DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims 15, 18, 21-60 have been cancelled. Claim 62 is newly added. Claims 1-14, 16, 17, 19-20, 61, 62 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 01/21/2026.
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 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a cut adjacent to the heating wire”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear which of the “first heating wire” or “second heating wire” (or both) from claim 9 is being referred to.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandez (US 2008/0116189 A1, previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fernandez discloses a heated garment 10 (Fig. 2 below) comprising:
a garment body 20 (garment side panels and back panel);
a heater array 24 (the overall pattern of heat conductive wires 24 shown in Fig. 2) supported by the garment body (Fig. 2, Para. 0027-28, 0033), the heater array including a fabric layer 20 (Para. 0020, “the side panels 20 may be formed of a stretchable material such as spandex or Lycra.RTM”) and a heating wire 24 positioned on the fabric layer (Fig. 2, Para. 0034, “Generally the wires 24 are sewn into either the internal or external layer”) that forms a closed loop (Para. 0033, the heater array may be a single wire formed in a loop, Fig. 2), the closed loop defining a shape having a plurality of cantilevered fingers (Fig. 2 below, any two of the “fingers” of the closed loop shown could be construed as the fingers, as long as they satisfy the rest of the claimed limitations of the fingers); and
a power supply interface 26 (controller) configured to couple to a power source 48 (battery) that provides power to the heater array (Para. 0028, 0032, Fig. 2),
a controller 26 (Fig. 3) configured to adjust a heating level of the heater array (Fig. 2 & 3, Para. 0028, 0032, 0041-45);
wherein the fabric layer includes a cut 14 bounded within the fabric layer (Fig. 2 below, the cuts in the garment formed for arm openings that are bounded within the overall garment and fabric) allowing relative movement between the plurality of cantilevered fingers 24A-D (Fig. 2 below, by virtue of being on a fabric garment, the fingers would still be allowed some degree of movement between themselves, for instance when the garment is folded over at the arm opening cut 14 between the configurations of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, or general flexure of the side & back panels; note, the claim does not specify where the cut is besides being “bounded” within the fabric layer, or in what manner it facilitates “allowing relative movement” between the plurality of cantilevered fingers, hence the limitation can be interpreted very broadly).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 24A and a second cantilevered finger 24B that is parallel to the first cantilevered finger (Fig. 2 above, the fingers on the side panel of the garment that are annotated are parallel as shown, and are moveable relative to the fingers 24C, 24D in the back panel when the garment is folded from the configuration in Fig. 2 to the worn configuration in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 24A and a second cantilevered finger 24C that is fanned out along a central axis from the first cantilevered finger (Fig. 2 above, the second finger 24C is at an angle relative to the first finger 24A, and is thus “fanned out” along the axis of the first finger).
Regarding claim 4, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 24A, a second cantilevered finger 24B, and a third cantilevered finger 24C (Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 24A, a second cantilevered finger 24B, a third cantilevered finger 24C, and a fourth cantilevered finger 24D, wherein the third and fourth cantilevered fingers fanned out along a central axis from the first and second cantilevered fingers (Fig. 2 above, the third and fourth fingers 24C & 24D are at an angle relative to the first and second fingers 24A & 24B, and is thus “fanned out” along the axes of the first and second fingers)
Regarding claim 6, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1 further comprising:
a heat shield (“insulative layer”) supported by the garment body, the heat shield provided between the heating wire and an exterior of the garment body (Para. 0023-24, “the heated garment 10 may include an insulative layer, … Ideally, a thinner or less insulative material will be placed on the above-discussed internal layer, adjacent the user's body. This facilitates efficient heat transfer from the heating system to the user's body”; the shield/insulative layer is between the heating wire and the user’s body, and hence an exterior of the garment body that is directly contacting the user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Betkowski (US 2019/0029877, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the heating wire is a carbon fiber heater.
Betkowski teaches a heated garment 111 (Fig. 5) having a heating wire 32 ("serpentine pattern of wires" Fig. 4, Para. 0028) that is a carbon fiber heater (Para. 0022, "The principal member is a heater pad member 31 which has a heater wire, such as a carbon fiber filament...").
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the heated garment of Fernandez, such that the heating wire is a carbon fiber heater, as taught by Belkowski, in order to provide a heater wire having the thermal emission properties to achieve a desired level of performance (Betkowski Para. 0022). One skilled in the art would know to select from the known materials in the art on the basis of their known properties, as an obvious extension of prior art teachings, and applying said material (in this case a carbon fiber wire for heating purposes) using only routine skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez.
