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 filed 05/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior art of Arens teaches that pitch in coiled wires is a result effective variable which determines the lateral rigidity and flexibility. Applicant alleges that since this teaching is not to the exact core that the teaching does not apply. This is not the standard of evidence for a result effective variable. Arens teaches that pitch effects rigidity. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this applies to any wound pitched object and does not exclude core wires. As previously described in detail this appears to the examiner to merely be simple physics, as you wrap a wire/cord/rope tighter around an axis and increase the pitch there must be more wire/cord/rope per linear unit area which makes the wire harder to bend (and vice versa, of course).
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) 1-3,6-8 and 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘369 in view of Arens US 2438380.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 11
GB ‘369 teaches:
A heating conductive wire-like element, comprising a core made from synthetic fibers (12, stranded fibre-glass), being twisted in a predetermined “S” direction (Fig. 1, as part of braided strand 12 shown by wrapped wires in Fig. 1, noting that “S” and “Z” direction are art terms) X, a plurality of heating conductive wires (11, 14) around said core (Fig. 1), being wound in a predetermined “Z” direction Y (i.e. the direction shown by the twist in Fig. 1, noting “S” and “Z” are art terms), wherein said predetermined direction X is different from said predetermined direction Y (Fig. 1), and wherein a predetermined number of said heating conductive wires are individually covered with a non-electrically conductive material (the portions 11/14 are covered in their entirety by 13/15). Wherein the heating conductive wires are in a state of being paralleled together (see circuit diagram of Fig. 3). Wherein said plurality of heating conductive wires cover 100% of the surface of the core (in combination with 11,14 and their sheaths; shown at right side, no portion of 12 is visible). Wherein an insulation jacket layer is formed on an outer periphery of the heating conductive wires (13, 15, 15a).
GB ‘369 fails to specifically disclose a pitching of the core is 2mm to 25mm.
Arens discloses that pitch in coiled wires is a result effective variable which determines the lateral rigidity and flexibility (Col. 4, ll. 54-58).
As such it would have been an obvious matter of optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to braid the core to the claimed pitch values in order to yield the desired strength/flexibility and material usage.
Regarding claim 3
GB ‘369 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but teaches that the X direction is an “S” direction and the Y direction is a “Z” direction, thus failing to teach wherein said predetermined direction X is Z-direction and said predetermined direction Y is S- direction.
There are two ways that fibers/wires, etc.. can be twisted the “S” or “Z” direction (art terms for clockwise/anti-clockwise rotation). Applicant has not claimed any criticality between the choice of one or the other for “X” and “Y” direction other than that they should be twisted in opposite directions. In fact Applicant in the Specification has recognized the arrangement of claim 3 as functionally equivalent to the arrangement of claim 2 (anticipated by GB ‘638). Since there is no functional difference between the disclosed arrangement of ‘GB 638 (wherein X is “S” and Y is “Z”) and the claimed arrangement (wherein X is “Z” and Y is “S”) modifying GB ‘638 to have the claimed twist directions would have been found obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention as nothing more than an obvious reversal of the twist directions. See MPEP 2144.04, where the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely a reversal or rearrangement of parts that does not result in a functional difference/unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness is supported.
Regarding claim 12
GB ‘369 teaches wherein the resistance of the heating conductive wire should ideally be 65 ohms. While this is a value which is almost certainly within the claimed range of .2 Ohms to 1000 Ohms/meter it is not inherently so as the blanket could, in theory, be exceedingly small (such as for a pet iguana) or large (such as for a sick zoo elephant). That being said, it certainly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the heating wire of GB ‘369 with the claimed ohms/meter ranges as this would from basic mathematics yield blankets having within the range of .330 Kilometers (65 ohms/.2 ohms/meter) of heating wire and 6.5 centimeters of heating wire (65 ohms/1000 ohms/meter) heating wire, thus allowing for the production of nearly all commercially viable sizes of heating blanket.
Regarding claim 13,
The embodiment of Fig. 1 (from GB ‘369) used in the rejections above teaches a rectangular ribbon shaped wire and thus fails to teach a diameter of the heating conductive wire-like element is in a range of .1 to 1 millimeter. The embodiment of Fig. 2 (also GB ‘369) uses round wire AWG 36 (page 5, ll. 30-35; corresponding to .125 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of Fig. 1 with the embodiment of Fig. 2 such that the ribbon wire is replaced with round wire having a .508 mm diameter as this is nothing more than a simple substitution of known heating conductive wire geometries and would have yielded only the predictable result of a wire size/shape known to be suitable for a heating blanket.
Regarding claims 14-18 and 20
GB ‘369 teaches:
A method of making a wire heating element, comprising a core made from synthetic fibers (12, stranded fibre-glass), being twisted in a predetermined “S” direction (Fig. 1, as part of braided strand 12 shown by wrapped wires in Fig. 1, noting that “S” and “Z” direction are art terms) X, a plurality of heating conductive wires (11, 14) around said core (Fig. 1), being wound in a predetermined “Z” direction Y (i.e. the direction shown by the twist in Fig. 1, noting “S” and “Z” are art terms), wherein said predetermined direction X is different from said predetermined direction Y (Fig. 1), and wherein a predetermined number of said heating conductive wires are individually covered with a non-electrically conductive material (the portions 11/14 are covered in their entirety by 13/15). Wherein the heating conductive wires are in a state of being paralleled together (see circuit diagram of Fig. 3). Wherein said plurality of heating conductive wires cover 100% of the surface of the core (in combination with 11,14 and their sheaths; shown at right side, no portion of 12 is visible). Wherein an insulation jacket layer is formed on an outer periphery of the heating conductive wires (13, 15, 15a).
GB ‘369 fails to specifically disclose a pitching of the core is 2mm to 25mm, or 2 to 20mm, or 2 to 15mm, or 5 to 15mm.
Arens discloses that pitch in coiled wires is a result effective variable which determines the lateral rigidity and flexibility (Col. 4, ll. 54-58).
As such it would have been an obvious matter of optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to braid the core to the claimed pitch values in order to yield the desired strength/flexibility and material usage.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘369 and Arens in view of GB 1,453,030 (hereinafter GB ‘030).
GB ‘369 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but is silent as to the material of the heating conductive wire thus not teaching copper. GB ‘030 teaches braided heating conductive wires made of copper (Page 2 ll. 28-32). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify GB ‘369 such that the heating conductive wires are made of copper as taught by GB ‘030 as when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the selection of a material known to be suitable for an intended function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘369 and Arens USPUB 2015/0257205 (hereinafter USPUB ‘205).
GB ‘369 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, including coating the heating wires with an insulative sheath. As such GB ‘369 does not teach individually lacquering heating wires with resin. However, it is also known, such as from USPUB ‘205 to individually lacquer conductive heating wires with resin (¶ [0014]). As such it would have been nothing more than a simple substitution of known elements having the same purpose (i.e. providing an insulating sheath around a conductive heating wire) to replace the insulative sheath of GB ‘369 with the individually resin lacquered heating wires as taught by USPUB ‘205 yielding only the predictable result of insulated heating conductive wires.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘369 and Arens in view of USPUB 2003/0111454 (hereinafter USPUB ‘454).
GB ‘369 teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, including coating the heating wires with an insulative sheath. As such GB ‘369 does not teach individually insulating the wires with a non-conductive filament. However, it is also known, such as from USPUB ‘454 to provide heating conductive wires with a non-conductive insulation filament (¶ [0105]). As such it would have been nothing more than a simple substitution of known elements having the same purpose (i.e. providing an insulating sheath around a conductive heating wire) to replace the insulative sheath of GB ‘369 with the non-conductive filaments as taught by USPUB ‘454 yielding only the predictable result of insulated heating conductive wires.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 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 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights