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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/14/2026 has been entered.
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 5 is as previously presented.
Claims 2-4 and 6 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1 “the predetermined threshold value is equal to or greater than a time required to completely melt the accumulated snow on the cover member under a specified temperature condition” is claimed, but no function or method to determine what the time required to completely melt the accumulated snow on the cover member under a specified temperature condition actually is as there is no way in the specification to determine how much snow there is and therefore the duration of time required to melt all of the snow.
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 1 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the predetermined threshold value is equal to or greater than a time required to completely melt the accumulated snow on the cover member under a specified temperature condition” is indefinite because it is unclear how much snow is adhering to the surface and therefore how long it would take to melt all of the adhering snow. Additionally, it is unclear if the specified temperature condition is of the outside air or of the heater. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner will treat the “predetermined threshold value” as a predetermined duration of time that the heater wire stays on when the outside temperature exceeds the second temperature.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (US Publication 2017/0352938) hereafter referred to as Okumura, in view of Conway et al. (US Publication 2021/0339709) hereafter referred to as Conway.
Regarding claim 1, Okumura teaches a decorative component for a vehicle with a heating sheet (33) with a wire-shaped heater (35) located in a cover member for a millimeter wave radar device (15) is located in order to melt snow ([0009]) that would prevent the sensor from functioning ([0002]).
Okumura does not teach a temperature sensor, a power supply control device that is configured to control power supplied to the electric heater based on a result of detection by the temperature sensor, a power supply control device that is configured to start power supply to the electric heater when the outside temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined first temperature and equal to or lower than a second temperature, which is higher than the predetermined first temperature continue it for a duration of time once the outside temperature exceeds the second temperature, then stop it once that duration of time is exceeded.
Conway teaches a heater system (Figure 1, 100) for a vehicle, comprising a temperature sensor (122) which measures the outside temperature [0023], an electric headlamp heater (128) and a mirror heater (120), that could be a resistive wire [0017], configured to heat a predetermined portion of an exterior part of a vehicle configured to remove precipitation [0015] such as snow, a headlamp heat controller (118) and a mirror heater controller (112), which could be personal or server computers, multiprocessor systems or microprocessor-based systems among other systems [0056] which execute computer programs stored in memory, which controls the headlamp heater (128) and the mirror heater (120) based on the temperature from the temperature sensor (122) if it is between two temperature values [0023] and left on for a certain about of time after the condition is satisfied [0026] then turned off in order to save power [0015].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Okumura with the heating controller and temperature sensor of Conway in order to save power by turning the heater off when not needed.
Regarding claim 5, The modified device of Okumura teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and Okumura teaches the heater system being on a vehicle ([0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim that neither Okumura nor Conway teaches that their predetermined threshold value is equal to or greater than a time required to completely melt the accumulated snow on the cover member under a specified temperature condition, the limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement and is indefinite and is rejected under 112(a) and 112(b) and was previously rejected in the non-final rejection on 11/13/2025 and has been reapplied because the limitations have been added back into the claims after being previously cancelled in the amendment filed 1/27/2026. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner is treating the above limitation as a predetermined duration of time that the heater wire stays on when the outside temperature exceeds the second temperature. As such Conway teaching turning on the heater for a predetermined amount of time after the condition is satisfied [0026], satisfies the limitation.
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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights