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 § 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, 15, 18, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens (US 2017/0122165) in view of Baigrie et al (US 5,250,228).
Duijsens discloses a self-regulating electrical heating cable (2; a positive temperature coefficient PTC heating cable) including two spaced apart resistive wires (4.1, 4.2) extending along a length of the heating cable, a heating element (3) extending along the length of the heating cable that defines a heating core wherein the heating element comprises a polymer material exhibiting a positive temperature coefficient characteristic (see Abstract), and a thermally conductive material (carbon black conductive fillers; para 0012) disposed within the polymer material to render the heating element thermally conductive to transfer the heat generated by the wires. But, Duijsens does not disclose the polymer material including a polyetherimide-siloxane amorphous copolymer (PEI-Si).
Baigrie discloses it is known to provide a PTC heating element/composition including an amorphous thermoplastic polymer material including polyetherimide silicone (PEI-Si wherein silicone is known to include siloxane as known in the art) block copolymers. Also, see Abstract, and column 2, line 61 to column 3, line 12.
In view of Baigrie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens with the polymer material including polyetherimide-siloxane amorphous copolymer as another suitable substitute for its polymer material that is known to exhibit an improved thermal stability of the heating element.
With respect to claim 3, Baigrie discloses the PTC heating element including an amorphous thermoplastic resin that consist of polyetherimide silicone (PEI-Si). Also, see column 2, line 61 to column 3, line 3.
With respect to claim 15, Duijsens discloses the conductive material that includes carbon black, carbon nanotubes, or metal particles (para 0012).
With respect to claim 18, Duijsens discloses the wires (4.1/4.2) that are spaced apart and encapsulated by the heating element (3; also, see Figure 1).
With respect to claim 23, Duijsens discloses that the self-regulating electrical heat regulating cable is configured to work at temperatures of 125º C to 180º C (para 0014) which overlaps within the claimed range of 100º to 300º C.
With respect to claim 25, Duijsens discloses the method claimed including the two electrically restive wires that are space apart and coupled with the heating element to form a heating core.
Claim(s) 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 23 and 25 above and further in view of Batliwalla et al (US 5,925,276).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie discloses the heating cable claimed including the conductive material (e.g., carbon black or carbon nanotubes) in its heating element polymer material but does not explicitly show that the conductive material comprises 3 wt% to 40 wt% of a total weight of the heating element.
Batliwalla discloses it is known to provide a PTC heating element having a polymer material wherein the conductive material can be 5 wt% to 50 wt% of the heating element composition wherein an amount of the conductive material is selected to achieve a desired resistivity (also, see column 4, line 57 to column 5, line 5).
In view of Batliwalla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified by Baigrie with the conductive material that comprises in the 3 wt% to 40 wt% of a total weight of the heating element as a matter of routine operations to achieve a desired resistive of the heating element, which depends on the amount of the conductive material selected, that would predictably control its resistant heating capacity as known in the art.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Duijsens discloses that the thermally conductive material comprise carbon black (para 0012) wherein Batliwalla also discloses that the conductive material can be carbon black that comprises 5 wt% to 50 wt%, or 10 wt% to 40 wt%, or 15 wt% to 30 wt% (column 4, line 57 to column 5, line 5) which overlaps with the claimed range as recited in claims 16 and 17, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens with the conductive material in the claimed range as a matter of routine operations to achieve a desired resistive of the heating element, which depends on the amount of the conductive material selected, that would predictably control its resistant heating capacity as known in the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 23 and 25 above and further in view of Sandberg et al (US 6,288,372) and Murase et al (US 2009/0109141).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie discloses the heating cable structure and method claimed including the wires that are spaced apart with the heating element forming a heating core, but Duijsens does not show a PFAS-free, non-olefinic electrically non-conductive polymer spacer that forms an assembly wherein the heating element is in the form of a fiber wrapped around the assembly.
Sandberg shows a self-regulating heating cable with wires (12/14) spaced apart with a polymer spacer (15) that forms an assembly wherein a self-regulating heating element fiber (17’; also, see column 2, lines 52-64, and Figure 4A) wrapped around the assembly wherein Sandberg shows the wires forming an outer edge of the assembly as illustrated in Figure 4A.
Murase discloses it is known to provide an electrically insulating polymer that includes a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such as a ether based polymer including polyester resin as well as polyetherimide (para 0032).
In view of Sandberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified by Baigrie with the heating element that can be provided in a fiber wrapped heating element as illustrated in Figure 4A as an alternative and known heating element substitution arrangement to predictably produce the desired self-regulation heating cable via its PTC characteristic as known in the art; and in view of Murase, it would have been obvious to further adapt the polymer space that is made of a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such as polyester resin as well as polyetherimide (which are non-olefinic) as an alternative and substitute insulating polymer material that can predictably provide a good electrical insulating characteristic as known in the art.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie as applied to claims 1, 3, 15, 18, 23 and 25 above and further in view of O’Connor (US 2009/0212040) and Murase et al (US 2009/0109141).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie discloses the heating cable claimed including the wires that are spaced apart but does not explicitly show a dielectric insulation surrounding the heating core wherein the dielectric insulation comprises a PFAS-free, non-olefinic polymer material.
O’Connor shows it is known to provide a PTC heating core (8) that is provided with a polymeric insulation (10; also, see para 0005-0007) for protection of the heating core.
Murase discloses it is known to provide an insulating polymer that includes a dielectric polymer such as a thermoplastic polyester resin which is a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such polyester is non-olefinic and FPAS-free. Also, see para 0032.
In view of O’Connor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens ad modified by Baigrie with a polymeric insulation that surrounds the heating core for its protection thereof wherein in view of Murase, it would have been obvious to further adapt the polymeric insulation that is made of a thermoplastic polyester material, which is FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer, as an alternative and substitute insulating polymer material that can predictably provide a good insulating characteristic as known in the art.
With respect to claim 21, O’Connor discloses a metallic braid mesh(12) surrounding the dielectric insulation (10), as modified by Murase, and an outer jacket (14) surrounding the metallic braid mesh wherein the outer jacket which is made of a thermoplastic resin (para 0007) can be further made of thermoplastic polyester resin which is FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer, as an alternative and substitute polymer material that can predictably provide a good insulating characteristic as known in the art.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Thrash (US 5,801,914).
Duijsens in Baigrie discloses a heat tracing system claimed including the self-regulating electrical heating cable but does not show a heat trace thermostat that is coupled to a power source and to the self-regulating heating cable as claimed.
Thrash shows it is known to provide a thermostat (48) that is electrically coupled to a power source via a plug (24) and to a self-regulating heating element (PTC heating element 12) to regulate electrical current flowing into the self-regulating heating element to control its heating temperature. Also, see column 5, lines 40-62.
In view of Thrash, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified Baigrie with a thermostat coupled to a power source and to the heating core so that a desired set heating temperature of the heating core can be predictably achieved.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 22, 28, 31, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens (US 2017/0122165) in view of Baigrie et al (US 5,250,228) and Levesque et al (US 2021/0037645).
With respect to claims 11 and 22, Duijsens discloses a self-regulating electrical heating cable (2; a positive temperature coefficient PTC heating cable) including two spaced apart resistive wires (4.1, 4.2) extending along a length of the heating cable, a heating element (3) extending along the length of the heating cable that defines a heating core wherein the heating element comprises a polymer material exhibiting a positive temperature coefficient characteristic (see Abstract), and a thermally conductive material (carbon black conductive fillers; para 0012) disposed within the polymer material to render the heating element thermally conductive to transfer the heat generated by the wires. But, Duijsens does not disclose the polymer material including a polymer blend comprising or consisting of polyetherimide-siloxane amorphous copolymer (PEI-Si) and semi-crystalline polyaryletherketone (PAEK) polymer.
Baigrie discloses it is known to provide a PTC heating element/composition including an amorphous thermoplastic polymer material including polyetherimide silicone (PEI-Si wherein silicone is known to include siloxane as known in the art) block copolymers. Also, see Abstract, and column 2, line 61 to column 3, line 12.
Levesque discloses it is known to form a polymer material that includes a matrix of a thermoset rein including polyetherimide (PEI) along with polyaryletherketone (PAEK) polymer (para 0058-0059) that provides high thermal and corrosion resistance as known in the art.
In view of Baigrie and Levesque, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens the polymer material including polyetherimide-siloxane amorphous copolymer as a suitable substitute for its polymer material that is known to exhibit an improved thermal stability of the heating element wherein the polymer material would also include the polyaryletherketone (PAEK) polymer along with polyetherimide silicone/siloxane block copolymers (PEI-Si) which would predictably provide high thermal and corrosion resistance that would improve or prolong the use of the heating element as it can withstand high thermal and corrosion resistance as taught by Levesque.
With respect to claim 12, Levesque further discloses the polymer material that include polyetherimide (PEI) with a semi-crystalline polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer (para 0058) that would also provide the high thermal and corrosion resistance as known in the art.
With respect to claim 28, Duijsens discloses the conductive material that includes carbon black, carbon nanotubes, or metal particles (para 0012).
With respect to claim 31, Duijsens discloses the wires (4.1/4.2) that are spaced apart and encapsulated by the heating element (3; also, see Figure 1).
With respect to claim 35, Duijsens discloses that the self-regulating electrical heat regulating cable is configured to work at temperatures of 125º C to 180º C (para 0014) which overlaps within the claimed range of 100º to 300º C.
With respect to claim 37, Duijsens discloses the method claimed including the two electrically restive wires that are space apart and coupled with the heating element to form a heating core.
Claim(s) 27, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque as applied to claims 11, 12, 22, 28, 31, 35 and 37 above and further in view of Batliwalla et al (US 5,925,276).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque discloses the heating cable claimed including the conductive material (e.g., carbon black or carbon nanotubes) in its heating element polymer material but does not explicitly show that the conductive material comprises 3 wt% to 40 wt% of a total weight of the heating element.
Batliwalla discloses it is known to provide a PTC heating element having a polymer material wherein the conductive material can be 5 wt% to 50 wt% of the heating element composition wherein an amount of the conductive material is selected to achieve a desired resistivity (also, see column 4, line 57 to column 5, line 5).
In view of Batliwalla, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified by Baigrie and Levesque with the conductive material that comprises in the 3 wt% to 40 wt% of a total weight of the heating element as a matter of routine operations to achieve a desired resistive of the heating element, which depends on the amount of the conductive material selected, that would predictably control its resistant heating capacity as known in the art.
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Duijsens discloses that the thermally conductive material comprise carbon black (para 0012) wherein Batliwalla also discloses that the conductive material can be carbon black that comprises 5 wt% to 50 wt%, or 10 wt% to 40 wt%, or 15 wt% to 30 wt% (column 4, line 57 to column 5, line 5) which overlaps with the claimed range as recited in claims 16 and 17, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens with the conductive material in the claimed range as a matter of routine operations to achieve a desired resistive of the heating element, which depends on the amount of the conductive material selected, that would predictably control its resistant heating capacity as known in the art.
Claim(s) 32 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque as applied to claims 11, 12, 22, 28, 31, 35 and 37 above and further in view of Sandberg et al (US 6,288,372) and Murase et al (US 2009/0109141).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque discloses the heating cable structure and method claimed including the wires that are spaced apart with the heating element forming a heating core, but Duijsens does not show a PFAS-free, non-olefinic electrically non-conductive polymer spacer that forms an assembly wherein the heating element is in the form of a fiber wrapped around the assembly.
Sandberg shows a self-regulating heating cable with wires (12/14) spaced apart with a polymer spacer (15) that forms an assembly wherein a self-regulating heating element fiber (17’; also, see column 2, lines 52-64, and Figure 4A) wrapped around the assembly wherein Sandberg shows the wires forming an outer edge of the assembly as illustrated in Figure 4A.
