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 “708” has been used to designate both apertures (Fig. 12) and LEDs (Fig. 11, 13). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character “702” has been used to designate both heating wires or heating materials (para. 0101-0103) and bracket (para. 0106-0107).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
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 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 4-7, 10 and 15 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 4, the limitation “an etched foil material” is unclear if it is referring to the same etched foil material recited in claim 1 or a different etched foil material.
Claims 5-7 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 4.
In claim 10, the limitation “a coated etched foil material” is unclear if it is referring to the same etched foil material recited in claim 1 or a different etched foil material.
In claim 15, the limitation “a thermostat” is unclear if it is referring to the same thermostat recited in claim 13, or a different thermostat.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 18 are already recited in independent claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6, 8-15, 17 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 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 the 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) physically attached to the mask (both the control device 90 and temperature sensor 70 need to be somehow physically 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).
SAITO fails to disclose wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material.
LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (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 heat source 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.
Regarding claim 2, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 1, further comprising a glazing (SAITO; transparent hydrophilic film 53) adjacent the one or more circuit boards (SAITO; as shown in Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 1, further comprising a surface portion (SAITO; 101) attached to the housing including a letter, a number, shape, graphic and/or symbol (SAITO; an image is displayed; para. 0012).
Regarding claim 4, SAITO teaches the sign of claim 1, wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material configured to be heated with electrical energy (LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 48-68).
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 8, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 1, wherein the heat source comprises a heat source material (SAITO; 60 comprising 61, 62, 68) configured to be heated with electrical energy (SAITO; para. 0023-0025; 0032-0034) and the heat source material is at least partially surrounded with a protective coating (SAITO; 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 (SAITO; para. 0022).
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 and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 1, wherein the heat source comprises a coated etched foil material having a thickness in a range from about 0.010 inch or greater (LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 48-60).
Regarding claim 11, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the sign of claim 1, wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material with a protective coating at least partially surrounding the etched foil material (LAPERRIERE; 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 (LAPERRIERE; Col. 5, lines 60-62).
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 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 the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (as shown in Fig. 2; para. 0019); a surface portion (101) attached to the housing including one or more of 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) attached to the mask and at least partially surrounding one or more of the plurality of apertures (as show in Fig. 3 and 6); and a controller (70, 90) comprising a thermostat (combination of control device 90 and temperature sensor 70) physically attached to the mask (both the control device 90 and temperature sensor 70 need to be somehow physically 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), the controller configured to control the heat source based on predetermined condition (para. 0034-0035).
SAITO fails to disclose wherein the heat source comprises a protective coated etched foil heat source material.
LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (47) comprising a protective coated etched foil heat source 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.
Regarding claim 14, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the controller comprises a thermostat (SAITO; combination of 90 and 70) configured to control the heat source and the predetermined condition comprises a predetermined temperature range (SAITO; para. 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 15, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the controller comprises at least one of a sensor or a thermostat (SAITO; 70 and 90).
Regarding claim 17, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach 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 (SAITO; para. 0034-0035).
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 LAPERRIERE (US 5,168,546) as set forth above, and further in view of KAWAMOTO (JP 2012-136892).
Regarding claim 16, SAITO and LAPERRIERE combined teach 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 or more sensors 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 or more sensors (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 and LAPERRIERE, with KAWAMOTO, by providing one or more sensors 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 one or more of 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).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the drawings, claim objections, and 112 rejections, there are still pending issues. Please refer to the Drawings, Claim Objections and 112 rejections sections of this office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “SAITO does not disclose or suggest an etched foil material as the heat source.” on remarks page 11, lines 24-25. In response to Applicant’s arguments, SAITO fails to disclose wherein the heat source comprises an etched foil material. LAPERRIERE teaches a heat source (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 heat source 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.
Applicant further argues that “The Examiner's interpretation improperly conflates electrical connection with physical attachment. The plain meaning of "thermostat physically attached to the mask" as recited by claim 1 as amended requires physical connection to the mask structure, which SAITO does not disclose. SAITO's temperature sensor 70 and control device 90 are separate system components that are electrically connected to, but not physically attached to, the louver/mask structure 50.” on remarks page 12, lines 10-15. In response to Applicant’s arguments, SAITO teaches a thermostat (combination of control device 90 and temperature sensor 70) physically attached to the mask (both the control device 90 and temperature sensor 70 need to be somehow physically 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 claims 2-18 and 31-33, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 07/15/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights