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 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 limitations are: “engagement feature” in claims 5 and 11.
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. Such description remained open-ended as to portray a non-extensive list of features that could engage and secure the heater body within the demister tube as shown in Para. 29, lines 1-3 of the specification.
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 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 1-12 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 “high thermally conductive resin” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unascertainable to which degree "thermally conductive" would render the claim met in view of prior art and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “engagement feature”, however with respect to the specification, it is unclear as to the specific features of the embodiment defines the engagement feature as the definition or iteration for such is never explicitly written within the specification or numbered within the drawings. It is therefore indefinite and unclear as to what the applicant is referring to when claiming the limitation related to an engagement feature. Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westmeier et. al. (US 2014/0110004).
Regarding claim 1, Westmeier teaches: A demister heater comprising: a tubular heater body comprising: a tube of high thermally conductive resin (tubular heater body 1 comprised of a thermally conductive resin 4 [Para. 20, lines 1-8 and Fig. 1]); a spirally wound electrical conductor embedded in a tube of high thermally conductive resin (spiral wound electrical connector 30 [Para. 41, lines 1-8 and Fig. 2]); wherein the tubular heater body is sized to fit within a demister tube through which air passes (tubular heater body 1 is sized to fit within tubular sheathing [Para. 23, lines 5-8 and Fig. 6]. As for the specific language “a demister tube through which air passes”, it is reasonably seen that Westmeier teachings satisfies the claimed limitations as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 2, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater of claim 1, wherein the spirally wound electrical conductor has terminal pins for connection to an electric supply. (the electrical conductors are provided with heated contacts/terminal pins to connect to a power supply [Para. 12, lines 3-14]).
Regarding claim 3, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater of claim 1, further comprising: a sleeve of thermally insulative material around the tubular heater body (comprises outer insulating sleeve 5 [Para. 45, lines 1-8 and Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 4, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater claim 1, further comprising: a seal ring at an end of the tubular body (comprises a sealing rings which are arranged in the connecting element at the end of the body [Para. 23, lines 18-22]).
Regarding claim 5, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater of claim 1, further comprising: an engagement feature for securing the heater inside a demister tube, in use (comprises an engagement feature for the surrounding sheathing 9 [Para. 23, lines 5-11]).
Regarding claim 5, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater of claim 5, wherein the engagement feature includes a key extending outwards from the heater body (comprises an engagement feature described as a groove provided on the medium line/heater body to engage with the sheathing [Para. 23, lines 10-17]).
Regarding claim 7, Westmeier teaches: The demister heater of claim 1, further comprising: a connector to electrically connect the electrical conductor to a power supply (connects the electrical conductors to a power supply [Para. 12, lines 9-14]).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westmeier et. al. (US 2014/0110004) in view of Tyler (US 5,604,938).
Regarding claim 10, Westmeier teaches: A demister comprising: demister heater as claimed in claim 1, located in the tube (see rejection of claim 1).
Westmeier fails to teach: a demister cap; a demister tube in fluid communication with the demister cap, and through which air flows
Tyler teaches: a demister cap (demister cap 209 [Col. 8, line 64 – Col. 9, line 8 and Fig. 1c]); a demister tube in fluid communication with the demister cap, and through which air flows (tube 110 in fluid communication with cap 209 and air flows [Col. 9, lines 9-14 and Fig. 1c])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the waste system of Tyler with the tubular heater of Westmeier in order to improve the effectiveness of freeze prevention (Westmeier – Col. 30, lines 3-17) within the waste system, as the waste system within crafts are known to freeze and require additional components for preventing of such (Tyler – Col. 3, lines 50-59 and Col 8, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches: The demister of claim 10, further comprising: an engagement feature for engaging with the demister heater (comprises an engagement feature for the surrounding sheathing 9 [Para. 23, lines 5-11]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches: A waste system comprising: a waste tank (waste tank 200 [Col. 2, lines 65-66 and Fig. 1c]); and a demister as claimed in claim 10 at an outlet of the tank (demister 209 and tube 210 at outlet of tank 200 [Fig. 1c]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest the demister heater comprising the features set forth in dependent claims 8 and 9.
US 2014/0110004 to Westmeier and US 5,604,938 to Tyler may be seen as close prior art in certain aspects but fail to expressly teach the demister heater comprising a connector ports having connector wires and screws extending through the connector to provide an electrical connection between the connector and electrical conductors as described in dependent claims 8 and 9, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Giamati (US 2003/0210902) teaches: a heater blanket to prevent freezing of a potable water tank on an aircraft (abstract and Fig. 1)
Kamiyama et. al. (US 2008/0272110) teaches: an electric heating apparatus comprised of resin and winding electrodes to be applied as pipe lining (abstract and Fig. 5)
Borgmeier (US 2009/0238547) teaches: a medium heating fluid line comprises of winding electrical heating elements connected to a power source (abstract and Fig. 1)
Massold et. al. (US 2012/0074120) teaches: an electrically heated plastic pipe comprises of helically wounded electrical conductors with a connection point connecting to a power supply (abstract and Fig. 1-2)
Brudevold et. al. (US 2015/0226362) teaches: a heated fluid line comprised of electrical heating elements wrapped around the tubing (abstract and Fig. 2-3)
Grande (US 2022/0042639) teaches: a fluid conduit comprising a heater assembly wound around the circumference of the conduit and configured to heat the fluid within (abstract and Fig. 3)
Norma et. al. (US 4,281,238) teaches: a tubular jacket comprised of a heating member wound around the jacket (abstract and Fig. 4)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
