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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1 claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Abstract
The Abstract is objected to as it utilizes phraseology that can be implied, specifically “disclosed are”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines and letters in Fig. 2 are not sufficiently dense and dark for reproduction and Fig. 4 contains some illegible circuit component references (what appears to be VCC and GND).
With specific reference to Fig. 4 because of the illegible circuit components it is difficult to determine whether the structures in claim 3 and claim 4 are adequately shown in the drawings.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The terms “sampling module” and “control module” are taken as invoking the art accepted components that generally encompass these terms and are not taken to invoke, e.g. a software “per se” module or to invoke 35 USC §112f.
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 4-8 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, line 5 “the reserved heating circuit” lacks antecedent basis as it was previously recited as a “plurality of reserved heating circuit”. As such it is now unclear if “the reserved heating circuit” in claim 4 is referring to the prior plurality or a specific instance.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0078890 to Pai et al.
Pai teaches:
Regarding claim 1
An electrothermal film structure (embodiment of Figs. 9-11), comprising: a supporting layer (10); a meshed conductive circuit layer (30, 31, 50, 51); and a transparent optical layer (40; ¶ [0025] describing “transmittance”), wherein the meshed conductive circuit layer provided on the supporting layer (Figs. 9-11) comprises several micron-level conductive circuits distributed in a mesh (¶ [0025] “mesh crossed with micron conductive wires”) and the transparent optical layer is provided on the meshed conductive circuit layer (figs 9-10).
Regarding claim 2
wherein the meshed conductive circuit layer comprises a plurality of meshed conductive circuit units (Fig. 11) provided between the supporting layer and the transparent optical layer (Figs. 9-11), and the plurality of meshed conductive circuit units are connected to an external power supply (¶ [0026] via contacts P).
Regarding claim 3
the meshed conductive circuit layer further comprises a plurality of reserved meshed conductive circuit units (51; plurality on either side); a working heating circuit is composed of the plurality of meshed conductive circuit units (¶ [0025]); and a plurality of reserved heating circuits are composed of the plurality of reserved meshed conductive circuit units (Fig. 11 via AEL1 and AEL3).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of US 5412181 to Giamati.
Pai teaches all of the limitations. Pai teaches controlling the heat level by means of distributed power through many leads P to avoid overheat. Pai does not teach a more complicated heating arrangement including a control circuit, wherein a set of ports on the control circuit is connected to the working heating circuit, another set of ports on the control circuit is connected to the reserved heating circuit, and the control circuit is configured to keep the electrothermal film structure working in a safe power range.
Giamati is directed to an electrothermal film heater having a control circuit (104) wherein a set of ports on the control circuit is connected to the working heating circuit (at wires 105,106), and the control circuit is configured to keep the electrothermal film structure working in a safe power range (it controls the power and therefore keeps it in the intended range see claim 4 and provides variable power density heating see Col. 1, ll. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pai with the controller structure of Giamati in order to provide greater control of the power density to the heater thus enabling greater safety and control of operation.
Further, while Giamatti does not directly teach another set of ports on the control circuit is connected to the reserved heating circuit Giamati does teach partitioning the control structure into multiple area (z1 z2 z3) and as such it would have been a natural and predictable extension to add additional ports for allowing for the control of reserved heating circuit as nothing more than an obvious duplication of parts (control ports) to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Note that it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is nothing more than a duplication of known elements performing their predictable function a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai and Giamati in further view of US 20060221529 to Kim et al.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 8
Pai as modified teaches all of the structure as discussed above, but does not teach that the control circuit comprises a sampling module and a control module; the sampling module is configured to collect a working parameter corresponding to the working heating circuit and transmit the working parameter to the control module; and the control module is configured to determine a working mode corresponding to the electrothermal film structure according to the working parameter and to determine a working heating power corresponding to the working heating circuit according to the working parameter; and the control module is further configured to control the reserved heating circuit to work when the working heating power is not within the safe power range. wherein the control module is further configured to keep the working heating circuit in a working state when the working heating power is in the safe power range.
Kim teaches an electrical control system for controlling temperature where the controller comprises a sampling module (temperature sensor described in ¶ [0039]) and a control module (computational portion of 140 as described in ¶ [0038] and [0039] that “controls a magnitude of the high frequency AC) the sampling module is configured to collect a working parameter (temperature) corresponding to the working circuit and transmit the working parameter to the control module (Fig. 3) and the control module is configured to determine a working mode corresponding to the electrothermal structure according to the working parameter (¶ [0038]-[0041])) and determine a working heating power (¶ [0008] and ¶ [0039]) corresponding to the working heating circuit according to the working parameter (claims 10 and 18); and the control module is further configured to control the reserved heating circuit to work when the working heating power is not within the safe power range(by diverting to the “auxiliary” reserved circuit as described in claims 10 and 18) wherein the control module is further configured to keep the working heating circuit in a working state when the working heating power is in the safe power range (i.e. it does not shutoff the main power when it is not in an overtempt/power range).
While Kim does not specifically teach that the control system is for a film heating circuit it does relate to providing power to a heating unit and auxiliary circuit for a heating and to the control of heating units which are above a predetermined temperature and the power regulation as such it is solving a similar problem to that found in the instant application and may be considered as analogous prior art.
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller in the configuration required by claims 5 and 6 and disclosed in Kim to the heating circuit of the modified Pai for the purpose of allowing for redirecting power when the main circuit working parameter exceeds a threshold as this prevents overheat and therefore damage of the heating circuit while allowing for a backup heat from the reserved heating circuit in case of failure.
Regarding claim 7
wherein the control module is further configured to determine a compensation heating power according to the working heating power when the working heating power is not within the safe power range, to make the reserved heating circuit work based on the compensation heating power.
Pai as modified does not teach this limitation directly, but under a BRI interpretation can be seen as teaching all of these limitations based on the actions taken. Kim teaches cutting the power at an unsafe temperature range (¶ [0008] [0039] and claims 10 and 18) this can be interpretated as determining a “compensation heating power according to the working heating power when the working heating power is not within the safe power range” (if the compensation heating power is taken as simply being supplying zero power to the main circuit). Kim also teaches providing a power to the auxiliary circuit when the main power circuit is shut off which can be interpretated as supplying a reserve power “based on” the compensation power being zero.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761