Regarding claim 8, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heater array further includes a second heating wire, a third heating wire, and a fourth heating wire.
Fernandez does teach that “the heated garment 10 may contain various wires 24 that are placed throughout the heated garment 10. These wires may then be placed in series or in parallel as desired” (Para. 0027). Additionally, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered the optimal number of heating wires in the garment of Fernandez, such as having four heating wires, as part of routine optimization, using multiple wires arranged in series and/or parallel configurations to provide desired heating coverage or ease of assembly for the garment (Fernandez Para. 0027). For instance, the garment of Fernandez is shown having four portions (two side panels, a back panel, and a collar panel), and having respective heating wires for each section (connected either in parallel or in series forming the single closed loop) would have been obvious to implement).
Claims 9-11, 13, & 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deloire (US 3,729,613 A, previously cited) in view of Batcheller (US 5,032,705 A, previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 9, Deloire discloses a heated garment comprising:
a garment body 20 (jacket body, Fig. 3; also the sleeves 22, 24, gloves 26, 28, hood/cowl 30, flap 32);
a first heater array 64 (Fig. 3, 4, the portion of the overall garment represented as half of the jacket body and half of the hood/cowl) supported by the garment body (Fig. 1, 3, supported via the stitched seams 14, 62, Col. 2, ln. 12-24), the first heater array including a first stretchable fabric layer 8, 10 (Col. 2, ln. 25-27, “The fabrics 8, 10 are preferably extensible in all directions; for example they may be jersey fabrics”; “jersey fabrics” are known to be stretchy) and a first heating wire 6 positioned on the first stretchable fabric layer (Fig. 1, 2, 3, Col. 2, ln. 7-24, the wire is between two fabric layers, and would rest “on”/be in contact with the fabric when worn);
a second heater array supported by the garment body (Fig. 3, 4, the other portion of the overall garment representing the other half of the jacket and hood/cowl, having its own heating wire array as shown in Fig. 3; or the heater array shown in the trousers), the second heater array including a second stretchable fabric layer 8, 10 (the fabric of the respective portion of the garment) and a second heating wire 6 positioned on the second stretchable fabric layer (Fig. 3, the wire of the respective portion of the garment); and
a power supply interface configured to couple to a power source that provides power to the heater array (Col. 3, ln. 21-29, “a battery of storage cells, distribution network, etc.”),
Deloire fails to disclose wherein the first heater array provides a first level of heat and the second heater array provides a second level of heat, different from the first level of heat; wherein the first level of heat and the second level of heat are dynamically adjusted by an electronic processor based on an operating condition of the garment.
Deloire does discuss possibly providing greater heat production in areas of “greatest danger of cold or which are subjected to cold to the greatest extend, for example the vertebral column, the hands, the feet” (Col. 3, ln. 58-62).
Batcheller teaches a heated garment 26 (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of heater arrays 22a-22f creating different heating zones 24a-24e, wherein each heater array is independently controllable to provide different levels of heat (Abstract, Col. 4, ln. 41-55, Col. 5, ln. 32-35; Claim 1, “wearable electronic controller means for controlling in independent fashion the electrical current flowing through each such conductor constituting a zone, thereby controlling independently the heat generated by each such conductor for each such zone”); wherein the first level of heat and the second level of heat are dynamically adjusted by an electronic processor (“microprocessor”, Abstract) based on an operating condition of the garment (Abstract, “the controller includes a microprocessor which is operable to sense changes in the temperature of the heating wires themselves, and to regulate automatically and independently the power supplied to each of the heating wires”; the controller can also adjust the heat generated in each heating zone/heating elements 22 based on sensed current, in order to prevent current in each zone from exceeding a predetermined threshold, Col. 6, ln. 18-32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the garment of Deloire, the heater arrays being independently controllable to provide different levels of heat for each zone of the respective heater arrays, such that a first heater array and a second heater array provide first and second levels of heat that are different, as taught by Batcheller, in order to independently adjust the level of heating in different regions of the garment associated with parts of the body that may lose heat at varying rates, providing improved warming and overall comfort for the wearer (Batcheller, Col. 1, ln. 42-52, Col. 4, ln. 41-55, Col. 5, ln. 32-35, claim 1). It would also have been obvious to incorporate an electronic processor (e.g. microprocessor) to dynamically and automatically allow independent adjustment of the first and second heater arrays based on sensed operational parameters of the garment, such as temperature of the heating wires, or current in the wires, in order to maintain the garment within safe operation operational limits (Batcheller Abstract, Col. 6, ln. 18-32, claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Deloire in view of Batcheller teaches the heated garment of claim 9, and Deloire further teaches wherein the stretchable fabric layer 8, 10 includes a cut adjacent to the heating wire (interpreted as any of the first or second heating wires of claim 9, see 112(b) rejection above; Fig. 3, there is a cut down the middle of the garment body that is closed by sliding clasp fastener 34, this cut being adjacent to the internal heating wires as shown, Col. 3, ln. 10-15; naturally, the fabric material would have to be cut in order to be assembled into the intended garment shape).
Regarding claim 11, Deloire in view of Batcheller teaches the heated garment of claim 9, and Deloire further teaches wherein the stretchable fabric layer is comprised of a stretchable fabric (Col. 2, ln. 25-27, “The fabrics 8, 10 are preferably extensible in all directions; for example they may be jersey fabrics”; “jersey fabrics” are known to be stretchy).
Regarding claim 13, Deloire in view of Batcheller teaches the heated garment of claim 9, and Deloire further teaches wherein the heater array further includes a second heating wire, a third heating wire, and a fourth heating wire positioned on the stretchable fabric layer (Col. 3, lines 40-50, each portion of the garment can be broken up into different heating wire sections, each with a plurality of resistance wires that can be connected in series, which would then read on first, second, third and fourth heating wires).
Regarding claim 62, Deloire in view of Batcheller teaches the heated garment of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the operating condition is one of an input from an external device, an amount of power left in the power source, an ambient temperature, and an input from a current sensor.
Batcheller teaches wherein the operating condition is one of an input from an external device, an amount of power left in the power source, an ambient temperature, and an input from a current sensor (Col. 6, ln. 18-32, “The current limiting circuit 44 of system 20 is an overload prevention circuit that monitors the total current flowing through the heating elements 22a-22f. This monitoring is accomplished by shunt resistors 45a-45f which provide individual voltage signals on conductors 46a-46f to current-limiting circuit 44. When the total current exceeds a predetermined threshold or amount, circuit 44 supplies an overriding control signal via line 44a to the master power level selection circuit 40 that automatically reduces the duty cycle of the PWM signals driving the switching transistors 36, which limits the current flowing through each of the heating elements 22 in a simultaneous and uniform manner”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the garment of Deloire in view of Batcheller, such that the operating condition is an input from a current sensor, as taught by Batcheller, in order to monitor the current within each of the heater arrays and maintain the current within allowable predetermined limits and prevent overloading the circuit (Batcheller Col. 6, ln. 18-32).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deloire in view of Batcheller, further in view of Betkowski.
Regarding claim 12, Deloire in view of Batcheller teaches the heated garment of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the heating wire is a carbon fiber heater.
Betkowski teaches a heated garment 111 (Fig. 5) having a heating wire 32 ("serpentine pattern of wires" Fig. 4, Para. 0028) that is a carbon fiber heater (Para. 0022, "The principal member is a heater pad member 31 which has a heater wire, such as a carbon fiber filament...").
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the heated garment of Deloire in view of Batcheller, such that the heating wire is a carbon fiber heater, as taught by Belkowski, in order to provide a heater wire having the thermal emission properties to achieve a desired level of performance (Betkowski Para. 0022). One skilled in the art would know to select from the known materials in the art on the basis of their known properties, as an obvious extension of prior art teachings, and applying said material (in this case a carbon fiber wire for heating purposes) using only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, 17, 19, 61 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 14, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in combination with other claimed limitations, a heated garment having a heater array including a stretchable fabric layer and heating wire on the stretchable fabric, the heating wire forming a closed loop with a first cantilevered finger and second cantilevered finger, wherein the stretchable fabric includes a first cut inside the closed loop and a second cut outside the closed loop between the first and second cantilevered fingers and bounded within the stretchable fabric.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 61 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deibel (US 20080173629 A1, US 8624164 B2) teaches a blanket having a heating array, with a thermal insulation layer having cuts thereon for improved flexibility.
Barkeley (US 20170156416 A1) teaches a heated garment with slits for ventilation.
Kockman (US 5824996 A) teaches a heated textile having cutouts on the heating element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights