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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “F” in Fig 2;"101i" in Fig 3; "P" in Fig 5; "R3", "S5", "S6", "M3", and "121" in Fig 14; and "121" in Fig 16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 amendment to the Specification filed 04/22/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no
amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. An incorporation
by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new
matter can be added to an application after its filing date (See 35 U.S.C. 132(a)). An
international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with
the filing date being the same in both stages. See MPEP 1893.03(b) and 35 U.S.C. 363. The
added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENT APPLICATIONS”
“This application is a National Stage of International application No. PCT/JP2022/040636 filed October 31, 2022, claiming priority based on Japanese Patent application No. 2022-066817 field April 14, 2022.”
The incorporation by reference of the international application PCT/JP2022/040636 and
of the Japanese Patent Applications No. 2022-066817 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 10/31/2022, See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the Specification amendment of 04/22/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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(s) is/are: safety device in claim 1.
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.
The “safety device” in line 8 of Claim 1 is deemed to invoke analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under Prong A, the language of the claim does not explicitly use the term “means” or “step” as an explicit invocation of 112(f) analysis, but the claim provides the nonce term “device” that triggers analysis under 112(f).
Moving to Prong B, the “safety device” is linked by the following functional language “configured to interrupt energization to the ceramic heaters when a temperature of the container has exceeded a set value”.
Concluding under Prong C, the specification provided in paragraph [0020] that the safety device is a known pellet-type thermal fuse, with lead wires extending from both ends of the safety device. The additional structure provides sufficient modification to the structure such that further analysis under 112(f) is no longer necessary.
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.
Claim 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites “the safety device whose number is smaller than a number of the ceramic heaters”, Claim 1 also recites “a plurality of ceramic heaters” and “a safety device”. The limitation of a safety device whose number is smaller than a number of the ceramic heaters is already taught by the introduction of multiple ceramic heaters verses a single safety device having been previously introduced. Therefore the scope of the range limitation is unclear.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation of “in a cross-section crossing the front-rear direction”, Examiner would request applicant amend claim to provide “in a cross-section crossing an axis of the liquid heating device extending in the front-rear direction”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites that the safety device is provided on the outer side of the container and Claim 3 recites that part of the safety device is located on an inner side of the recess. As Claim 2 and 3 contradict each other, for the purposes of compact prosecution Claim 3 is being interpreted as being dependent on Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragg (EP-2438364-B1) in view of Posen (US-5438642-A).
With regards to Claim 1, Ragg teaches (Figs 1-3) a liquid heating device (an electrical heating device (10)) for heating water in a vessel ([0006]). The electrical heating device comprises dual heating elements (20, 30) arranged in a parallel nested or overlapping relationship with each other and adapted to be in thermal contact with the overheat prevention thermostat (40) ([0017]). The heating elements and thermostat are mounted to a common support plate (50) that forms part of the wall of the water tank or vessel, with each heating element including a stainless steel outer sheath (100) and electrical resistance heating wire (102), where the ends of each heating element extending through the support plate and have electrical connectors (104, 106, 108), allowing each heating element to be independently heated ([0018]-[0019]). Each heating element extends from an inner surface of the support plate via a looped end of the distal portion connected thermally to the inner surface of the support plate ([0011], [0013], [0021]-[0023]). The single overheat prevention thermostat cuts off power to the dual, triple or more heating elements, should one of the heating elements overheat ([0024]). The overheat prevention thermostat lies between the electrical connecting terminals for the heating elements and offset to the center of the terminals in a perpendicular direction (See Modified Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to Claim 1, Ragg does not teach a container with an inlet and outlet, or that the heaters are ceramic.
Posen teaches (Figs 1-7) an instantaneous water heater, for use inside an injection molded plastic body (2), where the water heater has an inlet cylinder (4) and an outlet cylinder (6) (Page 4, col 1, lines 44-46; Pg. 5, col 3, lines 6-20). Posen also teaches that the heating elements use ceramic substrates (10, 12) (Pg. 4, col 1, lines 59-62; Pg. 5, col 3, lines 44-62). Posen further teaches the heating elements may be ceramic, open, sheathed, encapsulated, or cartridge type elements (pg. 4, col 1, lines 44-62).
In this case, Ragg teaches the liquid heating device inserted into a water tank to heat a liquid, where multiple parallel heaters are mounted onto the recess of a support plate mounted onto a vessel, where an overheat protection device is also mounted onto the support plate, but offset from and between the heaters. Posen teaches that the vessel container can be made of an injection molded plastic, where water enters an inlet cylinder to be heated by ceramic heating elements before exiting via an outlet cylinder. Ragg and Posen are analogous to the instant application because both inventions derive ways of heating a liquid via a heating element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ceramic heaters and an inlet and outlet port for a water heating device mounted on a plastic container as taught by Posen with the electrical heating device that has heating elements and a overheat protection system mounted onto a vessel as taught by Ragg, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragg and Posen in view of Glanz (DE-19545155-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ragg and Posen teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, where Ragg further teaches that the support plate defines part of a wall for a water containing vessel, where the heating elements pass through the support plate ([0010]). Ragg also teaches that the distal loops of the heating element are joined to the support plate by brazing or welding to enhance thermal contact between the heating elements and the thermostat, as well as increasing the strength of the heating device ([0023], Claim 2). Ragg also teaches the thermostat, and electrical connectors are set in a recess of the support plate, where the heating elements are brazed/welded to the interior side of the support plate (See Modified Fig 3). However, Ragg does not teach a heat-transfer medium.
Regarding Claim 3, Ragg and Posen teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, where Ragg further teaches that the plurality of heating elements are mounted on the common support plate, and the thermostat is also mounted on the common support plate and a portion of each heating elements are in thermal contact with the thermostat (See Modified Figs 3, [0006]).
Glanz teaches (Figs 1-2) a heating cartridge for hot water tanks. The heating cartridge has housing (1), threaded projection (4), heating elements (5), heating conductors (6), a protective tube (7) that surrounds a temperature sensor (8) and safety temperature sensor (9) ([0006], [0012]-[0013]). The safety temperature sensor and temperature sensor are arranged in the protective tube that is connected to the heating rods via a thermal bridge (10), where the bridge is made of a highly thermally conductive material such as brass, copper, or aluminum, where the connection points (11) can be soldered, pressed, or welded to ensure good heat transfer ([0006], [0013]).
In this case, Ragg and Posen teach the liquid heating device as previously stated, and Ragg and Glanz both teach a thermal safety device mounted on the outside of a container, where Glanz teaches a thermal bridge made up of aluminum with a high thermal conductivity, and Posen teaches the plastic container, where injection molded plastic has a lower thermal conductivity than brass, copper, or aluminum. Ragg further teaches the supporting plate where the safety device and heating elements are mounted has a recess (See modified Fig 3), and Glanz teaches that the protective tube and the temperature sensor are internally mounted on the interior side of the heating device. Ragg, Posen, and Glanz are analogous because all the inventions teach devices to heat fluids, such as water, located inside of a tank.
PNG
media_image2.png
334
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a heat transfer medium made of brass, copper, or aluminum as well as have a thermal safety sensor mounted to the exterior of the heating device where part of the safety device extends into the interior of the tank, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US-7039305-B1) teaches a tubular electric heater where a water inlet is connected to a heat conductive tube, and an electric tube is installed within the tube to form a water path to heat cool water.
Ginossar (WO-2017153981-A1) teaches a system and method for water heating where a heating element and a thermostat are housed within an inlet spout to heat water before the water is expelled out the outlet spout.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights