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 Amendment
The amendment filed June 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 remain pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are claimed without being shown in any drawing figure:
The “mesh of heating coils” of claim 3,
the “first side of the heating surface” of claim 4,
the “second side of the heating surface” of claim 4, and
the “liquid… being received into the base and the heating surface” of claim 5.
Therefore, these features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the term “hearing assembly”. Examiner assumes this is a typo. For purposes of further examination, examiner interprets that this term intended to read “heating assembly”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the detection of ice and/or snow in claim 1: The sensor of claim 4 is claimed to act “in response to detecting at least one of ice and snow contacting the heating surface”. This is functional language specifying a desired result (in this case, the sensor detecting ice and snow) but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed. See MPEP 2163.03(V).
The specification does not include description of any of the following factors which are likely to be relevant to how the sensor performs the function of detecting ice and snow in contact with the heating surface:
The physical property or properties that are detected by the sensor which indicate contact with ice and snow
The manner in which the sensor distinguishes ice and snow from any other aspects of the environment
The manner in which the sensor detects any property related to the heating surface, as reference character 140 of Fig. 1 shows the sensor (in outline only) lying entirely outside of the heating surface.
Regarding the temperature levels of the two sides of claim 1: The sensor of claim 4 is claimed to “[cause] the heating assembly to automatically increase a temperature level of a first side of the heating surface in contact with the at least one of ice and snow to greater than the temperature level of a second side of the heating surface”. This is functional language specifying a desired result (the temperature level of a first side contacting ice and/or snow exceeding the temperature level of a second side) but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed. See MPEP 2163.03(V).
The specification does not include description of any of the following factors which are likely to be relevant to the sensor causing the heating assembly to increase the temperature level a first side of the heating surface in contact with ice and/or snow to greater than the temperature level of a second side:
The manner in which any side of the heating surface is detected to be in contact with ice and/or snow (as discussed above)
The sides which either are, or may be, a first side or a second side: Fig. 1 does not individually distinguish any sides from heating surface 121, and Fig. 2 does not individually distinguish any sides from heating surface 221
The manner in which multiple sides of the single heating surface are heated independently
The manner in which the temperatures of multiple sides are sensed independently
The manner in which multiple sides inherently have different temperatures when heated by a single heater, thus removing the need for multiple independent heaters
The manner in which a single sensor can both distinguish contact with ice and snow and measure the temperature differential between multiple sides, thus removing the need for multiple independent sensors.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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, and 6 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 claim 1: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 1 includes the term “a temperature gauge”. Per Merriam Webster, the ordinary meaning of a “gauge” is “an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing” such as “a graduated scale or dial for measuring or indicating quantity” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge, accessed March 17, 2015) thus a “temperature gauge” would ordinarily measure or indicate some temperature. The “temperature gauge” of claim 1 is claimed as some manner of control input, as it has “at least one temperature setting” on which adjustment of the temperature of the heating surface is based. No manner of temperature measurement, or indication of a temperature measurement, is claimed or disclosed.
The specification does not clearly redefine the term “temperature gauge” to be a control input. This makes the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether an ordinary temperature gauge performs the function of a control input, and it is unclear whether there is any structure that conforms to the ordinary meaning of a “temperature gauge”.
For purposes of further examination, examiner interprets that any manner of control input (for example, a button, knob, or switch) that meets all other limitations of the “temperature gauge” of claim 1 can be considered to be temperature gauge.
Further regarding claim 1: Per Merriam Webster, the term “sensor” ordinarily means “a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control)” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensor, accessed March 17, 2025). In this sense, examiner understands “sensor” in its common meaning to be distinct from a controller, as transmitting an impulse to a controller is different from being a controller. The “sensor” of claim 4 is claimed to have the function of a controller, as the operation of the heater is responsive to the condition of the heating surface.
The specification does not clearly redefine the term “sensor” to be a controller. This makes the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether an ordinary sensor performs the claimed functions, and it is unclear whether there is any structure meeting the ordinary meaning of a sensor.
For the purposes of further examination, examiner interprets that any structure meeting the limitations of claim 1 can be considered a sensor.
Further regarding claim 1: Claim 1 contains the following three limitations:
“a temperature level of the heating surface”,
“a temperature level of a first side of the heating surface”, and
“a temperature level of a second side of the heating surface”
The claim further sets forth the limitation that “the temperature level of a first side of the heating surface” is greater than “the temperature level of a second side of the heating surface”. This makes the claim indefinite, because any of the following conflicting interpretations are possible:
Claim 1 contains three distinct limitations corresponding to three distinct temperature levels.
Claim 1 contains two distinct temperature levels on the first and second sides, and the sensor “adjust[ing] the temperature level of the heating surface” can be considered the same as “increas[ing] the temperature level of a first side of the heating surface”.
Claim 1 contradicts itself, as the heating surface cannot have a single “temperature level of the heating surface” and also have two different temperature levels on two distinct sides.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatt et al. (US Patent No. 5,973,294 A) in view of Gelle (Canadian Patent No. 2,885,364 C) and Schmaenk et al. (German Publication No. 10052281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schatt discloses the following:
An ice melting device, (heated windshield scraper device 10, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a pole; (neck portion 23, stem portion 24, and handle unit 12, Fig. 1)
a heating assembly, (head portion 22 with scraper blade 20) comprising:
a base (head portion 22, Fig. 1) disposed on at least a portion of a first end of the pole, (head portion 22 mounted on end of pole at neck portion 23, Fig. 1) and
a heating surface (scraper blade 20, Fig. 1, heated by heating wire elements 43 in “direct contact with scraper blade member 20”, col. 3 lines 1-2) connected to the base (scraper blade 20 connected to head 22, Fig. 1)
to melt at least one of ice and snow (Examiner interprets that heated scraper blade 20 will melt ice and snow as soon as it is in contact with ice and snow) disposed on at least one window (scraper blade 20 is component of heated windshield scraper 10. Examiner holds windshield scraper can be used on a windshield with ice and snow) of a vehicle (Examiner interprets that a windshield is at least one window of a vehicle) in response to contact with the at least one of ice and snow; (Examiner interprets that heated scraper blade 20 will melt ice and snow as soon as it is in contact with ice and snow)
and a temperature gauge (heat intensity control buttons 44, Fig. 1, 3, and 4)
configured to adjust a temperature level of the heating surface (heat intensity control buttons 44 "are used to control the amount of current and therefore the amount of heat that is delivered to both the scraper blade member 20 and the handle member 30 in a well recognized fashion" col. 3 lines 10-13) based on at least one temperature setting of the temperature gauge (heat intensity control buttons 44 provide temperature settings low medium, and high, Fig. 1 and col. 3 line 10).
Schatt does not disclose that the heat intensity control buttons 44 are “movably disposed on at least a portion of the base”.
Gelle teaches a heated windshield snow pusher with a temperature gauge (snow pusher, Fig. 1, with high/low switch 5, Fig. 1) movably disposed (Examiner interprets that high/low switch 5 is a sliding switch, and can be considered movably disposed) on at least a portion of a base (Examiner interprets high/low switch 5 is on the heat pad, which can be considered a base. High/low switch 5 is on the same structure as battery slot 7, Fig. 1, and "heat pad 9 includes battery slot 7", par. 13)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heated windshield scraper of Schatt so that heat intensity is controlled by a sliding switch mounted on the base of the scraper as taught by Gelle for the purpose of reducing likelihood that a heat intensity is accidentally changed by a user gripping the handle of the scraper during use.
Schatt in view of Gelle is silent concerning “a sensor disposed within at least a portion of the base to control the heating assembly to adjust the temperature level of the heating surface in response to detecting the at least one of ice and snow contacting the heating surface, such that the sensor causes the heating assembly to automatically increase a temperature level of a first side of the heating surface in contact with the at least one of ice and snow to greater than the temperature level of a second side of the heating surface opposite with respect to the first side”.
Schmaenk teaches a heated ice scraper device with the following features:
a sensor (heating element 20, Fig. 1b. Heating element may be a "positive temperature coefficient PTC resistance element", par. 13) disposed within at least a portion of the base (heating element 20 located in a portion of edge region 16, Fig. 1b) to control the heating assembly to adjust the temperature level (heating element 20 "in particular heats the edge 18", par. 26. Examiner interprets that the heating element 20 can be considered to control itself, as it is a PTC resistance element with an "inherent thermostat effect", as discussed in par. 13) of the heating surface (flat underside surface 22, Fig. 1b, including acute-angled edge 18 and rear edge, not numbered) in response to detecting the at least one of ice and snow contacting the heating surface, ("when the heating element cools down, i.e. when the edge area comes into contact with the ice, it automatically increases its power consumption due to its inherent thermostat effect and in this way tries to maintain the original temperature", par. 13) such that the sensor causes the heating assembly to automatically increase a temperature level (Examiner interprets that "maintaining the original temperature" after cooling can be considered automatically increasing the temperature level) of a first side of the heating surface in contact with the at least one of ice and snow(edge 18 can be considered a first side of the surface 22, Fig. 1b) to greater than the temperature level of a second side of the heating surface (Examiner interprets that temperature of edge 18 is higher than that of the rear edge of surface 22, as heating element 20 "in particular heats the edge 18", par. 26) opposite with respect to the first side (rear edge, not numbered, of surface 22 can be considered a second side of surface 22 located opposite with respect to edge 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scraper blade 20 and head 22 of Schatt to have preferentially heated acute edge 18, and to modify the heating elements of Schatt so they are PTC heating elements, both taught by Schmaenk, for the purpose of reducing "unnecessary loss-making heat transfer" to areas of the base that are not the acute edge 18 (Schmaenk par. 14). This is preferable as reducing unnecessary losses can increase battery life and allow for more use of a heated windshield scraper before recharging is necessary.
Regarding claim 2, Schatt in view of Gelle and Schmaenk as applied to claim 1 teaches all elements of the apparatus of claim 1. Schatt further discloses the following:
wherein the pole (neck portion 23, stem portion 24, and handle unit 12, Fig. 1) comprises:
a first section; (handle unit 12, Fig. 1 and 2) and
a second section (stem portion 24, Fig. 1 and 2) movably disposed within at least a portion of the first section (stem portion 24 is movably disposed with handle unit 12, as collar element 35 of handle unit 12 “is dimensioned to slidably receive the stem element 24”, Fig. 2, col. 2 lines 50-51) to telescopically move (Examiner interprets that the movement of stem portion 24 within handle unit 12 can be considered telescopic) from within the first section in a first position (position with stem portion 24 within handle unit 12 shown in Fig. 1) to at least partially away from the first section in a second position, (position with stem portion 24 at least partially away from handle unit 12 shown in Fig. 2) and move from away from the first section in the second position to within the first section in the first position (Examiner interprets that the bidirectional arrow of Fig. 2 represents bidirectional movement between the positions of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Schatt in view of Gelle and Schmaenk as applied to claim 1 teaches all elements of the apparatus of claim 1. Schatt further discloses the following:
wherein the heating surface uses a mesh of heating coils (plurality of heating wire elements 43 are a plurality of coils, col. 2 lines 5-7) to increase a temperature level of the heating surface (heating wire elements are in direct contact with scraper blade 20, col. 2 line 65 to col. 3 line 2, and deliver heat to the scraper blade, col. 3 lines 11-12).
Examiner interprets PTC heating elements may be coil shaped, thus the heating elements of Schatt in view of Gelle and Schmaenk can be both coil shaped and PTC elements.
Regarding claim 6, Schatt in view of Gelle and Schmaenk as applied to claim 1 teaches all elements of the apparatus of claim 1. Schatt further discloses the following:
a handle (handle member 30, Fig. 1) disposed on a second end of the pole (handle member 30 disposed on end of pole opposite head 22, Fig. 1) to facilitate gripping thereof (handle member 30 includes hand grip surface 32, Fig. 1) and to adjust a length of the pole (handle member 30 includes push button 38, which "will override the detent mechanism 37 such that the scraper unit 11 can be extended and retracted relative to the handle unit 12 in a well recognized fashion", col. 2 lines 58-61).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatt et al. (US Patent No. 5,973,294 A) in view of Gelle (Canadian Patent No. 2,885,364 C) and Schmaenk et al. (German Publication No. 10052281 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deane et al. (US Patent No. 6,969,828 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Schatt in view of Gelle as applied to claim 1 teaches all elements of the apparatus of claim 1.
Schatt in view of Gelle does not teach “a liquid receiving barrier disposed on at least a portion of the base to receive a liquid into the base and the heating surface, such that the temperature level of the heating surface changes based on changing a temperature level of the liquid”.
Deane teaches a heated ice scraper with the following features:
a liquid receiving barrier (blade conduits 50, Fig. 5) disposed on at least a portion of the base (blade conduits 50 are disposed in blade member 2b, Fig. 5) to receive a liquid into the base ("The blade conduits 50 are capable of receiving the window de-icer" col. 6 lines 16-18. Conduits 50 extend into blade member 2b, Fig. 5) and the heating surface, (blade conduits 50 extend into forward edge of blade member 2b, Fig. 5, which can be considered a heating surface: "a blade member having an outer periphery and a forward edge, with a scraper blade formed in said forward edge for scraping ice from a surface", col. 2 lines 46-48) such that the temperature level of the heating surface changes (Examiner interprets that the heated window de-icer fluid of Deane passing through and in contact with the heating surface by way of blade conduits 50, will change the temperature level of the heating surface) based on changing a temperature of a liquid (window de-icer container 24, Fig. 5, is adjacent to heating unit 42, shown Fig. 5, numbered in Fig. 4. Examiner interprets that heating unit 42 is changing a temperature level of the liquid by heating it)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scraper of Schatt in view of Gelle with the conduits 50, de-icer container 24, and heating unit 42 as taught by Deane for the purpose of providing a "multipurpose ice scraper" capable of "dispensing de-icer to... a surface such as a windshield" (Deane col. 1 lines 20-23). This is preferable because heated de-icer fluid can melt the ice and snow in order to facilitate removal by the scraper.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the amendments have addressed the 112 rejections:
Examiner has withdrawn the 112(b) rejections to claims 3, as the issues were resolved by amendment.
Examiner has withdrawn the 112(a) and (b) rejections to claim 4 due to its cancellation. However, similar elements are claimed in both original claim 4 and amended claim 1.
The terminology which received an antecedent basis rejection in original claim 4 has not been repeated in amended claim 1, so there is no similar rejection to amended claim 1. All other 112 rejections to original claim 4 have been applied to similar claim elements in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 112 rejections that are maintained in this rejection are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the amendments resolve the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, without specifically addressing any of the concerns raised in those rejections.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments concerning the 102 rejection of original claim 1:
These arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claim 1 in view of Schatt, Gelle, and Schmaenk, as discussed in the 103 rejection of amended claim 1. Examiner notes that these grounds of rejection are similar to the grounds of rejection of original claim 4.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments concerning 103 rejections:
These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761