the conveying device), wherein in the event that the device is intended to heat only room air in an air mode, the control unit controls the conveying device in a preparatory step such that the conveying device moves air from an air cushion in the medium tank through the medium line ([0210-0211]), and wherein the control unit (350) monitors a pumping behavior of the conveying device ([0224], whether the pump is on or off). As a clarification, because the radiator’s contents comprise air and water any mode of heating will have some air entrapped therewithin and thus pumped through the heating system, regardless of the name of the step.
Regarding claim 9, Consadori (C) discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein in the event that the device is intended to heat only liquid or liquid and room air, the control unit (350) controls the conveying device (170) such that liquid flows out of the medium tank (200) to the medium line (138), and from the medium line to the medium tank ([0210-0211]). As a clarification, because the radiator’s contents comprise air and water any mode of heating will have some air entrapped therewithin and thus pumped through the heating system, regardless of the name of the step.
Regarding claim 10, Consadori (C) discloses the device according to claim 9 , further comprising a fan (325) for conveying the room air from the air inlet to the air outlet ([0307-0308]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consadori et al. (US 2019/0212033) in view of Crowne et al. (US 2018/02999315).
Regarding claim 3, Consadori (C) discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein an air valve is assigned to the air inlet , and wherein the air valve is configured such that the air valve opens the air inlet for air when a pressure in the medium tank is below a pressure of the air outside the medium tank .
However, Crowne (Cr) discloses a liquid measuring system (Abstract), wherein an air valve (12, i.e., vent, Figure 1A) is assigned to the air inlet, and wherein the air valve is configured such that the air valve opens the air inlet for air when a pressure in the medium tank (10) is below a pressure of the air outside the medium tank ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to control pressure of the expansion tank to avoid reverse flow of liquid due to negative pressure within the tank.
Regarding claim 4, Consadori (C), as modified, discloses the device according to Claim 3,wherein the air valve (12) is configured as a ventilation valve ([0014]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consadori et al. (US 2019/0212033) in view of Chandler, JR. (US 2017/0197854).
Regarding claim 7, Consadori (C), as modified, discloses the device according to claim 1, but not that the control unit monitors the pumping behavior of the conveying device in that the control unit evaluates a current consumption of the conveying device.
However, Chandler (Ch) discloses a water management system (Abstract), wherein the control unit (248) monitors the pumping behavior of the conveying device (240, i.e., pump) in that the control unit evaluates a current consumption of the conveying device ([0150]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to monitor the current consumption to discern if it is functioning properly.
Regarding claim 8, Consadori (C), as modified discloses the device according to claim 7,wherein the control unit (248) evaluates a decrease in the current consumption of the conveying device (240) as meaning that the conveying device conveys air ([0150], the change in viscosity of the medium pumped will affect the current draw of the pump).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JOHN E BARGERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 ***
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights