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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “220” has been used to designate both a height of the sign (Fig. 2) and a width of the mask (Fig. 2), reference character “708” has been used to designate both adhesive (Fig. 9) and LEDs (Fig. 11, 13), reference character “702” has been used to designate both heating wires (Fig. 8, 10, 11) and bracket (Fig. 11, 12), reference character “706” has been used to designate both output (Fig. 7, 9-12) and circuit board (Fig. 13), and reference character “704” has been used to designate both input (Fig. 7, 9-12) and mask (Fig. 12). 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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, the limitation “plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)” should read “the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)”.
In claim 11, line 2, the limitation “a an etched foil material” should read “an etched foil material”.
In claim 13, line 7, the limitation “plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)” should read “the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)”.
In claim 15, line 2, the limitation “senor” should read “sensor”.
In claim 31, line 7, the limitation “plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)” should read “the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claims 13 and 31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As noticed in paragraph 0051 and 0053, the controller can be any type of controller. For example, the controller can be programmable with predetermined conditions or controlled at the source of the source or remotely, or the controller is a thermostat and connected or attached to any portion of component of the sign, e.g., outer surface of the sign, inner surface of the sign, any interior component, e.g., mask.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 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.
In claim 15, the limitation “comprises one or more of a sensor and a thermostat” is unclear if it is referring to one or more sensors and one or more thermostats? Or one or more sensor and a thermostat, or one or more of either a sensor or a thermostat.
In claim 16, the limitation “one more sensor” is unclear because there is no other sensor recited on claim 13 from which claim 16 depends from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAITO (JP 2021-086019).
Regarding claim 1, SAITO teaches a sign (100) configured to prevent or minimize snow and icing from blocking a display portion (10) of the sign (para. 0006), comprising: a housing (200); one or more circuit boards (20, 22, 30) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (30); a mask (51) attached to the housing and adjacent to the one or more circuit boards (as shown in Fig. 2-4 and 6), the mask having a plurality of apertures (54) aligned with plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (as shown in Fig. 2; para. 0019); a heat source (60 comprising 61, 62 and 68) attached to the mask and surrounding a plurality of the plurality of apertures (as shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 6); and a thermostat (combination of control device 90 and temperature sensor 70) attached to the mask (both the control device 90 and temperature sensor 70 need to be somehow attached (connected) to the display unit 10 (to control the operation of the display device 100 and therefore display unit 10) which comprises the mask 51) and the thermostat is configured to control the heat source based on a predetermined temperature range (para. 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 2, SAITO teaches the sign of claim 1, further comprising a glazing (transparent hydrophilic film 53) adjacent the one or more circuit boards (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, SAITO teaches the sign of claim 1, further comprising a surface portion (101) attached to the housing including a letter, a number, shape, graphic and/or symbol (an image is displayed; para. 0012).
Regarding claim 8, SAITO teaches the sign of claim 1, wherein the heat source comprises a heat source material (60 comprising 61, 62, 68) configured to be heated with electrical energy (para. 0023-0025; 0032-0034) and the heat source material is at least partially surrounded with a protective coating (23) comprising one or more of a Kapton material, a silicon material, a polyimide material, a rubber material, combinations of the same and the like (para. 0022).
Regarding claim 13, SAITO teaches an apparatus (100) configured to prevent or minimize snow and ice from blocking a display portion (10) of the apparatus (para. 0006), the apparatus comprising: a housing (200); one or more circuit boards (20, 22, 30) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (30); a glazing (transparent hydrophilic film 53) adjacent the one or more circuit boards (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6); a mask (51) attached to the housing and adjacent to the glazing (as shown in Fig. 2-4 and 6), the mask having a plurality of apertures (54) aligned with plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (as shown in Fig. 2; para. 0019); a surface portion (101) attached to the housing including a letter, a number, shape, graphic and/or symbol on a front surface portion (an image is displayed; para. 0012); a heat source (60 comprising 61, 62 and 68) comprising a protective coated heat source material (23) at least partially surrounding one or more of the plurality of apertures (as show in Fig. 3 and 6); and a controller (70, 90) configured to control the heat source based on predetermined condition (para. 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 14, SAITO teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the controller comprises a thermostat (combination of 90 and 70) configured to control the heat source and the predetermined condition comprises a predetermined temperature range (para. 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 15, SAITO teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the controller comprises one or more of a sensor and a thermostat (70 and 90).
Regarding claim 17, SAITO teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the predetermined condition comprises one or more of a time of day, a time of year, a schedule of snowplows, a time of heater operation, weather conditions, combinations of the same and the like (para. 0034-0035).
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.
Claims 4-6, 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (JP 2021-086019) in view of LAPERRIERE (US 5,168,546).
Regarding claim 4, SAITO teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material configured to be heated with electrical energy.
LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (47) comprising an etched foil material configured to be heated with electrical energy (Col. 5, lines 48-68).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat source of SAITO, with LAPERRIERE, by providing a heat source comprising an etched foil material, for the advantages of better distribution of heat (Col. 5, lines 53-55). POSITA would have known that providing a heat source comprising an etched foil material would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as better heat distribution.
Regarding claim 5, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 4, wherein the etched foil material comprises a conductive material (LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 6, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 4, wherein the etched foil material comprises a protective coating (SAITO; 23; LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 9, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 4, wherein the etched foil material is configured to have a heat flux of about 80 watts/in2 or less (LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 58-60).
SAITO and LAPERRIERE, in the embodiment of Col. 5, lines 58-60, combined fail to disclose a heat flux of about 15 watts/in2.
However, LAPERRIERE teaches an alternate embodiment wherein the etched foil material is configured to have a heat flux of about 10 watts/in2 (Col. 6, lines 11-13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed heat flux range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, SAITO teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the heat source comprises a coated etched foil material having a thickness in a range from about 0.010 inch or greater.
LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (47) comprising a coated etched foil material having a thickness in a range from about 0.010 inch or greater (Col. 5, lines 48-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat source of SAITO, with LAPERRIERE, by providing a heat source comprising a coated etched foil material having a thickness in a range from about 0.010 inch or greater, for the advantages of better distribution of heat (Col. 5, lines 53-55). POSITA would have known that providing a heat source comprising a coated etched foil material would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as better heat distribution.
Regarding claim 11, SAITO teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material with a protective coating at least partially surrounding the etched foil material and at least a portion of the etched foil material is configured to reach a temperature of about 450 °F or less.
LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (47) comprising an etched foil material with a protective coating at least partially surrounding the etched foil material (Col. 5, lines 48-53) and at least a portion of the etched foil material is configured to reach a temperature of about 450 °F or less (Col. 5, lines 60-62).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat source of SAITO, with LAPERRIERE, by providing a heat source comprising an etched foil material with a protective coating at least partially surrounding the etched foil material and at least a portion of the etched foil material is configured to reach a temperature of about 450 °F or less, for the advantages of better distribution of heat (Col. 5, lines 53-55). POSITA would have known that providing a heat source comprising a coated etched foil material would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as better heat distribution.
Regarding claim 12, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 5, wherein the etched foil material is formed in geometric pattern surrounding one of the plurality of apertures (SAITO; when viewed in combination with LAPERRIERE; as shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 18, SAITO teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 13, except for, wherein the protective coated heat source material comprises an etched foil material.
LAPERRIERE teaches a protective coated heat source material (47) comprising an etched foil material (Col. 5, lines 48-68).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coated heat source material of SAITO, with LAPERRIERE, by providing an etched foil material, for the advantages of better distribution of heat (Col. 5, lines 53-55). POSITA would have known that providing an etched foil material would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as better heat distribution.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (JP 2021-086019) in view of LAPERRIERE (US 5,168,546) as set forth above, and further in view of MALONE (US 7,721,382).
Regarding claim 7, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6, except for, wherein the protective coating comprises a thermoplastic material.
MALONE teaches a heat source (54’) comprising an etched foil material comprising a protective coating, wherein the protective coating comprises a thermoplastic material (PET; Col. 7, lines 32-39).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coated heat source material of SAITO and LAPERRIERE, with MALONE, by providing a thermoplastic protective coating, for the advantages of flexibility and ease of manufacturing. POSITA would have known that providing a thermoplastic protective coating would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as flexibility and ease of manufacturing.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (JP 2021-086019) in view of KAWAMOTO (JP 2012-136892).
Regarding claim 16, SAITO teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 13, except for, wherein the controller is in electrical communication with one more sensor comprising at least an optical sensor configured to estimate whether or not the apparatus is obstructed with snow or ice.
KAWAMOTO teaches an apparatus (1) comprising a controller (20) in electrical communication with one more sensor (30a-30f) comprising at least an optical sensor configured to estimate whether or not the apparatus is obstructed with snow or ice (para. 0014).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of SAITO, with KAWAMOTO, by providing one more sensor comprising at least an optical sensor configured to estimate whether or not the apparatus is obstructed with snow or ice, to assure proper removal of snow or ice from the apparatus. POSITA would have known that providing a snow detection sensor would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring proper removal of snow or ice from the apparatus.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (JP 2021-086019) in view of KIM (KR 101783391).
Regarding claim 31, SAITO teaches an apparatus (100) configured to prevent or minimize snow and ice from blocking a display portion (10) of the apparatus (para. 0006), the apparatus comprising: a housing (200); one or more circuit boards (20, 22, 30) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (30); a glazing (transparent hydrophilic film 53) adjacent the one or more circuit boards (as shown in Fig. 3 and 6); a mask (51) attached to the housing and adjacent to the glazing (as shown in Fig. 24- and 6), the mask having a plurality of apertures (54) aligned with plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (as shown in Fig. 2; para. 0019); a surface portion (101) attached to the housing including a letter, a number, shape, graphic and/or symbol on a front surface portion (an image displayed; para. 0012); a heat source (60 comprising 61, 62 and 68) attached to the mask (both the control device 90 and temperature sensor 70 need to be somehow attached (connected) to the display unit 10 (to control the operation of the display device 100 and therefore display unit 10) which comprises the mask 51) and surrounding a plurality of the plurality of apertures (as shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 6); and a controller (70, 90) configured to control the heat source based on predetermined condition (para. 0034-0035).
SAITO fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to be controlled remotely over a network.
KIM teaches an apparatus (100; Fig. 1-8) comprising a controller (50) configured to be controlled remotely over a network (para. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of SAITO, with KAWAMOTO, by being configured to be controlled remotely over a network, for the advantages system versatility. POSITA would have known that providing remote control would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as system versatility.
Regarding claim 32, SAITO and KIM combined teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the network comprises one or more of a wireless network, a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, a 5G network, and combinations of the same (KIM; para. 0066).
Regarding claim 33, SAITO and KIM combined teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the heat source comprises a heat source material (SAITO; 60 comprising 61, 62 and 68) at least partially surrounded with a protective material (SAITO; 23) and the heat source material is configured to be heated with application of an electrical current (SAITO; para. 0026; 0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0358001, US 2017/0326601 and US 2011/0219650.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/30/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761