FINAL REJECTION
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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 18, 21-60 have been cancelled. Claim 21 is added. Claims 1-17, 19-21 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 Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/28/2025.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Furthermore, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number, and all of the claims presented must be listed in ascending numerical order. Consecutive cancelled claims may be aggregated under the same status of “Cancelled”. In this case, claims 21-60 must be presented as (Canceled). See 37 CFR 1.121 (c).
The “newly added” claim 21 in the amendment filed 10/21/2025 must be given a new claim number next following the highest claim number previously presented.
Consequently, misnumbered claim 21 been renumbered claim 61.
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 15-17, 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “a cut positioned within the closed loop”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this “cut” is meant to be the same as the “first cut” or “second cut” of claim 14, or is a wholly different and separate limitation.
Claim 16 recites “a first cantilevered finger and a second cantilevered finger”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if these are meant to be referring to the “first cantilevered finger” and “second cantilevered finger” already recited in claim 14, or if they are wholly separate limitations.
Claim 17 recites “a cut between the first cantilevered finger and a second cantilevered finger”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this cut is meant to refer to one of the “first cut” or “second cut” recited in claim 14, of if it is a wholly different and separate limitation.
Claim 19 recites “a first cantilevered finger and a second cantilevered finger”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if these are meant to be referring to the “first cantilevered finger” and “second cantilevered finger” already recited in claim 14, or if they are wholly separate limitations.
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 1-4, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cronn (US 20080223844 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cronn discloses a heated garment 100 comprising:
a garment body 100 (a heated glove; Fig. 1; also body 700 Fig. 7A, 7B; Para. 0049);
a heater array 104 supported by the garment body (Fig. 1, 7A, 7B), the heater array including a fabric layer 102 (Para. 0050, “the one or more conductive wires of the heating element 104 are stitched into the fabric carrier 102”; Fig. 7A, 7Bm fabric layer 702) and a heating wire positioned on the fabric layer that forms a closed loop (Fig. 1, a closed loop from conduits 112A to 112B into a power source 106), the closed loop defining a shape having a plurality of cantilevered fingers 118A-118E (Fig. 1, fingers of the glove 100, Para. 0050);
a power supply interface 110A, 110B (connectors) configured to couple to a power source 106 that provides power to the heater array 104 (Para. 0049, Fig. 1); and
a controller 116 (a switch) configured to adjust a heating level of the heater array (Para. 0051-52, the switch can be used to control transmission of electricity through the heater array, which can be a variable amount; the display 114 can be configured to indicate the power setting for variable power settings and thus variable heating; note, the term “controller” is a very broad term that could encompass any variety of control devices or interfaces that function to adjust heating level of the heater array, and is not limited to devices having a digital/computer processor),
wherein the fabric layer 102 includes a cut allowing relative movement between the plurality of cantilevered fingers (Fig. 1, the cuts between each of the fingers shown; Para. 0100, the glove can be constructed of a “straight cut palm” pattern, known in the art of glove textiles as forming the bottom of the glove from cutting a single piece of fabric for the palm and bottoms of each finger; consequently, there is a cut in the fabric between each finger in order to allow relative movement between each of the fingers; since the heater array has a cantilevered finger of the heating wire 118A-E in each finger of the glove, and the heating wire is integrated on the fabric layer 102, there would be a cut in the fabric to form each finger of the glove between each cantilevered finger 118A-E).
Regarding claim 2, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 118B and a second cantilevered finger 118C that is parallel to the first cantilevered finger (Fig. 1 & 2, the fingers 118B-E are depicted parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 3, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 118A and a second cantilevered finger 118B that is fanned out along a central axis from the first cantilevered finger (Fig. 1 & 2, the two fingers 118A & 118B are disposed at an angle with respect to each other, and are thus “fanned out” relative to one or the other).
Regarding claim 4, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 118A, a second cantilevered finger 118B, and a third cantilevered finger 118C (Fig. 1 & 2).
Regarding claim 6, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1 further comprising:
a heat shield 710 (Fig. 7A, 7B, insulation layer) supported by the garment body, the heat shield provided between the heating wire (within fabric layer 702) and an exterior of the garment body (Fig. 7A, 7B, Para. 0101-103).
Regarding claim 8, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the heater array further includes a second heating wire, a third heating wire, and a fourth heating wire (Para. 0049, Fig. 1, there are seven conductive wires in the heater array).
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandez (US 2008/0116189 A1).
Regarding independent claim 14, Fernandez discloses a heated garment 10 (Fig. 2) comprising:
a garment body 20 (garment side panels);
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 stretchable 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 stretchable fabric layer (Fig. 2), the heating wire forming a closed loop (Para. 0033, the heater array may be a single wire formed in a loop, Fig. 2) with a first cantilevered finger 24A and a second cantilevered finger 24B (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 battery pack 48 that provides power to the heater array (Para. 0028, 0032, Fig. 2),
wherein the stretchable fabric layer includes a first cut 14 inside the closed loop (Fig. 2 below, the cuts in the garment formed for arm openings) and a second cut outside of the closed loop extending parallel to the cantilevered fingers (the cut in the fabric that forms the bottom of the garment, adjacent to and parallel with the cantilevered fingers 24A & 24B as shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 14, wherein the stretchable fabric layer 20 includes a cut 14 positioned within the closed loop (Fig. 2 above, the other of the cuts 14 forming one of the arm openings of the garment, which is within the closed loop).
Regarding claim 16, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 14, 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 annotated are parallel).
Regarding claim 17, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 16, wherein the stretchable fabric layer includes a cut (interpreted as the “first cut” forming arm opening 14, Fig. 2 Alternate#1 below) between the first cantilevered finger 24A and the second cantilevered finger 24B (the cut is between the two fingers along the seam between the side panel and the back panel of the garment).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 14, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 24A and a second cantilevered finger 24B that is fanned out along a central axis from the first cantilevered finger (Fig. 2 Alternate#2 below, the second finger 24B is at an angle relative to the first finger 24A, and is thus “fanned out” along the axis of the first finger; the cut of the fabric along the bottom of the garment is parallel with each respective finger as shown).
PNG
media_image3.png
517
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 61, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 14, wherein the first cut is U-shaped (any Fig. 2 above, the cut on the garment side panel is U-shaped, forming halves of the overall arm opening) and the second cut is a straight line (Fig. 2 above, the second cut along the bottom of the garment is a straight line forming bottoms of each garment side and back panel).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronn in view of Rankin US (1,362,351 A).
Regarding claim 5, Cronn discloses the heated garment of claim 1, wherein the closed loop has a first cantilevered finger 118B, a second cantilevered finger 118D, a third cantilevered finger 118A, and a fourth cantilevered finger 118E, wherein the third cantilevered finger 118A is fanned out along a central axis from the first and second cantilevered fingers 118B, 118D (Fig. 1, the finger 118A is angled relative to the finger 118B, and hence is “fanned out” from the first finger)
Cronn fails to disclose wherein the fourth cantilevered finger is fanned out along a central axis from the first and second cantilevered fingers.
Rankin teaches a heated garment (Fig. 5) having a heater array formed in a loop with cantilevered fingers (five fingers as shown) including a first cantilevered finger, a second cantilevered finger, a third cantilevered finger, and a fourth cantilevered finger (Fig. 5, there are 5 fingers as shown), wherein the third and fourth cantilevered fingers are fanned out along a central axis from the first and second cantilevered fingers (all the fingers are generally fanned out from each other as shown).
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 Cronn such that the fourth cantilevered finger is also fanned out along a central axis from first and second cantilevered fingers, as taught in Rankin, in order to provide a garment shape that better conforms to the positions of each finger of a wearer’s hand (i.e. the fingers of the hand are generally not perfectly parallel to each other in a resting position, and have a slight spread with respect to each other). Furthermore,
It is noted that applicant has not disclosed that having third and fourth cantilevered fingers fanned out along a central axis from the first and second cantilevered fingers results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the fingers parallel, as shown in Cronn (the instant disclosure, i.e. Para. 0052, only states the invention may have an embodiment where the fingers are “fanned out” from one another, but does not discuss why such a feature would provide an unexpected result). The limitations could be interpreted as constituting a mere change in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(4)(b).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronn in view of Betkowski (US 2019/0029877, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Cronn 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 Cronn, 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.
Claims 9-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deloire (US 3,729,613 A) in view of Batcheller (US 5,032,705 A).
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.
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”).
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,).
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 (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).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Betkowski.
Regarding claim 20, Fernandez discloses the heated garment of claim 14, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, 14 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.
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 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