DETAILED ACTION
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
This Final Rejection is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments to filed on 10 July, 2025. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-23 are pending.
Claims 6, 8-9 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The claims, as amended, are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth at pages 2-5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10 April, 2025.
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) 1-5, 14-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI (US 7,956,758 B2 – published 7 June, 2011), in view of INABA (US 11,240,883 B2 – effectively filed 12 April, 2019).
As to claim 1, HATTORI discloses a seat temperature regulator(50; figure 5) comprising:
a control device(16) capable of controlling a temperature of a seat for heating and cooling (col.10, lines 6-20),
a Peltier element(42, 44; col.10, lines 6-20) connected to the control device (col.10, lines 6-20; figure 5).
However, HATTORI does not expressly disclose a heat conducting sheet that is in contact with the Peltier element, wherein the heat conducting sheet cools the seat when the Peltier element heats the seat, and the heat conducting sheet heats the seat when the Peltier element cools the seat, and the heat conducting sheet cools or heats a place of the seat where the Peltier element does not heat or cool the seat.
INABA, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a seat temperature regulator (abstract; figures 1-3). INABA teaches a Peltier element (structure defined by col. 7, lines 18-27 alone and/or with plate 3107) in contact with a heat conducting sheet (3104A, 3104B, or 3104C, in light of col. 7, lines 35-45 and 5, 6, and 31; col. 15, lines 10-14), such that the heat conducting sheet cools the seat when the Peltier element heats the seat (col. 7, lines 35-45, in light of the side of which the heat conducting sheet is connected to Peltier element, in addition to col.l7, lines 18-27, which provides the operation of the Peltier element to either heat or cool the different sides based on the polarity of the circuit), and the heat conducting sheet heats the seat when the Peltier element cools the seat(col. 7, lines 35-45, in light of the side of which the heat conducting sheet is connected to Peltier element, in addition to col.l7, lines 18-27, which provides the operation of the Peltier element to either heat or cool the different sides based on the polarity of the circuit), and the heat conducting sheet cools or heats a place of the seat where the Peltier element does not heat or cool the seat (figure 4, 6, and 31, at least, wherein the heat conducting sheet conducts the thermal energy to a different position along the seat different than the location of the Peltier element itself). Specifically, INABA teaches the features of the conductive sheets for the purpose of achieving a greater distribution of cold or heat (col.14, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of INABA, for these reasons.
As to claim 2, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling within a temperature width range of 4°C or less(MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the temperature range designated by β, and the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7).
As to claim 3, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses, wherein, after cooling the seat, the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling at a second temperature equal to or less than the temperature before cooling(MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the temperature range designated by β including varying temperatures equal to or less than a previous temperature, and the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7).
As to claim 4, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device sets a lower limit temperature to 20°C, while setting an upper limit temperature to 30°C, and continuously repeats the heating and cooling at a change rate of 1 °C/minute or more between the upper limit temperature and the lower limit temperature(MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the temperature range designated by β having upper and lower limits, and the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, based on a rate of change).
As to claim 5, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device sets a lower limit temperature to 22°C, while setting an upper limit temperature to 26°C, and continuously repeats the heating and cooling at a change rate of 3 °C/minute or more between the upper limit temperature and the lower limit temperature (MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the temperature range designated by β having upper and lower limits, and the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, based on a rate of change).
As to claim 14, HATTORI, as modified, does not further disclose including a fan that radiates heat from the heat conducting sheet.
INABA, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a seat temperature regulator (abstract; figures 1-3). INABA teaches a heat conducting sheet (cushion defined between surfaces A and B; figure 4) and a fan (410) that radiates heat from the heat conducting sheet (col.7, line 56- col.8, line 7). Particularly, INABA teaches wherein the blower enables heat removal or supplying of heat (col.7, line 56- col.8, line 7) for the purpose of improving temperature control for vehicle seats and seat assemblies (col. 1, lines 55-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of INABA, for these reasons.
As to claim 15, HATTORI, as modified by INABA, previously taught the inclusion of the heat conducting sheet and the fan (see rejection of claim 14).
However, HATTORI does not further disclose further comprising a heat dissipation fin that is arranged between the heat conducting sheet and the fan.
INABA, however, further teaches a heat dissipation fin (402; col.7, lines 3-5) is arranged between the heat conducting sheet and the fan (figures 3-4). Particularly, INABA teaches wherein the inclusion of the heat dissipation fin enables facilitating heat transfer with a volume of air (col.7, lines 39-41) for the purpose of improving temperature control for vehicle seats and seat assemblies (col. 1, lines 55-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of INABA, for these reasons.
As to claim 16, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling such that a length of a heating period is different from a length of a cooling period(MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, and based on the manner of which the occupant is inhaling/exhaling).
As to claim 17, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling such that a length of a heating period is identical to a length of a cooling period(MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, and based on the manner of which the occupant is inhaling/exhaling).
As to claim 18, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling such that a change rate of heating is different from a change rate of cooling (MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, and based on the manner of which the occupant is inhaling/exhaling).
As to claim 19, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device continuously repeats the heating and cooling such that a change rate of heating is identical to a change rate of cooling (MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the control device is capable of performing the function, in view of the continuous heating and cooling performed, as shown in figure 7, and based on the manner of which the occupant is inhaling/exhaling)
As to claim 20, HATTORI, as modified, further discloses wherein the control device notifies of a start of temperature regulation that continuously repeats the heating and cooling in advance (MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the structure of 14/28, which provides feedback to the controller, enables the controller capable of providing the function, as stated within col.7, lines 13-18).
As to claim 22, HATTORI discloses a seat temperature regulator(50; figure 5) comprising:
a control device(16) capable of controlling a temperature of a seat for heating and cooling (col.10, lines 6-20),
a Peltier element(42, 44; col.10, lines 6-20) connected to the control device (col.10, lines 6-20; figure 5).
However, HATTORI does not expressly disclose a first heat conducting sheet that is in contact with a first surface of the Peltier element, a second heat conducting sheet that is in contact with a second surface facing the first surface of the Peltier element, wherein the first heat conducting sheet cools the seat when the second heat conducting sheet heats the seat, the first heat conducting sheet heats the seat when the second heat conducting sheet cools the seat, and the first heat conducting sheet cools or heats a place of the seat where the second heat conducting sheet does not heat or cool.
INABA, however, is within the field of endeavor, provided a seat temperature regulator (abstract; figures 1-3). INABA teaches a Peltier element (structure defined by col. 7, lines 18-27 alone and/or with plate 3107) in contact with a first heat conducting sheet (3104A, 3104B, or 3104C, in light of col. 7, lines 35-45 and 5, 6, and 31; col. 15, lines 10-14) and a second heat conducting sheet(3104A, 3104B, or 3104C, in light of col. 7, lines 35-45 and 5, 6, and 31; col. 15, lines 10-14), which are in contact with first and second surfaces of the Peltier element that are facing one another (col. 7, lines 37-41). Moreso, INABA teaches that the first heat conducting sheet cools the seat when the second heat conducting sheet heats the seat (col. 7, lines 35-45, in light of the side of which the first and second heat conducting sheets are connected to Peltier element, in addition to col.l7, lines 18-27, which provides the operation of the Peltier element to either heat or cool the different sides based on the polarity of the circuit), and the first heat conducting sheet heats the seat when the second heat conducting sheet cools the seat(col. 7, lines 35-45, in light of the side of which the first and second heat conducting sheets are connected to Peltier element, in addition to col.l7, lines 18-27, which provides the operation of the Peltier element to either heat or cool the different sides based on the polarity of the circuit), and the first heat conducting sheet cools or heats a place of the seat where the second heat conducting sheet does not heat or cool the seat (figure 4, 6, and 31, at least, wherein the heat conducting sheets conducts the thermal energy to a different position along the seat different than the location of the other heat conducting sheets). Specifically, INABA teaches the features of the conductive sheets for the purpose of achieving a greater distribution of cold or heat (col.14, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of INABA, for these reasons.
As to claim 23, HATTORI, as modified by INABA previously taught the inclusion of the first and second heat conducting sheets in contact with the Peltier element and the Peltier element (see rejection of claim 22).
However, HATTORI, as presently modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the first heat conducing sheet and the second heat conducting sheet.
Furthermore, INABA teaches wherein the Peltier element has a first surface(surface of connection to 3104A to the defined Peltier element; figure 31) and a second surface(surface of connection to 3104C to the defined Peltier element; figure 31) that face each other in a predetermined direction (figure 31). INABA teaches the first heat conducting sheet has: a first portion that is in contact with the first surface of the Peltier element(surface of connection to 3104A to the defined Peltier element; figure 31; col. 7, lines 35-45) and a second portion that is located to be farther from the Peltier element than the first surface in the predetermined direction (figure 31, such as the second portion that is located at an end not in contact with the defined Peltier element). The second heat conducting sheet has: a third portion that is in contact with the second surface of the Peltier element(surface of connection to 3104C to the defined Peltier element; figure 31; col. 7, lines 35-45) and a fourth portion that is located to be opposite of the second surface from the Peltier element in the predetermined direction (figure 31, such as the fourth portion that is located at an end not in contact with the defined Peltier element, in view of figure 6, which includes extension of the conductive member to a side opposite that of which it is in contact with). Specifically, INABA teaches the features of the conductive sheets for the purpose of achieving a greater distribution of cold or heat (col.14, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of INABA, for these reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI (US 7,956,758 B2 – published 7 June, 2011), in view of INABA (US 11,240,883 B2 effectively filed 12 April, 2019) and YOSHINORI (JP 2004-290499 A – published 21 October, 2004; furnished with the IDS filed on 8 May, 2023 with English translation).
As to claim 7, HATTORI, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claim.
However, YOSHINORI is within the field of endeavor provided a seat temperature regulator (solution paragraph at pg. 2). YOSHINORI teaches comprising at least one sensor(2; par. 13 and 19-20) that detects sleepiness of a user, wherein the control device controls the temperature of the seat based a sleepiness level of the user based on information from the at least one sensor(par.14-15, and 22). Particularly, YOSHINORI teaches such control for the purpose of determining the awakening degree of the driver and sufficiently awakening them, as necessary (par. 13 and 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI to include the claimed features for these reasons.
As to claim 10, HATTORI does not further disclose the requirements of the claim.
However, YOSHINORI is within the field of endeavor provided a seat temperature regulator (solution paragraph at pg. 2). YOSHINORI teaches comprising a discomfort sensor(2; par. 13 and 19-20) that detects discomfort of a user, wherein the control device (4) controls the temperature of the seat based on a discomfort level of the user based on information from the discomfort sensor(par.14-15 and 22). Particularly, YOSHINORI teaches such control for the purpose of determining the awakening degree of the driver and sufficiently awakening them, as necessary (par. 13 and 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI to include the claimed features for these reasons.
As to claim 11, HATTORI, as modified, previously taught the inclusion of the discomfort sensor, but HATTORI, as presently modified, does not further disclose wherein the discomfort sensor includes a pressure sheet sensor capable of acquiring a contact pressure between the user and the seat.
YOSHINORI, however, further teaches wherein the discomfort sensor includes a pressure sheet sensor capable of acquiring a contact pressure between the user and the seat (MPEP § 2114 – II; par. 9 and 19). Again, YOSHINORI teaches the application of this sensor, in combination with the control, for the purpose of determining the awakening degree of the driver and sufficiently awakening them, as necessary (par. 13 and 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI to include the claimed features for these reasons.
As to claim 13, HATTORI, as modified, previously taught the inclusion of the discomfort sensor and the control unit operation based on the discomfort sensor (see rejection of claim 10).
Furthermore, the requirement of “wherein when the discomfort level is equal to or more than a threshold, the control device reduces a temperature width range between an upper limit temperature and a lower limit temperature of temperature regulation that continuously repeats the heating and cooling to be less than the temperature width range before a discomfort determination of the discomfort level.”, is merely functional language defining the manner of operating the device. See MPEP § 2114 – II -- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the resulting structure from the combination of HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI, is capable of providing such function based on the combination enabling determination of the discomfort level and providing operation between upper and lower limits of the temperature to repeat the heating and cooling over given time frames and temperature ranges. Therefore, the combination of HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI, teaches the requirements of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI (US 7,956,758 B2 – published 7 June, 2011), in view of INABA (US 11,240,883 B2 effectively filed 12 April, 2019), YOSHINORI (JP 2004-290499 A – published 21 October, 2004; furnished with the IDS filed on 8 May, 2023 with English translation), and LEE (US 2020/0215970 A1 – published 9 July, 2020).
As to claim 12, HATTORI, as modified, previously taught the inclusion of the discomfort sensor (see rejection of claim 10), but HATTORI does not disclose wherein the discomfort sensor includes a user attitude monitor that detects and attitude of a user.
YOSHINORI, however, teaches wherein the discomfort sensor includes a user attitude monitor that detects an attitude of the user (par. 18, in view of the correlation understood between heart rate and heartbeat to the attitude of the user as set forth by LEE; see sensor, 120, and discussion of par. 39, 61, and figure 2 of LEE). Thereby, the discomfort sensor of YOSHINORI is capable of being an attitude monitor to detect an attitude of the user (see MPEP § 2114 – II). Again, YOSHINORI teaches the application of this sensor, in combination with the control, for the purpose of determining the awakening degree of the driver and sufficiently awakening them, as necessary (par. 13 and 18), which would be further capable of determining the attitude of the user (see teachings cited by LEE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of YOSHINORI and LEE, to include the claimed features for these reasons.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATTORI (US 7,956,758 B2 – published 7 June, 2011), in view of SHIN (KR 20120088179 A – published 8 August, 2012; see provided English translation with Patent Document for citations).
As to claim 21, HATTORI discloses a seat temperature regulator(50; figure 5) comprising:
a control device(16) capable of controlling a temperature of a seat for heating and cooling (col.10, lines 6-20); and
a temperature regulating portion, which includes a Peltier element(42, 44; col.10, lines 6-20), that receives an electric signal from the control device to change the temperature of the seat through a temperature change in the Peltier element (col. 10, lines 6-15 and 21-25), wherein
the control device is configured to control a current value in the Peltier element and reverse a direction of a current to continuously repeat the heating and cooling within a temperature width range (figure 7, in view of β and col.10, lines 6-20).
However, HATTORI does not expressly disclose the temperature width range necessarily being of 10°C or less.
First, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Providing HATTORI with the designated temperature width range of 10°C or less, would not cause HATTORI to operate differently, with the temperature width range required by the claim, SHIN, as HATTORI would maintain the continuous cycle of heating and cooling by the Peltier element controlled by the controller(figure 7, in view of β and col.10, lines 6-20). As such, for this the claimed invention is unpatentable, in view of the prior art teachings of HATTORI.
Second, SHIN teaches a Peltier element (320) associated with the seat and controlled by a control device (400), wherein the control device is configured to control a current value in the Peltier element and reverse a direction of a current to continuously repeat the heating and cooling (pg. 4, par. 2 and 4) within a temperature width range of 10°C or less (pg. 4, par. 6 and 7). Specifically, SHIN teaches the control configuration features, as claimed, for the purpose of providing comfort within a vehicle to a passenger by automatically adjusting the indoor temperature of the vehicle to an appropriate temperature (technical field). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HATTORI, in view of the teachings of SHIN, for these reasons.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see pages 3-4, 6, and 9-10, filed 10 July, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 7, 10-13, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 7, 10-13, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see pages 2 and 10-11, filed 10 July, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of INABA (US 11,240,883) which teaches the heat conducting sheet which cools the seat when the Peltier devices heat the seat surfaces and heats the seat when the Peltier devices cool the seat surfaces, in addition to cooling or heating a place of the seat where the Peltier devices does not heat or cool the seat through. See discussion within the associated rejections presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, see pages 3-4 and 12, filed 10 July, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 10-13 under various rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendments made to independent claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of INABA (US 11,240,883) to teach the requirements, in combination with HATTORI, of independent claim 1. More so, Further teachings of INABA, YOSHINORI, and LEE, provide further requirements of the dependent claims, in combination with the teachings presented with regards to independent claim 1. See discussion within the associated rejections presented herein.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 11/14/2025
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763