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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, lines 16-20, filed Fig. 4, with respect to the objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Fig. 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically:
On pages 6-7, applicant argues “Suetsugu Fails to Disclose or Suggest Numerical Formula (F1), and the Office’s “Result-Effective Variable” Rational Is Unsupported.” However, this argument is moot because Suetsugu in view of newly cited reference Shrivastava discloses the limitation regarding numerical formula (F1).
On pages 7-8, applicant argues “Surjan Teaches a Resistance Trend Opposite to That Required by Claim 1.” However, this argument is moot because the present rejection does not rely on Surjan.
On page 8, applicant argues “The Amended Claim Recites Structural Features Not Disclosed or Suggested by the Art.” However, this argument is moot because Suetsugu in view of newly cited reference Shrivastava discloses the structural features recited in claim 1.
On page 8, applicant argues “The Combination of Suetsugu and Surjan Does Not Render Claim 1 Obvious.” However, this argument is moot because the present rejection does not rely on Surjan. The rejection of claim 1 is now based on Suetsugu in view of newly cited reference Shrivastava.
On page 9, applicant argues “The Claimed Application Achieves an Advantageous Effect Not Suggested by the Prior Art.” However, this argument is moot because Suetsugu in view of new cited reference Shrivastava renders claim 1 obvious, and applicant has not provided objective evidence of unexpected results in the form of a declaration or comparative data sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suetsugu et al. (US 20190159296) hereinafter Shrivastava et al. (US 20140177028) hereinafter Shrivastava.
Regarding Claim 1, Suetsugu teaches a wiring sheet (10, electrical heating glass; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) comprising:
a pseudo sheet structure (Paragraph 82; Suetsugu teaches a sheet with a conductor includes a base film, a pair of bus bars, and a heat-generating conductor that couples between the pair of bus bars, in which the heat-generating conductor includes a plurality of conductive thin wires that linearly extends between the pair of bus bars and couples between the pair of bus bars and a coupling conductive thin wire for coupling between two adjacent main conductive thin wires, which the examiner interprets as a pseudo sheet structure) comprising a plurality of conductive linear bodies (22, heat-generating conducting body; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu teaches a plurality of heat-generating conducting bodies) arranged at intervals (B, interval; Fig. 4; Suetsugu);
a pair of electrodes (21, bus bar electrode; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu teaches a pair of electrodes 21a and 21b); and
a first power feeder (23a, first wire; Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) provided for one of the electrodes and a second power feeder (23b, second wire; Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) provided for the other of the electrodes (Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu teaches the first and second wires 23a and 23b are connected to the power supply 40 to feed power to the bus bar electrodes 21a and 21b. The examiner interprets the first and second wires as the first and second power feeders), wherein
provided that the number of the conductive linear bodies (22; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) is N (Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu), a resistance value of each of the conductive linear bodies is r (Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu teaches a plurality of heat-generating conducting bodies 22. Each heat-generating conducting body inherently possesses an electrical resistance, corresponding to the claimed resistance value r), a resistance value of each of the electrodes is R (Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu teaches bus bar electrodes 21. Each bus bar electrode inherently possesses an electrical resistance, corresponding to the claimed resistance value R), a resistance value of each of the electrodes between an n-th conductive linear body (n-th heat-generating conducting body; Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) and an (n-1)th conductive linear body ((n-1)th heat-generating conducting body; Annotated Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) counted from a side at which the first power feeder and the second power feeder (shown in Annotated Fig. 1) are provided is Rn (Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu discloses bus bar electrodes that extend along a plurality of heat-generating conducting bodies. Since electrical resistance is an inherent property of conductive materials, each segment of the bus bar electrode between adjacent heat-generating conducting bodies inherently has a resistance value, corresponding to the claimed resistance value Rn).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1(a) of Suetsugu, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
318
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Suetsugu
PNG
media_image3.png
211
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Suetsugu
Regarding Claim 1, Suetsugu does not explicitly teach the wiring sheet satisfies all conditions represented by numerical formula (F1) below,
r/R ≤ 300 (F1)
However, Suetsugu discloses a wiring sheet wherein the bus bar electrodes (21) and a plurality of heat-generating conducting bodies (22) each inherently possesses an electrical resistance, thereby establishing a ratio r/R as an inherent property of the disclosed structure.
Shrivastava further discloses a planar electrical device wherein the resistance relationship between conductive elements is a recognized and controllable design parameter, teaching “[t]he resistivity can be tailored based on various compositional adjustments known to those of skill in the art … [b]y varying the concentration of [conductive material] in the … bus bar, one can produce a bus bar in which the resistivity likewise varies along the length.” Shrivastava, ¶ [0057].
Suetsugu and Shrivastava are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of planar electrical devices employing elongated electrodes to distribute current across a thin film substrate. Accordingly, Suetsugu and Shrivastava collectively demonstrate that the ratio r/R between the resistance of the heat-generating conducting bodies and the resistance of the bus bar electrodes would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a design parameter that could be selected to provide suitable current distribution and heating performance across the wiring sheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the ratio r/R between the resistance of the heat-generating conducting bodies and the resistance of the bus bar electrodes, including a ratio of 300 or less, in order to achieve uniform distribution of current and temperature across the heat-generating conducting bodies.
Furthermore, applicant’s specification confirms in ¶¶ [0015]-[0016] that the r/R ≤ 300 relationship is mathematically determinable and based on predictable electrical principles—the point at which electrode resistance becomes non-negligible is precisely the type of functional boundary a person having ordinary skill in the art would identify through routine design work. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding Claim 1, Suetsugu does not explicitly teach the wiring sheet satisfies all conditions represented by numerical formulae (F2) and (F3) below, and
Wherein a cross-sectional area of each of the electrodes increases with increased distance from a corresponding one of the first power feeder and the second power feeder, or each of the electrodes includes a material exhibiting higher electrical conductivity with increased distance from the corresponding one of the first power feeder and the second power feeder.
Rn ≤ Rn-1 (F2)
where n is an integer of 2 or more,
0 < R2 - RN (F3).
However, Shrivastava discloses in Fig. 4D, lengthwise variable bus bars (430, “bus bars”) having geometry and/or material composition that varies along their length to produce a varying resistance profile along the bus bar (430). Specifically, Shrivastava discloses bus bars wherein “width, height, and/or other cross-sectional dimension linearly taper[] from the proximal end to the distal end,” and further discloses “a bus bar may have a material composition that varies lengthwise to increase electrical resistivity between proximal and distal ends.” Shrivastava, ¶ [0059]. Shrivastava further discloses “[a] bus bar may be connected to the source of electrical power at locations where the bus bar has least resistance, although this is not required.” Shrivastava, ¶ [0058]. Accordingly, the power feeder may be connected at any location along the bus bar, including at the narrow end. Accordingly, when the power feeder is connected at the narrow end of the tapered bus bar, the cross-sectional area of the electrode increases with increased distance from the power feeder, and the resistance of the electrode correspondingly decreases with increased distance from the power feeder, as resistance is inversely proportional to cross-sectional area. This configuration satisfies the structural limitation of amended claim 1 as well as formulae (F2) and (F3). Similarly, Shrivastava’s teaching of varying material composition along the bus bar length such that resistivity varies along the length (Shrivastava, ¶ [0057]) directly satisfies the alternative structural limitation requiring higher electrical conductivity with increased distance from the corresponding power feeder.
Accordingly, Suetsugu and Shrivastava collectively demonstrate that the geometry and material composition of bus bar electrodes in a planar electrical device would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as design parameters that could be selected to provide suitable current distribution and uniform heating performance across the sheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bus bar electrodes of the conductive sheet taught by Suetsugu to incorporate the lengthwise variable bus bar geometry or material composition taught by Shrivastava, with the power feeder connected at the narrow end of the tapered electrode as taught by Shrivastava in ¶ [0058], in order to achieve uniform current distribution and uniform temperature distribution across the wiring sheet.
PNG
media_image4.png
244
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4D of Shrivastava
Regarding Claim 2, Suetsugu and Shrivastava teaches the wiring sheet (10, electrical heating glass; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) according to claim 1, wherein an interval (B; Fig. 4; Suetsugu) between the conductive linear bodies (22; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) is 20 mm or less (Paragraph 211; Suetsugu teaches the interval B between the adjacent heat-generating conducting bodies is equal to or more than 0.5 mm and equal to or less than 5.00 mm).
Regarding Claim 3, Suetsugu and Shrivastava teaches the wiring sheet (10, electrical heating glass; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) according to claim 1 [[or 2]], further comprising a base material (24, base material layer; Fig. 2; Suetsugu) supporting the pseudo sheet structure (Fig. 2; Suetsugu teaches the base material layer 24 supports the pseudo-sheet structure disclosed in Paragraph 82).
Regarding Claim 4, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Suetsugu and Shrivastava teaches a sheet-shaped heater (Paragraph 3; Suetsugu teaches a sheet with a conductor having a heat-generating conductor. The examiner interprets said sheet as a sheet-shaped heater) comprising the wiring sheet (10; Fig. 1(a); Suetsugu) according to claim 1.
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Edward F. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights