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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, the limitation “the distal-end” should be “a distal-end”. 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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "a base-end side" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this base-end side is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 11. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
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) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitanoya ShoJI et al. (JP H09289073) in view of Miyoshi (US 20220170665).
Regarding claim 1, Kitanoya ShoJI et al. discloses a liquid heating device 50 (fig. 4, i.e. called a liquid heater unit) comprising:
a container (52, i.e. called a case) having an internal space (10a), and an inlet (53) and an outlet (54) communicating with the internal space (10a); and
a ceramic heater (1) which extends in a front-rear direction (see figure 4) and whose front-end portion is located in the internal space (10a),
the ceramic heater (1) having a heat generation portion (i.e. along the heater body 10) at the distal-end portion (see figure 7 toward the tip portion 35),
wherein in a process in which a liquid (W, i.e. water) is introduced from the inlet (53) and flows through the internal space (10a) to the outlet (54),
the liquid (W, i.e. water) is heated by the ceramic heater (1).
Kitanoya ShoJI discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for the ceramic heater has an inner hole extending in the front-rear direction and having an opening at a distal end, the inner hole communicating with the internal space, and the inner hole is closed by a closing portion on a base-end side.
However, Miyoshi teaches the ceramic heater (1) has an inner hole (20, i.e. a tubular water receiver) extending in the front-rear direction and having an opening at a distal end (11b), the inner hole (20, i.e. a tubular water receiver) communicating with the internal space (i.e. an inner space of the case 60), and the inner hole (20, i.e. a tubular water receiver) is closed by a closing portion (i.e. in the connection member portion 40) on a base-end side (i.e. called a first end 20a) (¶ 0034-0036, 0047-0051, 0053).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a fluid heating apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kitanoya ShoJI and Miyoshi before him or her, to include such an inner hole/tube of Miyoshi because it allows the heating fluid flowing from the first channel into the second channel to maintain a flow velocity for effective generation of turbulence in the upstream part in the second channel. This structure effectively causes turbulence in a part of the ceramic body that reaches high temperatures during operation and enables efficient heat exchange in the part, thus enabling more efficient heating of the heating fluid. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because it provides the ability to heat fluid efficiently with lower power consumption (¶ 0038).
With respect to claim 2, Kitanoya ShoJI in view of Miyoshi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Miyoshi further discloses wherein the closing portion (i.e. in the connection member portion 40) is located on a base-end side (i.e. called a first end 20a) relative to the heat generation portion (see figures 3-4, i.e. in the area of heating element 12) (¶ 0024, 0026).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kitanoya ShoJI and Miyoshi before him or her, to include such a heating arrangement of Miyoshi because it allows the heating fluid
flowing from the first channel into the second channel to maintain a flow velocity for effective generation of turbulence in the upstream part in the second channel. This structure effectively causes turbulence in a part of the ceramic body that reaches high temperatures during operation and enables efficient heat exchange in the part, thus enabling more efficient heating of the heating fluid. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a heating fluid efficiently with lower power consumption (¶ 0038).
With respect to claim 3, Kitanoya ShoJI in view of Miyoshi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kitanoya ShoJI further discloses wherein the closing portion is provided to a member (13) separate from the ceramic heater (1), the separate member being connected to a base end (i.e. in the area of mounting plate 3) of the ceramic heater (1) so that, inside the separate member (13), a second internal space is formed as a part of the inner hole (i.e. an inner space of the heating body 10).
With respect to claim 5, Kitanoya ShoJI in view of Miyoshi discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Miyoshi further discloses wherein in a cross-section of the ceramic heater (1) along a radial direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction, a maximum width of an inner wall surface forming the inner hole is 0.5 to 5.0 mm (¶ 0022).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kitanoya ShoJI and Miyoshi before him or her, to include such inner hole/tube dimensions of Miyoshi because it allows the heating fluid
flowing from the first channel into the second channel to maintain a flow velocity for effective generation of turbulence in the upstream part in the second channel. This structure effectively causes turbulence in a part of the ceramic body that reaches high temperatures during operation and enables efficient heat exchange in the part, thus enabling more efficient heating of the heating fluid. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a heating fluid efficiently with lower power consumption (¶ 0038)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitanoya ShoJI et al. (JP H09289073) in view of Miyoshi (US 20220170665) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 7,875,832).
Regarding claim 4, Kitanoya ShoJI in view of Miyoshi discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein a watt density is 100 W/cm2 when AC voltage of 100 V is applied to the ceramic heater.
However, Ikeda teaches wherein a watt density is 100 W/cm2 when AC voltage of 100 V is applied to the ceramic heater (abstract; col. 1, line 61-64).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a ceramic heater. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kitanoya ShoJI in view of Miyoshi and Ikeda before him or her, to include such density of Ikeda because it provides a ceramic heater, a heat exchange unit, and a warm water washing toilet seat, which have excellent temperature rise characteristics and enable the time required to reach a predetermined water temperature to be shortened. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the heat exchange unit to be of compact size as well.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 20120201525).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
