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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“control circuit is configured to automatically read the circuit resistance” in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 52 states “The programmable control 170 may then monitor the resistance of the parallel connected circuits with a low voltage sensor connection.” The control circuit will be interpreted to have a low voltage sensor connection to automatically read the resistance.
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.
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 § 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) 1-2 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corona (US 20160192442 A1) in view of Gruber (EP 3726926 A1), Robst (US 8173938 B2), and Yamamoto (JP H07293912 A).
Claim 1. Corona discloses a heat mat system (heat mats, abstract) comprising: a heat mat (heat mat 10, Fig. 1) having:
a first layer of poly vinyl chloride (plastic sleeve made from 24 gauge poly vinyl chloride, par. 12);
a second layer of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (a layer of polyester material made from PET, par. 12 and 17);
a third layer of a plurality of metal alloy heating circuits and a polymer liquid adhesive (middle layer containing metal alloy wire and polymer liquid adhesive, par. 14);
a fourth layer of PET (an additional layer of polyester material, par. 16);
a fifth layer of poly vinyl chloride (additional plastic sleeve layer made form 24 gauge poly vinyl chloride, par. 17);
a control circuit (control circuit, par. 72) coupled to a source of power and to connection points for the Line and Neutral on the heat mat (control circuit is connected to a power supply, par. 51, Fig. 1),
wherein the control circuit includes a programmable control configured to regulate heat generated by the plurality of heating circuits
wherein the control circuit is configured to
Corona does not disclose wherein Line and Neutral conductors extend along a longitudinal length of the heat mat and multiple parallel connected heating circuits are coupled to the Line and Neutral; and
wherein each of the multiple parallel connected heating circuits are longitudinally spaced apart from each such that the heat mat is adapted to be severable along predefined cut points indicated on the exterior of the heat mat such that the length of the heat mat may be adjusted to a length corresponding to one of the predefined cut points.
Gruber discloses a heating mat wherein Line (4a) and Neutral (4b) conductors extend along a longitudinal length of the heat mat and multiple parallel connected heating circuits (secondary conductor tracks in parallel 5a and 5b with inner conductor tracks 7, Fig. 2) are coupled to the Line and Neutral (conductor tracks 4a and 4b extend in a longitudinal direction of the heating mat, Fig. 1); and
wherein each of the multiple parallel connected heating circuits are longitudinally spaced apart from each (the secondary conductor tracks 5a and 5b are longitudinally spaced apart) such that the heat mat is adapted to be severable along predefined cut points (cutting line “s” run transverse to the heat mat, Fig. 1) indicated on the exterior of the heat mat such that the length of the heat mat may be adjusted to a length corresponding to one of the predefined cut points (cutting lines allow the heat mat to be cut to size, par. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Corona to incorporate the teachings of Gruber and have parallel heating circuits with cutting lines. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing the heating mat to be cut to size (par. 14, Gruber).
Corona in view of Gruber does not disclose where the heat regulated is based on a set power per unit of heat mat area wherein the control circuit is configured to automatically read circuit resistance and adjust power output from the source of power to the heat mat so as to maintain the power output at the set power per unit of heat mat area regardless of adjustment to the length of the heat mat.
Robst discloses a controller for a heating cable (Fig. 1) wherein the controller adjusts the power supplied to the heating cable in response to the length of the cable connected to the controller (col 10, lines 40-45) wherein the length of the cable is estimated by measuring the resistance of the heating cable (col 11 lines 20-22) by measuring the voltage across a low resistance resistor (col 11 lines 45-50).
Yamamoto discloses floor heating device wherein the heat generation density can be adjusted to improve the comfort and usability (par. 38)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Corona in view of Gruber to incorporate the teachings of Robst and Yamamoto and have a circuit that measures the resistance in the heating mat to determine the length of the mat and adjust the power density accordingly. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the comfort and usability (par. 38, Yamamoto). While Robst discloses adjusting for the total power, one of ordinary skill in the art would see that Robst’s method of calculating the cable length through resistance and adjusting the power as relevant teaching to cutting a heating mat and adjusting power to the heating mat.
Claim 2. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heat mat system according to claim 1, wherein the first layer of poly vinyl chloride and the fifth layer of poly vinyl chloride are provided having a thickness of at least 10 mils (24 gauge poly vinyl chloride is 0.24 mm or 9.5 mils).
While Corona does not disclose a 10 mils poly vinyl layer, 9.5 mils is close to 10 mils. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim 6. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heat mat system according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive, the metal alloy and the PET layers comprise a fuse such that the adhesive delaminates the PET layers at temperatures above about 300*F causing the metal alloy to break causing an open circuit in the area of the delamination (claim 13).
Claim 7. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein said metal alloy wire comprises copper, nickel, stainless steel or combinations thereof (claim 11).
Claim 8. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive is selected from the group consisting of:
a toluene solvent-evaporated cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive (solvent blend including toluene comprises a self-crosslinking polymer liquid, claim 15 and 18);
a heptane solvent-evaporated cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive;
an isopropanol solvent- evaporated cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive;
an acetone solvent-evaporated cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive; and
an ethanol solvent-evaporated cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive.
Claim 9. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive is an air and solvent-degassed cured acrylic based crosslinked polymer adhesive (liquid adhesive can be degassed to allow the self-crosslinking acrylic polymer adhesive bond to the PET films, par. 44).
Claim 10. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein said poly vinyl chloride layers are heat fused together around the periphery of the pad (claim 19).
Claim 11. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heat mat system according to claim 10, wherein the heating mat system is suitable for use in a damp or wet environment (heat mat is capable of being used in a damp or wet environment).
Claim 12. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein said metal alloy comprises a resistance heating element (claim 10).
Claim 13. Corona in view of Gruber, Robst, and Yamamoto disclose the heating mat system according to claim 1, wherein each of the parallel connected heating circuits are configured in a zig zag type pattern such that the metal alloy connected between the line to the neutral as a heating conductor extends laterally back and forth in an area of the heat mat between the line and neutral conductors (inner conductor track 7 zig zag back and forth in the area between the main conductor track 4a and 4b, Fig. 2, Gruber).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights