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 10/8/2025, with respect to claim objections for claims 4 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 7/10/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/8/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 4 and 13 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 7/10/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Tyson failing to teach “power from the energy storage element to the heater”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Preheating is a form of heating and the examiner interprets any heating done by the invention of Tyson to be a form of heating because preheating, heating, and post heating are merely terms that identify a time frame when a user might decide to wear or interact with a heated garment.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “Tyson solely teaches that the power supply charges a batter that then powers the heating elements”, the claim does not require that the power supply provides power directly to the heater, the power supply provides power indirectly to the heater, since the power supply provides power to the battery, and then the battery provides power to the heater, the power supply therefore provides power to the heater.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards claim 12, the examiner rejects claim 12 below over Tyson because Tyson does have control button 175 which is an LED and is therefore a display and therefore also an illumination member because it is a light.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Van Der Sluys disclosing cancelled claims 14 and 15, Van der Sluys is still interpreted by the examiner to teach a visual indicator.
Regarding applicants arguments towards Van Der Sluys not disclosing an illumination member, the BRI for an illumination member is discussed in the 112(f) interpretation section herein and is interpreted broadly by the examiner to be a light. Therefore, the examiner respectfully interprets that Tyson and Van Der Sluys teach a light. The applicant maintains a very broad disclosure in the specification, claims, and drawings about what an illumination member is and this is why the examiner considers control button 175 of Tyson to also be an illumination member.
Regarding applicants arguments towards claim 18 and the examiner’s interpretation that a second receiver coupled to a second garment body and a second heater are a duplication of parts. The examiner respectfully points out that per MPEP 2144.04 VI(b) Duplication of parts, that the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The examiner respectfully considers that duplicating a receiver, garment body, and heater is not disclosed in the specification to produce a new and unexpected result.
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:
“an energy storage element coupled to the garment body and configured to store charge” in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is being interpreted as item 230 which are per par. 42 is battery packs, battery cells, capacitors, etc.
“an illumination member that is configured to be illuminated” in claims 5, 12, 21, and 23 is being interpreted as items illumination member 940 and 1705 which are per fig. 11b and 19 is a light.
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 § 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.
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.
Claim 1-11, and 21 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, the recitation of “wherein the power supply provides power to the heater to preheat the heater” is unclear as to what level of heat is required to declare something preheated and what amount of time before a user desires to wear a device is required such that said device is considered preheated. Essentially, the term “preheat” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preheat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-11 and 21 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200383395A1 Tyson.
Regarding claim 1, Tyson teaches:
A system for wirelessly charging wearable gear, the system comprising:
a garment body (100);
a heater (165) coupled to the garment body (figs. 1 and 12)(130);
a receiver (145) coupled to the garment body and configured to wirelessly receive power (par. 114);
an energy storage element (140) coupled to the garment body and configured to store charge provided to the receiver (145);
a controller (155) configured to selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the heater (165)(par. 128 teaches the controller controlling heating zones);
and a power supply (par. 112, 114, 130, 131, and 135 as well as figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11a, and 11b teach an AC power and down converting AC power to provide to charging interfaces 230, 330A, 330B, 430A, 430B), including a transmitter (charging interfaces 230, 330A, 330B, 430A, 430B ) configured to wirelessly provide power to the receiver when the transmitter is near the receiver (figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11a, and 11b teach an AC power and down converting AC power to provide to charging interfaces 230, 330A, 330B, 430A, 430B), wherein the power supply provides power to the heater to preheat the heater (the functional recitation of providing power preheat is inherent in the structure of Tyson because an electrical path to heat a heater is already established and the act of preheating is a matter of establishing a time period before a user decides to wear a garment and when a user turns on a garment to be considered preheated, therefore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 2, Tyson teaches,
wherein the power supply is portable and is configured to be coupled to a seat (Tyson teaches a clothes hangers 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 which are capable of being coupled to a seat via hooks 220, 320, 420, and 520).
Regarding claim 6, Tyson teaches:
further comprising:
an external power device (clothing hanger 200) received by the garment body (claim 1) including a second transmitter (230 because the examiner is interpreting a second transmitter as a name change. If the applicant intends there to be a first and second transmitter 330A and 430a are a first transmitter and 330B and 430B are a second transmitter) and configured to wirelessly provide power to the receiver when coupled to the garment body (par. 112 through 114 in the case of 230 being a second transmitter, and par. 131 and 132 in the case of there being first and second transmitters).
Regarding claim 7, Tyson teaches:
further comprising:
an AC power source (par. 112 through 114 in the case of 230 being a second transmitter, and par. 131 and 132 in the case of there being first and second transmitters teach there being an AC power source as do figs. 2, 3, and 4) coupled to a second transmitter (230 because the examiner is interpreting a second transmitter as a name change. If the applicant intends there to be a first and second transmitter 330A and 430a are a first transmitter and 330B and 430B are a second transmitter) and configured to wirelessly provide power to the receiver when the second transmitter is near the receiver to heat the garment body (par. 112 through 114 in the case of 230 being a second transmitter, and par. 131 and 132 in the case of there being first and second transmitters).
Regarding claim 10, Tyson teaches:
wherein the power supply includes a magnet fixed to the transmitter and configured to magnetically attach to the receiver (par. 115).
Regarding claim 12, Tyson teaches:
A heated garment comprising:
a garment body (100);
a heater (165) coupled to the garment body (figs. 1 and 12) (130);
a receiver (145) coupled to the garment body and configured to wirelessly receive power (par. 114);
an energy storage element (140) coupled to the garment body and configured to store charge provided to the receiver (145);
and a controller (155) configured to selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the heater (165) (par. 128 teaches the controller controlling heating zones);
a display configured to indicate a status of the heated garment (par. 127 teaches control button 175 containing one or more color LEDS which indicate the status of jacket 100);
and an illumination member coupled to the garment body (par. 127 teaches LEDs which are a light).
Regarding claim 16, Tyson teaches:
further comprising: an audible transducer configured to indicate a charge level of the energy storage element (par. 128 teaches replacing visual indicators with hepatic or audible indicators).
Regarding claim 21, Tyson teaches:
wherein the power supply is an alternating current power supply (par. 131 and 132 in the case of there being first and second transmitters teach there being an AC power source as do figs. 2, 3, and 4).
Regarding claim 22, Tyson teaches:
wherein the illumination member directs light away from the garment body (par. 127 teaches control button 175 containing one or more color LEDS which indicate the status of jacket 100, fig. 1 teaches control button 175 being on the lower right side of jacket 100 which therefore directs light away from the garment body).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200383395A1 Tyson in view of EP3694078A1 Burns.
Regarding claim 8, Tyson teaches a first power supply, transmitter, and receiver as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Tyson does not teach a second receiver coupled to the garment body at a first location in the garment body;
and a second power supply including a second transmitter configured to wirelessly provide power to the second receiver when the second transmitter is near the second receiver.
Burns teaches, a second receiver (fig. 10B teaches a receiving coil Rx charging coil positioned in the middle back of a garment) coupled to the garment body at a first location in the garment body (fig. 10b);
and a second power supply (page 16 teaches the power supply being a car, bus or train) including a second transmitter (1013) configured to wirelessly provide power to the second receiver when the second transmitter is near the second receiver (page 16 teaches “The second garment shown in Fig. 10B shows a receiver coil 303 which is located in the back portion second garment 211. The receiver coil 303 is located in the back portion of the second garment 211so that when the user is wearing the second garment 211 and is seated in the seat 1001 there is good overlap between the transmitter coils 1013 in the seat 1001 and the receiver coils 303 in the second garment 211. This therefore enables the second garment 211 to be wirelessly charged via the seat 1001”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device in the Tyson reference, to include the second receiver and second power supply, as suggested and taught by Burns, to wirelessly charge a garment on a hanger from two locations while traveling.
Regarding claim 9, Tyson teaches a first power supply, transmitter, and receiver as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and Tyson in combination with Burns teaches a second receiver and second power supply as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Tyson in combination with Burns discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate a second garment body;
a second heater coupled to the second garment body;
a second receiver coupled to the second garment body and configured to wirelessly receive power;
a second energy storage element coupled to the second garment body and configured to store charge provided to the second receiver;
a second controller selectively providing power from the second energy storage element to the second heater;
and a wireless charging element coupled to the second garment body at a first location in the second garment body and configured to selectively receive power from the second energy storage element and to wirelessly charge the energy storage element of the garment body, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the garment body, receiver, energy storage, element, controller, and wireless charging element of for the purpose of Tyson in combination with Burns for the purpose to allow a user to charge any number of household garments a user or user’s family may have. Doing so also provides the advantage to charge many sizes of garments such that charging through a hanger or a receiver placed on the back of a garment or both are possible.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 13, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200383395A1 Tyson in view of US20190067979A1 van der Sluys.
Regarding claim 3, Tyson does not teach a first wireless charging element coupled to the garment body at a first location in the garment body and including a second transmitter configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and to wirelessly charge a device when the device is near the second transmitter.
van der Sluys teaches, a first wireless charging element (300a through 300C) coupled to the garment body (clothing item 510) at a first location (container 520A through 520C) in the garment body and including a second transmitter (coil 210, coil 320, coils 1020A and B) configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and to wirelessly charge a device when the device is near the second transmitter (par. 27, and 36 through 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include a first wireless charging element, as suggested and taught by van der Sluys in the jacket 100 of Tyson for the purpose of providing a space to store and charge electronic devices capable of being wiressley charged (van der Sluys par. 36-37).
Regarding claim 4, Tyson does not teach further comprising: a first wireless charging element coupled to the garment body at a first location in the garment body and including a second transmitter configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and provide power to a head covering receiver included in a head covering when the head covering receiver is near the second transmitter.
van der Sluys teaches, further comprising: a first wireless charging element (300a through 300C) coupled to the garment body (clothing item 510) at a first location (container 520A through 520C) in the garment body and including a second transmitter (coil 210, coil 320, coils 1020A and B) configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and provide power to a head covering included in a head covering when the head covering receiver is near the second transmitter (par. 27, and 36 through 38 teach charging one or more electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to charge a head covering providing said head covering is capable of being charged wirelessly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include a first wireless charging element, as suggested and taught by van der Sluys in the jacket 100 of Tyson for the purpose of providing a space to store and charge electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged (van der Sluys par. 36-37).
Regarding claim 5, Tyson does not teach wherein the head covering includes an illumination member that is configured to be illuminated based on power received from the first wireless charging element.
van der Sluys teaches, wherein the head covering includes an illumination member that is configured to be illuminated based on power received from the first wireless charging element. (par. 44 teaches the use of lights to represent a charging level on the power source of van der Sluys)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include lights on the electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged of per van der Sluys par .44 for the purpose of indicating a charge level.
Regarding claim 13, Tyson does not teach further comprising:
a wireless charging element coupled to the garment body at a first location in the garment body and including a transmitter configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and to wirelessly charge an electronic device when the electronic device is near the transmitter.
van der Sluys teaches, further comprising:
a wireless charging element (300a through 300C) coupled to the garment body (clothing item 510) at a first location (container 520A through 520C) in the garment body and including a transmitter (coil 210, coil 320, coils 1020A and B) configured to selectively receive power from the energy storage element and to wirelessly charge an electronic device when the electronic device is near the transmitter (par. 27, and 36 through 38 teach charging one or more electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to charge a head covering providing said head covering is capable of being charged wirelessly. See 112(b) above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include a wireless charging element and second transmitter, as suggested and taught by van der Sluys in the jacket 100 of Tyson for the purpose of providing a space to store and charge electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged (van der Sluys par. 36-37).
Regarding claim 17, Tyson does not teach further comprising: one or more light emitting diodes ("LEDs") coupled to the garment body and configured to be selectively illuminated by the controller
van der Sluys teaches, further comprising: one or more light emitting diodes ("LEDs") coupled to the garment body and configured to be selectively illuminated by the controller (par. 44 teaches the use of lights to represent a charging level on the power source of van der Sluys and an LED is a subset of lights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include a visual indicator of one or more lights, as suggested and taught by van der Sluys, for the purpose of indicating a charge level (par. 44 van der Sluys).
Regarding claim 18, Tyson teaches, except where struck through, A heated garment comprising:
a garment body (100);
a heater (165) coupled to the garment body (figs. 1 and 12)(130);
a receiver (145) coupled to the garment body and configured to wirelessly receive power (par. 114);
an energy storage element (140) coupled to the garment body and configured to store charge provided to the receiver (145);
and a controller (155) configured to:
selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the heater (165)(par. 128 teaches the controller controlling heating zones), .
Tyson does not teach a transmitter coupled to the garment body and configured to wirelessly transmit power from the energy storage element to a device…nor… a controller configured to: selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the transmitter.
van der Sluys teaches, a transmitter (coil 210, coil 320, coils 1020A and B) coupled to the garment body (clothing item 510) and configured to wirelessly transmit power from the energy storage element to a device (par. 27, and 36 through 38 teach charging one or more electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to charge a head covering providing said head covering is capable of being charged wirelessly)…and… a controller configured to: selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the transmitter (par. 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, to include a transmitter coupled to the garment body and configured to wirelessly transmit power from the energy storage element to a device…and… a controller configured to: selectively provide power from the energy storage element to the transmitter, as suggested and taught by van der Sluys in the jacket 100 of Tyson for the purpose of providing a space to store and charge electronic devices capable of being wirelessly charged (van der Sluys par. 36-37).
Tyson in combination with van der Sluys discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate wherein the device is a second receiver coupled to a second garment body, and wherein the second garment body includes a second heater configured to receive power from the energy storage element via the second receiver, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the receiver, second storage body, and heater for the purpose of Tyson in combination with van der Sluys for the purpose to allow a user to charge any number of household garments a user or user’s family may have. Doing so also provides the advantage to charge many sizes of garments such that charging through a hanger or a receiver placed on the back of a garment or both are possible.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200383395A1 Tyson in view of US20240343333A1 Fuschs
Regarding claim 11, Tyson does not teach wherein the garment body is worn on a hand of a user and the power supply is a steering wheel of a vehicle.
Fuschs teaches, wherein the garment body is worn on a hand of a user and the power supply is a steering wheel of a vehicle (par. 101 and 102 teach placing heating elements as loads in footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves, boots, shoes, and/or other footwear worn by the user).
Fuschs teaches a known technique that is applicable to place heating elements in footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a heating element in a glove.
The results would have been predictable, because it allows power transfer from a vehicle to garment to allow a user to charge a garment, be it footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves while driving.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200383395A1 Tyson in view of US20190067979A1 van der Sluys in view of US20240343333A1 Fuschs in view of US 20180048178 A1 Leabman.
Regarding claim 19, Tyson in combination with van der Sluys teaches, The heated garment of claim 18.
Tyson does not teach wherein the garment body is worn on the hand of a user and the device is a flashlight.
van der Sluys teaches that it is known to place a wireless transmitter and receiver in any location where charging is desired per figs. 5a, 5b, 6, 7, and 8.
Fuschs teaches, wherein the garment body is worn on the hand of a user (par. 101 and 102 teach placing heating elements as loads in footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves, boots, shoes, and/or other footwear worn by the user).
Fuschs teaches a known technique that is applicable to place heating elements in footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a heating element in a glove.
The results would have been predictable, because it allows power transfer from a vehicle to garment to allow a user to charge a garment, be it footwear, jackets, pants, shoes, and/or gloves while driving.
Leabman teaches, the device is a flashlight (par. 525 teaches coupling a flashlight to an inductive receiver) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tyson reference, such that the device is a flashlight, as suggested and taught by Leabman, for the purpose of providing power transfer between a lighting device such as a flashlight and a receiver (Leabman par. 525) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flashlight as a load where the transmitter is in a glove.
The results would have been predictable, because the art of van der Sluys teaches placing a wireless transmitter and receiver in any location where charging is required, Fuschs teaches placing transmitters and loads in a variety of worn articles of clothing, and Leabman teaches a wireless load as being a flashlight.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200383395A1 Tyson in view of US 7716013 B2 Orth
Regarding claim 23, Tyson teaches, The heated garment of claim 22 (as discussed above).
Tyson discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of wherein the illumination member is provided on an end of an arm of the garment body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange control button 175 containing one or more color LEDS, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the location of control button 175 to a sleeve of a jacket as taught by Orth per column 4 lines 20 to 63 where light performance module 40c is located on the sleeve of jacket 38b for the purpose of also functioning as a reading light.
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761