Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040245234 A1 to Gehring (“Gehring”).
Gehring discloses:
Regarding claim 1: an ultra-thin heating device, comprising
an upper heating pad (e.g., traffic-exposed layer 20), a lower heating pad (e.g., base layer 12), at least one electrothermal sheet (e.g., heating element 14) and a power supply (e.g., electrical cord 22, male electrical connector 24, female electrical connector 26, power outlet) (e.g., Fig. 1 and 5-8 and para 28-32 and 46),
the at least one electrothermal sheet being installed at a preset position between the upper heating pad and the lower heating pad (e.g., Fig. 1 and 5-8 and para 28-32 and 46-48),
the at least one electrothermal sheet being electrically connected with the power supply (e.g., Fig. 1 and 5-8 and para 28-32 and 46), and
the upper heating pad and the lower heating pad being made of soft material (e.g., rubber disclosed in para 29 and 43);
wherein a plurality of protrusions (e.g., ribbing and/or a textured surface, ribs 58) are provided on a bottom of the lower heating pad (e.g., Fig. 1 and 8 and para 16 and 44-48);
Regarding claim 2: the ultra-thin heating device according to claim 1, wherein the ultra-thin heating device further comprises a marking layer (e.g., a plurality of intermediate strips or spacing ribs 16, thermal conductor layer 18), and the marking layer is installed on the upper heating pad and is matched to the preset position of the electrothermal sheet (e.g., Fig. 1 and 5-8 and para 28-32 and 46-48);
Regarding claim 3: the ultra-thin heating device according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of bumps (e.g., ribbing and/or a textured surface, ribs 58) are provided on the upper heating pad at overlapping positions with the marking layer (e.g., Fig. 1 and 8 and para 16 and 44-48);
Regarding claim 8: the ultra-thin heating device according to claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises a temperature control switch (e.g., temperature switch or controller 44) (e.g., Fig. 6-7 and para 34-38);
Regarding claim 9: The ultra-thin heating device according to claim 1, wherein the soft material comprises one of silica gel, rubber, leather, PVC and PP (e.g., rubber disclosed in para 29 and 43); and
Regarding claim 10: the ultra-thin heating device according to claim 1, wherein a heat insulating layer (e.g., intermediate strips 16) is provided between the electrothermal sheet and the lower heating pad (e.g., Fig. 1 and 5-8 and para 28-38 and 43-50).
To the extent that it may be argued that a single embodiment does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter, such as a power supply, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fig. 8 embodiment by the Fig. 1 embodiment in order to provide power to the heating element.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring in view of US 20070149678 A1 to Apoorva et al. (“Apoorva”).
Gehring does not explicitly disclose nano- coatings, and the nano-coatings are respectively applied on a top layer of the upper heating pad and a bottom layer (e.g., lower surface) of the lower heating pad (as recited in claim 5).
However, Apoorva discloses:
Regarding claim 5: the ultra-thin heating device according to claim 1, wherein the ultra-thin heating device has nano- coatings (e.g., polymer nanocomposite), and the nano-coatings are respectively applied on a top layer (e.g., upper surface) of the upper heating pad and a bottom layer (e.g., lower surface) of the lower heating pad (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 31 and 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Gehring as suggested and taught by Apoorva in order to provide high-barrier properties.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 09/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks begin by noting the claim status and amendments. The remarks then address the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and note that claims 6 and 7 have been canceled such that the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are no longer applicable.
The remarks then address the prior art rejections. The remarks note that claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 US. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring, claim 5 is rejected under 35 US. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring in view of Apoorva and claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring in view of Mirkes, and that Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims based on at least the reasons as set forth below.
The remarks state that the Office interpreted Gehring's ribbing 58 as the claimed protrusions and that, as depicted in Gehring's FIGS. 1 and 8 above, the ribbing 58 is designed to be disposed on the traffic-exposed layer 20, rather than the base layer 12 being interpreted as the claimed lower heating pad. The remarks assert that Gehring fails to disclose "a plurality of protrusions are provided on a bottom of the lower heating pad" as recited in amended claim 1, nor do Apoorva and Mirkes provide any teachings regarding such features. The remarks further state that, with reference to Gehring's paragraph [0044], the ribbing 58 serves to enhance traction and facilitate the channeling of water away from the outer face 54 of the traffic-exposed layer 20 and that, based on these purposes, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gehring's device by installing the ribbing 58 on the base layer 12, since such a modification would not achieve the stated objectives of channeling water from the top surface of the device, where snow or ice accumulation occurs, nor would it provide improved grip between the top surface and vehicles and/or pedestrians. The remarks explain that, in the present application, the bottom of the lower heating pad is provided with protrusions, so that a gap is formed between the lower heating pad and the tabletop. The remarks continue, stating that this configuration enables the heat, generated by the electrothermal sheet, on the lower heating pad 200 to be quickly dissipated, that the lower heating pad is protected from damaged caused by overheating, thereby extending its service life and that the claimed invention provides at least the above advantage of overheat prevention, a benefit directly attributable to the claimed structure which is not disclosed by Gehring. The remarks conclude that Gehring does not disclose, teach, or suggest amended claim 1, nor do Apoorva and Mirkes cure the deficiencies of Gehring such that it would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gehring with the teachings of Apoorva and Mirkes to arrive at amended claims 1 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, either taken alone or in combination and that the subject matter of amended claim 1 is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the cited art, and thus independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record. The remarks also state that dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 8-10 are also allowable as a matter of law because they contain all features of independent claim 1. However, para 16 of Gehring discloses non-skid texture and/or ribbing on the bottom face of the mat to better ensure that it remains in its desired location (i.e., is not prone to slippage) and, when ribbing is used, to channel water from below the mat corresponding to the claimed a plurality of protrusions provided on a bottom of the lower heating pad. Thus, claim 1 as well as dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 8-10 are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
The remarks then provide a conclusion requesting allowance. However, the claims are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
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 ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 October 14, 2025