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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 12/16/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 16-17 has /have been amended, claims 13-14 has /have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 15-17 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-12 and 15-17 are as follow.
The previous Claim Objections and objections to the specification are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims and the specification with no new matter added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because under the amended Fig 1, a numerical 5 pointed at an empty area. 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. 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 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.
Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a braided and flattened electrical lead” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a braided and flattened electrical lead” and a lead mentioned in line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the heating blanket or coating” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the heating blanket or coating” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Ritter (US 2010/0206863 A1).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (US 2010/0206863 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ritter discloses a resistive heater system comprising a lead for high strain applications, comprising:
a resistive heating blanket or coating (electrically conductive flexible sheet material, [0033], comprising a polymer-bound electrically conductive coating 2 on a flexible electrically nonconductive sheetlike carrier 1, [0036], Fig 1);
a braided and flattened electrical lead (supply lines 4, [0033], connect any desired electrical leads 4, particularly the connection to metal cable, for example braided cable, [0077]) connected to the resistive heating blanket or coating at one end of the braided and flattened electrical lead (details see Fig 1);
wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead between 70 to 110° (see Fig 1). Note: Ritter do not explicitly disclose that wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead between 70 to 110°; however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange an angle in the lead between 70 to 110°, since such a configurations would have involved an angle change in the electrical lead, a change in angle of a fooled-over section in the electrical lead is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. Page 2 line 2)
Claim 2, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead between 80 to 100° (see Fig 1), and
Claim 3, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead of 85 to 95° (see Fig 1). Note: Ritter do not explicitly disclose that Claim 2, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead between 80 to 100° (see Fig 1). Claim 3, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprising a folded-over section forms an angle in the lead between 85 to 95°; however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange an angle in the lead, since such a configurations would have involved an angle change in the electrical lead, a change in angle of a fooled-over section in the electrical lead is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. Page 2 line 2).
Claim 4, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprises two ends, a first end and a second end (4 comprises two ends, a first end and a second end, Fig 1), and wherein the first end is connected to the heating blanket or coating (details see Fig 1) and wherein the second end is connected to a power source (at least two electrodes 3 for supplying electric current, [0036], Fig 1. Clearly, second end of 4 is connected to the power source).
Claim 5, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead has a length (4 has a length, Fig 1) and wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead is attached to a substrate (4 is attached to a substrate, Fig 1) over at least 80% of the length of the braided and flattened electrical lead (see Fig 1).
Claim 7, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead comprises a protective polymeric overcoating (electrically conductive coating further comprises a polymeric binder… is capable of forming a coherent film on a surface, [0051]).
Claim 8, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead is a flattened copper braid (braided cable composed of copper, [0098]).
Claim 9, wherein the folded-over section forms approximately an isosceles right triangle with sides of between 2 mm to 2 cm (see Fig 1). Note: Ritter do not explicitly disclose that Claim 9, wherein the folded-over section forms approximately an isosceles right triangle with sides of between 2 mm to 2 cm; however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the folded-over section forms approximately an isosceles right triangle with sides of between 2 mm to 2 cm, since such an arrangement would have involved a triangle shape and a length change in the folded-over section, a change in triangle shape and a length change of a section is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. Page 5 line 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ritter with Burton et al.’s further teaching of Claims 1-5 and 7-9; because Ritter teaches, in Para. [0020], of providing an excellent electrically conductive, flexible web material with electrically conductive coating consists essentially of a polymeric binder and an electrically conductive powder in a powder anti-icing laminated resistive heaters, greatly improved aircraft safety during operation.
Claims 6, 10-12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter (US 2010/0206863 A1) in view of Burton et al. (US 2014/0070054 Al).
Regarding Claims 6, 10-12 and 15-17, Ritter discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 6, 10-12 and 15-17.
Burton et al. teach an Anti-icing, de-icing, and heating configuration (See Title), and Claim 6, wherein the heating blanket or coating (Laminated resistive heaters… may be used in warming blankets; all-weather boots; and in use for de-icing of aircraft wings at high altitude, [0008]. Note: “the heating blanket or coating” taught by Ritter already) is attached to a surface of an airfoil (cross-section of an aircraft wing 112, central heater 122 at the stagnation zone, lower heaters 114 and 116, upper heaters 118 and 120, [0054], Fig 1).
Claim 10, A rotor blade comprising the resistive heater system of claim 1 (such heaters may be suitable for ice protection systems on aerospace structures, windmill blades or other like structures, [0009]. Note: “the resistive heater system” taught by Ritter already).
Claim 11, An aircraft comprising the resistive heater system of claim 1 (a cross-section of an aircraft wing with a central heater 122 at the stagnation zone, and upper and lower heaters, [0026], Fig 1. Note: “the resistive heater system” taught by Ritter already).
Claim 12, wherein the aircraft is a helicopter, drone, or airplane (an airplane nosecone with 3 radial heating lines and 3 heating panels, [0033], Fig 8).
Claim 15, wherein the braided and flattened electrical lead is not set in a matrix and remains free to stretch (electrically conductive flexible sheet material, [0033], Ritter).
Claim 16, wherein an electrical connection (at least one electrical connector for connecting devices for processing the electrical signals, [0028]) between a power source (the intended power input of electrical energy, [0070], Note: “a power source” are not belonged to “a resistive heater system” as claimed) and the resistive heating blanket or coating (use in a heating blanket, [0025]) consists essentially of the braided and flattened electrical lead (invention of the electrically conductive flexible sheet material with supply lines 4, [0033], at least two electrodes 3 for supplying electric current, [0036], Fig 1, Ritter).
Claim 17, wherein an electrical connection (at least one electrical connector for connecting devices for processing the electrical signals, [0028]) between a power source (the intended power input of electrical energy, [0070], Note: “a power source” are not belonged to “a resistive heater system” as claimed) and the resistive heating blanket or coating (use in a heating blanket, [0025]) consists of the braided and flattened electrical lead (invention of the electrically conductive flexible sheet material with supply lines 4, [0033], at least two electrodes 3 for supplying electric current, [0036], Fig 1, Ritter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ritter with Burton et al.’s further teaching of Claims 6, 10-12 and 15-17; because Burton et al. teach, in Abstract, of providing an excellent anti-icing laminated resistive heaters, greatly improved aircraft safety during operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761