Murase discloses it is known to provide an electrically insulating polymer that includes a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such as a ether based polymer including polyester resin as well as polyetherimide (para 0032).
In view of Sandberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified by Baigrie and Levesque with the heating element that can be provided in a fiber wrapped heating element as illustrated in Figure 4A as an alternative and known heating element substitution arrangement to predictably produce the desired self-regulation heating cable via its PTC characteristic as known in the art; and in view of Murase, it would have been obvious to further adapt the polymer space that is made of a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such as polyester resin as well as polyetherimide (which are non-olefinic) as an alternative and substitute insulating polymer material that can predictably provide a good electrical insulating characteristic as known in the art.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque as applied to claims 11, 12, 22, 28, 31, 35 and 37 above and further in view of O’Connor (US 2009/0212040) and Murase et al (US 2009/0109141).
Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque discloses the heating cable claimed including the wires that are spaced apart but does not explicitly show a dielectric insulation surrounding the heating core wherein the dielectric insulation comprises a PFAS-free, non-olefinic polymer material.
O’Connor shows it is known to provide a PTC heating core (8) that is provided with a polymeric insulation (10; also, see para 0005-0007) for protection of the heating core.
Murase discloses it is known to provide an insulating polymer that includes a dielectric polymer such as a thermoplastic polyester resin which is a FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer such polyester is non-olefinic and FPAS-free. Also, see para 0032.
In view of O’Connor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens ad modified by Baigrie and Levesque with a polymeric insulation that surrounds the heating core for its protection thereof wherein in view of Murase, it would have been obvious to further adapt the polymeric insulation that is made of a thermoplastic polyester material, which is FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer, as an alternative and substitute insulating polymer material that can predictably provide a good insulating characteristic as known in the art.
With respect to claim 34, O’Connor discloses a metallic braid mesh(12) surrounding the dielectric insulation (10), as modified by Murase, and an outer jacket (14) surrounding the metallic braid mesh wherein the outer jacket which is made of a thermoplastic resin (para 0007) can be further made of thermoplastic polyester resin which is FPAS-free, non-olefinic polymer, as an alternative and substitute polymer material that can predictably provide a good insulating characteristic as known in the art.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duijsens in view of Baigrie and Levesque as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Thrash (US 5,801,914).
Duijsens in Baigrie discloses a heat tracing system claimed including the self-regulating electrical heating cable but does not show a heat trace thermostat that is coupled to a power source and to the self-regulating heating cable as claimed.
Thrash shows it is known to provide a thermostat (48) that is electrically coupled to a power source via a plug (24) and to a self-regulating heating element (PTC heating element 12) to regulate electrical current flowing into the self-regulating heating element to control its heating temperature. Also, see column 5, lines 40-62.
In view of Thrash, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Duijsens as modified Baigrie and Levesque with a thermostat coupled to a power source and to the heating core so that a desired set heating temperature of the heating core can be predictably achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Baigrie, Applicant argues Baigrie does not attribute thermal stability to the presence of amorphous thermoplastic resin wherein the reliance of “improved thermal stability” as a motivation to modify Duijens lacks articulated reasoning with rationale underpinning.
This argument is not deemed persuasive as Baigrie discloses for a conductive polymer composition that exhibits PTC characteristics wherein the polymer composition includes amorphous resin including polyetherimide silicone/siloxane wherein such composition is disclosed to provide thermal stability when exposed to successive/multiple thermal cycles (as disclosed in the Abstract) wherein as Duijsens discloses for the heating element that is based on the polymer material exhibiting PTC characteristics, the combination would have predictably yield the polymer material of the heating element that would also be provided with an improved thermal stability when exposed successive or multiple thermal/heating cycle. As Duijsens and Baigrie both relate to a polymer composition that exhibits PTC characteristics, Duijsens and Baigrie are deemed to be in the same field of endeavor which would predictably yield the self-regulating heating cable as stated in the ground of rejection.
All other arguments, based on the Applicant’s arguments above, are not deemed persuasive for the reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights