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 § 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 1-3, 5-8, and 14-19 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, and 14-19, claim 1 recites contacting means for forming at least one closed circuit. It is unclear if the scope of the claim requires the contacting means to be solely responsible for forming at least one closed circuit, or if the contacting means forms a portion of the at least one closed circuit.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim requires at least one closed circuit to be formed, or merely capable of being formed via the contacting means.
Additionally, the claim further recites at least one coupling fibre strand adapted to contact couple for contacting coupling of the energy-delivering fibre strands with the electrically conductive fibre strands and/or of the contacting means with the electrically conductive fibre strands. The verbiage of the claim is unclear, as it is unclear what structure is required based on the recitation of the strand “adapted to contact couple for contacting coupling” of the strands.
Additionally, claims 1, 15, and 16 recite “the contacting fibre strands.” Claim 1 does not recite “a contacting fibre strand.” Therefore, the recitation of “the contacting fibre strands” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, the claim does not require strands to be in contact. It is unclear what structure is intended by the claims.
Claim Interpretation
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.
For purposes of examination, the recitation of “contacting means for forming at least one closed circuit” applying to claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 14-16 meet the aforementioned three-prong test and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-3, 6-8 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2844030 to Locher in view of KR 2010/0119534 to Park, as evidenced by the English translation.
Preliminarily, note that claims 7 and 17-19 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, based on the recitation of structure associated with the contacting means.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8 and 14-19, Locher teaches a heating fabric which provides a reliable heating effect and can be flexibly dimensioned, comprising threads running in the warp and weft direction, with at least some of the threads being designed as electrically conductive threads (Locher, paragraph 0001). Locher teaches designing the heating fabric in the area of the connecting wire as a hollow fabric, wherein the hollow fabric section comprises at least two separate fabric areas that are insulated or can be insulated from one another with an insulating separating layer (Id., paragraphs 0010-0011, 0020). Locher teaches that the hollow fabric section allows two connecting strands of opposite polarity to be arranged on one and the same edge region of the area of the fabric to be heated (Id., paragraph 0016). Locher teaches a base fabric with non-conductive weft and warp threads (Id., paragraph 0039), wherein a plurality of electrically conductive threads is woven into the non-conductive base fabric (Id., paragraph 0040). Locher teaches that the fabric comprises a connection area with connecting strands comprising copper or silver strands (Id., paragraph 0041). Locher teaches that to produce a circuit, the electrically conductive threads are electrically connected to one another by means of a high-resistance conductor medium, wherein the medium is formed by a large number of high-resistance threads running in the warp direction transversely to the electrically conductive threads, producing uniform heating (Id., paragraph 0045). Note that the electrically conductive material are within the scope of the claimed contacting means.
Locher teaches that for reliable contact between the high-resistance thread and the electrically conductive threads, it is preferred that the high-resistance thread is wrapped by at least one pair of threads of the electrically conductive threads. Locher does not appear to clearly indicate the claimed coupling fiber strand. However, Park teaches a similar woven heating element in which a fabric is formed by weaving by plane crossing arrangement of warp yarns and weft yarns, wherein any of the warp or weft yarns is replaced with an electric resistance wire at regular intervals, and conductor wires are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the electric resistance wire at both ends of the fabric, and the ends of the conductor wires arranged at both ends of the fabric (Park, paragraphs 0010, 0012, Figures 2 and 3). Park teaches an overlapping portion where metal braided lines overlap, and sewing them with sewing thread (Id.), wherein the sewing thread is not limited but in particular fibers such as aramid fiber, fluorine fiber, and the like are preferred (Id., paragraph 0025). Note that the fibers are not recited as electrically conductive. Park teaches that the conductor wire and metal braided line are sewn to maintain compression strength (Id., paragraph 0010). Park teaches that the electrical resistance wire is preferably a metal resistance wire, metal thread, or carbon fiber (Id., paragraph 0013). Park teaches that the conductor wire is preferably copper, aluminum or stainless steel wire (Id., paragraph 0014). Park teaches that the metal braided wire is a braided product made of copper, aluminum or stainless steel wire (Id., paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heating fabric of Locher, wherein the fabric includes a separate sewing thread connecting the high-resistance thread and the electrically conductive threads, such as an aramid or fluorine fiber, as taught by Park, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heating fabric comprising a structure known in the art to additionally maintain compression strength. As best Examiner can determine, based on the unknown identity of the contacting fibre strands, such a structure appears to be within the scope of the claimed invention.
Note that the recitations of the strands “for conducting electrical energy” and the strands “for heating the environment” are interpreted as the strands being capable of performing as claimed and are not interpreted as positive limitations, since the claim does not positively recite that electrical energy is conducted or that the environment is heated, nor do the claims recite connection of the heating textile to an electrical or other energy source to accomplish such a purpose.
Regarding the limitation wherein the insulating element serves for decoupling between the spaced contacts and the electrically conductive fibre elements to avoid a short circuit at the points of intersection, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the non-conductive weft and warp threads of the prior art appear to behave as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches a fabric of warp and weft yarns (Locher, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination does not require the fabric to be a crimped fabric.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches that the high-resistance threads are arranged transversely to the electrically conductive threads (Locher, paragraph 0034; Park, paragraphs 0010, 0012, Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 17-19, the prior art combination teaches that the electrically conductive material may be a copper or silver strand (Locher, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 8, note that the textile is necessarily at least of a three-dimensional construction.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches that the heating fabrics are used for seat heating in vehicles (Locher, paragraph 0002).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locher in view of Park, as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 14-19, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0127894 to Hsu.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed cut-out. However, Hsu teaches an electric heating cloth having gaps and a connection structure, comprising plural conductive yarns arranged in a first direction and plural textile yarns and plural metal conductive wires arranged in a second direction for interweaving with the plural conductive yarns (Hsu, Abstract). Hsu teaches that the gaps can guide electrical current direction for forming plural circuit connected in series inside the electric cloth (Id., paragraph 0028), wherein the cloth can be heated to a preferable temperature at a lower voltage and a lower electrical current (Id., paragraph 0030). Hsu teaches that an insulation element can be added to prevent a short circuit caused by connecting plural conductive wires (Id., paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heating fabric of the prior art combination, wherein the fabric includes gaps, as taught by Hsu, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heating fabric comprising a structure known in the art to predictably allow the cloth to be heated to a preferable temperature at a lower voltage and a lower electrical current.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Locher fails to teach that a connection is established between the insulating layer and the crossing strands. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require crossing strands. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what is argued by Applicant. Additionally, as set forth above, it is unclear what is intended by the contacting fibre strands, as the recitation of “the contacting fibre strands” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Applicant argues that Park teaches reducing contact resistance and with that establish contact and allow higher currents between the overlapped wires, whereas the present invention teaches a way to separate the wire strands from one another and achieve electric isolation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require separating wire strands and achieving electric isolation, as the claim requires the contacting fibre strands to be connected by way of the coupling fibre strand with the at least one insulating element. Although the claims are indefinite for the reasons set forth above, as the identity of the contacting fibre strands is unknown, the prior art teaches connecting a separate sewing thread connecting the high-resistance thread and the electrically conductive threads, which would appear to be within the scope of the claim.
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).
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786