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 § 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 ( 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 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)(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. Claim(s) 16, 20-22, 25 , 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (US 4631976) . Noda discloses the invention in reference to claim: 16 . A vehicle steering wheel comprising: a rim 3 , 2 to be gripped by a driver of the vehicle; a trim casing 21 arranged to cover a body 5 of the rim 3 so as to at least partially form an outer surface of the rim 3 ; a flexible heating device 7 inserted between the trim casing 21 and the body 5 of the rim 3 , 2 , comprising at least one heating track 13 , wherein the heating track 13 is a surface track (wire secured to) deposited on the flexible heating device 7 , and in that the body 5 of the rim 3, 2 comprises at least one groove 5a arranged so as to house at least one part 14 of the flexible heating device 7 , said at least one part comprising a portion 14 of the surface track 13 . 20 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the part of the flexible heating device housed in the groove and comprising a portion of the surface track has at least one specific area in which the heating track is convoluted. 21 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 20, wherein the surface track in said specific area housed in the groove comprises at least one curve of the heating track greater than 90°. See fig. 2 22 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 20, wherein the surface track in said specific area housed in the groove comprises two curves of the heating track which are greater than 90° and are opposite one another. See fig. 2 25 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the part of the flexible heating device housed in the groove comprises a specific area in which a distance between two heating track portions is smaller than an average distance between heating track portions. See at 26 in figure 10 30 . A motor vehicle comprising a vehicle steering wheel, said vehicle steering wheel comprising: a rim to be gripped by a driver of the vehicle; a trim casing arranged to cover a body of the rim so as to at least partially form an outer surface of the rim; a flexible heating device inserted between the trim casing and the body of the rim, comprising at least one heating track, wherein the heating track is a surface track deposited on the flexible heating device, and in that the body of the rim comprises at least one groove arranged so as to house at least one part of the flexible heating device, said at least one part comprising a portion of the surface track. See claim 16 mutatis mutandis. 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 factual inquiries 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. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim (s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 4631976) . Noda discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim: 17 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the flexible heating device 7 is arranged so as to deliver a target surface heating power (to the circumferential aspect of the heated wheel) , and wherein the part of the flexible heating device housed in the groove 5a and comprising a portion 14 of the surface track has at least one specific area (spoke) in which a specific surface heating power is different from the target surface heating power. Although not explicitly disclosed by Noda, the skilled artisan would understand the heating power along the circumferential aspect of the wheel would be intentionally higher than that at the spoked area where the groove is presented. 18 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 17, wherein the target surface heating power is defined by a total electrical power of the heating track divided by a surface to be heated of the rim located opposite the heating track and delimited by an external perimeter of the heating track, and wherein the specific area has a surface area of between 50 mm.sup.2 and 25 mm.sup.2. Generally, the change is size ( area ) of a heating means would be an obvious design decision to one of skill in the art, as such the provision of a specific heating area ha ving a surface area of between 50 mm.sup.2 and 25 mm.sup.2 would have been obvious to the artisan dependent on the preferred size of the heating wheel. 19 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 17, wherein the specific surface heating power in the specific area is different from the target surface heating power by at least 30%. Generally, the change heating power of a heating means would be an obvious design decision to one of skill in the art, as such the provision of a specific heating area ha ving a heating power that is different from the target surface heating power by at least 30% would have been obvious to the artisan dependent on the preferred heating capability of the heating wheel. Claim (s) 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 4631976 ) in view of Draxlmaier, Sr. (US 5205186) . Noda teaches the claimed invention except in reference to claim : 27 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the trim casing comprises at least two parts interconnected by a seam, leaving edges of the two parts free on a reverse side of the trim casing, and the seam and/or the free edges are at least partly arranged in said groove of the body of the rim. Draxlmaier discloses a steering when construction including a trim casing 5 comprises at least two parts interconnected by a seam (see figure 5a) , leaving edges of the two parts free on a reverse side of the trim casing, and the seam and/or the free edges 6d are at least partly arranged in said groove of the body of the rim 2 . In general, the provision of portions of a steering wheel trim casing in multiple parts seamed together is well known and the use of a groove to house the free ends of the seamed joint is similarly well known, as such the artisan would have found such a construction as an equivalent option for the device taught by Noda. 29 . The vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein: the trim casing comprises four seams oriented in a transverse direction of the rim, each seam leaving free edges of parts of the trim casing on a reverse side of the trim casing, the body of the rim comprises four transverse grooves, each for at least partly accommodating the seam and/or the edges of each seam, the heating track is arranged so as to define at least four specific areas which are each opposite the seams of the trim casing, so that each of the four specific areas is arranged in a groove accommodating the edges and/or a seam. See claim 27 mutatis mutandis with respect to the duplication of parts regarding grooves and seams. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 23-24, 26, 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4776 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712705569 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /THOR S CAMPBELL/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761 tsc