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 .
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sprygada et al. (US 2021/0148603).
Regarding claim 1, Sprygada (S) discloses a heating apparatus for a vehicle, comprising: a body (1, Figure 1, i.e., housing) having an accommodation space 9Area above wall (8) in Figure 1) with one side surface opened; a heat-generating portion installed (6, heating plate, [0020]) on the opened surface of the accommodation space to provide heat; and an inlet/outlet portion (3,4, [0021]) connected to the body so that a heat transfer medium is introduced into and discharged from the accommodation space, wherein, as the heat-generating portion is installed, a flow path communicating with the inlet/outlet portion is formed between the body and the heat-generating portion (Figure 2, [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Sprygada (S) discloses the heating apparatus for the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the flow path comprises: a pair of first flow paths communicating with the inlet/outlet portion (3,4, Figure 2) to allow the heat transfer medium to move in a first direction; and a plate-shaped second flow path (2, [0022]) that connects the pair of first flow paths to each other to allow the heat transfer medium to move in a second direction (Along guide plate 2 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sprygada (S) discloses the heating apparatus for the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the accommodation space comprises: a pair of concave portions forming one side surface of each of the first flow paths (@3a, @4a, Figure 2) ; and a flat portion (8) protruding between the pair of concave portions to form one side surface of the second flow path (In Figure 2, path line spanning from3a-4a, [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Sprygada (S) discloses the heating apparatus for the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the heat-generating portion further comprises a reinforcing portion (10, Figure 6) that passes through the second flow path and is coupled to the flat portion (2).
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 4 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprygada et al. (US 2021/0148603).
Regarding claim 4, Sprygada (S) discloses the heating apparatus for the vehicle of claim 3, but not that a cross-sectional area of the second flow path in the first direction has a value corresponding to 100% or more and 300% or less of that of a cross-sectional area of the inlet/outlet portion in the second direction.
However, Sprygada (S) does disclose, according to the drawings (Figures 1-3) certain ranges between claimed openings but is not specific that the range is between 100%-300%. However, the courts have held that where the general condition of the claim is disposed in the prior art (see figures) it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, according to the courts where the general condition, such as varying the size of said openings corresponding to 100% or more and 300% or less of that of a cross-sectional area of the inlet/outlet portion in the second direction is the result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the size of the first and second openings to control the amount of heat medium that flows through the said openings in order to achieve a desired pressure drop ([0020]) is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have simply adjusted cross-sectional areas to conform to the claim language. Please reference MPEP 2144.05 for further clarification and relevant case law.
Regarding claim 6, Sprygada (S) discloses the heating apparatus for the vehicle of claim 4, wherein, but not that an inner diameter of the inlet/outlet portion is 14.5 mm, a height of the second flow path formed between the body and the heat-generating portion is 0.87 mm or more and 2.6 mm or less.
However, disclosed in MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-07.2022]
IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify or change the shape of the inlet and outlets to correspond to the design objective or application.
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