DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14 – 20 are pending.
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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent US 12105569 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter preheat the electronic device in response to the measured temperature is below a threshold and power on the electronic device when the temperature is above the threshold.
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 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 of this title, 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 14,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al (US 20130098891 A1) and in view of Jarmell et al (US Patent 4306859 A).
The teachings of Chiu as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Applicant has amended independent claim 14 to incorporate the limitations that (*) wherein the preheating is performed by closing dampers to block a flow of ambient air into the electronic device.
Regarding limitation (*), Chiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the preheating is performed by closing dampers to block a flow of ambient air into the electronic device.
Jarmell discloses wherein the preheating is performed by closing dampers to block a flow of ambient air into the electronic device [Col. 3 lines 25 – 31: the damper is closed to prevent the air from entering the duct and gas under pressure is forced into the preheater. In this manner, air can be excluded entirely from the furnace during an analysis].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chiu and Jarmell together because they both directed to preheat the device. Jarmell’s disclosing of closing the damper to prevent the air into the preheater device would allow Chiu to increase the preheating efficiency and also increase the electronic device temperature faster by blocking the cold air from outside entering into the electronic device.
Regarding claims 17-20, the base claim 14 is taught by Chiu in view of Jarmell as disclosed above and the additional limitations in claims 17-20 are taught by Chiu as disclosed in the previous office action.
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 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 of this title, 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 15 -16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al (US Publication 2013/0098891 A1) in view of Jarmell et al (US Patent 4306859 A) and in further view of Miwa1 (US Publication 2006/0214639 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, the base claim 14 is taught by Chiu in view of Jarmell as disclosed above and the additional limitations are taught by Miwa as disclosed in the previous office action.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chiu and Jarmell for the reasons as disclosed above. It would have further been obvious to combine the teachings of Miwa for the same reasons as disclosed in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained because terminal disclaimer has not yet filed.
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner (see MPEP § 2123).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
1 Chiu and Miwa are cited in the IDS.
Prosecution Insights