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
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 03/19/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-15 are pending:
Claims 13 was indicated by applicant as “withdrawn”, however no restriction requirement has been applied to the instant application, and therefore the claim is not withdrawn.
It appears that applicant may have intended to cancel the claim, per Remarks page 5, however since the claim was not indicated as “canceled” the office must treat the claim as “Currently Amended” due to the presented amendments to Claim 13.
The supplemental reply filed on 04/09/2026 was not entered because supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right except as provided in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(ii). The supplemental reply is clearly not limited to placement of the application in condition for allowance, and examination of the first amendment had already been substantially completed. Please see MPEP 714.03(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered.
Objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn due to amendment.
Objection to the specification due to acronym usage is maintained due to lack of argument and lack of amendment.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered.
Objection to the claims has been withdrawn due to amendment.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by Kohn (US 2009/0107984), Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), Yates (US 2009/0229054), Ross (US 2015/0257554), Zou (CN 107815780), Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), Kim (US 8,383,993) as applied in the prior office action have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 5-6, that “plush” and “PV fleece” have different patentable scope as, while the two terms overlap “commercial common names”, each have different material properties.
The office respectfully disagrees. The office has evidenced (NPL_2019_Ruili) why one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the two terms plush and PV fleece to reference the same patentable scope. Applicant’s arguments fail to indicate that the office’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider plush and PV fleece to be corresponding patentable scope. While applicant has provided a rational why someone of ordinary skill in the art may consider there to be possible structural differences between plush and PV fleece, none of those asserted structural differences are in the claim language / scope. Nor has applicant shown evidence from the specification that would negate the office’s position. The fact that there are more than one possible reasonable interpretations of claim scope of one of ordinary skill in the art does not negate any one of the reasonable interpretations.
Applicant must show how the office’s position is unreasonable – possible means being a special definition is the specification, showing how plush and PV fleece never overlap term usage, or imbedding a structural difference in the claim language itself.
Applicant asserts, page 6-7, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the material teaching from Yamazaki, as Yamazaki and the instant application have different CPC classifications and different “functional designs”.
The office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the above is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Yamazaki (US 6,198,377, C1L8-13) and the instant application are directed towards flexible electric heaters.
Applicant asserts, page 7-8, that since Morgandi fails to teach a “film layer” that Morgandi “cannot provide any motivation for the technical solution of the instant application”.
Applicant’s assertion is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record and amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the rection of record of Claim 1. The rejection of record of claim 1 does not rely upon Morgandi for the ‘film layer’ but rather upon Jung to teach that feature as specified in the rejection of record.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts, page 8, that that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the material teaching from Kim, as Kim and the instant application have different CPC classifications and different “application position and functions”.
The office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the above is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Kim (US 8,383,993, C1L20-34) and the instant application are directed towards electric heaters for example blaket/pad.
Applicant asserts, page 10-12 that (A) Kohn does not indicate any “technical defects of the heating elements” and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would “have no motivation” to change the heating elements of Kohn. (B) Jung fails to explicitly indicate that the protective layer is adaptable to “quilting channel scenario of electric blankets” and therefore “no reason to combine the two references”. (C) Morgandi cannot be applied to Kohn due to different size tubes.
The office respectfully disagrees. (A) Kohn is not required to explicitly indicate a technical defect in the arrangement of Kohn in order for an obvious modification to be applied to Kohn under US patent practice. (B/C) The rejection of record is not reliant upon “quilting channel” or the tube size of Morgandi.
Applicant asserts, page 12-13, that the Scope of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art is “strictly limited” to the scope of “Annex 5-5: Evidence of the Knowledge Scope of Industry Technicians”.
The office respectfully disagrees. The office notes that “Annex 5-5” was not provided in the file wrapper nor cited in an IDS. Further, the assertion that there are two many references / “complex combination” is not persuasive as: reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant asserts, page 12-15, that the material teachings Yates in the context of claim 2-4 are not obvious due to Yates not explicitly indicating that the materials are known in blankets that are include heating elements.
The office respectfully disagrees. Yates teaches blanket material selections known to be used in blankets that warm a user, in would thus be obvious to use those material selections in a blanket that warms a user. One of ordinary skill in the art does not require Yates to further discuss heating elements within a blanket in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the application of the materials selected by Yates.
Applicant asserts, page 15-18, that the material teachings of Yamazaki / Kim in the context of claim 10-13 “lacks any valid basis” due to (A) Yamazaki being a temperature sensor, and (B) Kim’s NTC resin has a different intended use.
The office respectfully disagrees.
A) Yamazaki is used to teach that copper is a known material choice for a conductor in a heating wire in an electric heater. The fact that Yamazaki further uses the same wire as a temperature sensor does not negate the relied upon taught application.
B) Kim was relied upon to teach that a NTC thermos-sensitive resin is a known in the art material choice for the intermediate layer. Kim teaches that the material is a known possible material selection in layered arrangement, and thus would be a material for consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art as cited in the prior office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
First time each acronym/unit is recited, they should be explained in a paratheses
Examples: PV, NTC, PET, PVC, 1500D etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
“plush” and “PV fleece” are synonyms and have the same patentable scope
As evidenced NPL_2019_Ruili, see filewrapper: “PV fleece is also called plush, South Korea velvet”
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12
L2, amend “(N[[P]]TC)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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(s) 1, 10-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377)
Claim 1
Kohn discloses:
“An electric blanket (best seen Fig1/2, pad 10), wherein comprises
the electric blanket fabric provided with multiple quilting in interlaced multi-line stitches (Para16; Fig1/2 scrim 26, batting 28, shell 24, stitches that form channels 32);
the electric blanket fabric is provided with a heating element around the quilting stitches (Fig2, resistive heating wire 30 in channels 32), and
the heating element is provided with a coupler for connecting to a controller (Para20; wire 16 connecting to controller 18);
…”
Kohn is silent to the particular features of the resistive heating wire 30.
Morgandi teaches (Fig2) “the heating element consists of a core (support 24), an inner conductor (first conductor 26), an intermediate layer (inner layer 28), an outer conductor (second conductor 30), … and an outer jacket (outer layer 32) from inside to outside (arrangement order best seen Fig2).”
Morgandi does not explicitly indicate if the outer layer 32 does or does not include a film layer radially outwards from the second conductor 30.
Jung teaches (C13L44-58) that it is known in the art to form a protective outer layer for a heating element using both of a PET film within an outer PVC layer, and such a protective covering provides the advantage of prolonged life due to avoiding wear caused by twisting, shrinking or swelling.
Yamazaki teaches (C23L18-28) that copper is a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire in an electric heater.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular resistive heating wire for the arrangement of Kohn as Kohn is silent to any particular resistive heating wire, and Morgandi teaches a heating wire as claimed where the outer layer is open to the inclusion of a film layer, and Jung teaches that such a combination of a PET film layer and a PVC jacket are a known in the art heating element outer layer, and Yamazaki teaches that copper is a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire in an electric heater, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Kohn with a known and working resistive heating wire as supplied by Morgandi and modified by Jung to provide the advantage of prolonged life due to avoiding wear caused by twisting, shrinking or swelling, and a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire of copper as taught by Yamazaki as such a selection would have to be made in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the disclosure of the arrangement.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki as applied in claim 1 discloses: “An electric blanket according to claim 1, wherein the core is a polyester thread (Morgandi: C3L20-22) …”
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki as applied in claim 1 is silent to the particular denier of 1500D for the polyester yarn.
Yamazaki teaches (Fig3, C22L33-34) that a polyester core of 1500 deniers is a known in the art material selection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the core polyester yarn denier for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi and Jung, as the arrangement is silent to the particular denier selection, and Yamazaki teaches that 1500 deniers is known in the art material property selection for a polyester core, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi and Jung with a selection of 1500 deniers as such a selection would have to be made in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the disclosure of the arrangement.
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki as applied in claim 1 discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki as applied in claim 1 is silent to the material of the inner conductor.
Yamazaki teaches (C23L18-28) that nickel is a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire in an electric heater.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the inner conductor material selection for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi and Jung, as the arrangement is silent to the particular inner conductor material selection, and Yamazaki teaches that nickel is a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire in an electric heater, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi and Jung with a known in the art material choice for a conductor in a heating wire of nickel as such a selection would have to be made in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the disclosure of the arrangement.
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki as applied in claim 1 discloses: “The electric blanket according to claim 1, wherein the outer conductor is made of pure copper material (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in claim 1)”.
Claim 14
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses: “An electric blanket according to claim 1, wherein the film layer is made of PET material (limitation is within the scope of the combination as discussed in Claim 1).”
Claim 15
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses: “An electric blanket according to claim 1, wherein the outer jacket is made of Polyvinyl chloride compound (limitation is within the scope of the combination as discussed in Claim 1).”
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621) and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), and in further view of Yates (US 2009/0229054).
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Yates teaches (Para33) that flannel and/or lambswool are known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Yates teaches that flannel and/or lambswool are known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of flannel and lambswool on opposite sides in order to provide a user with a warm feeling material and to provide the user a choice of selecting alternating materials at different uses of the arrangement.
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Yates teaches (Para33) that flannel is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Yates teaches that flannel is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of flannel on both sides in order to provide a user with a warm feeling material.
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Yates teaches (Para33) that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Yates teaches that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of lambswool on both sides in order to provide a user with a warm feeling material.
Claim(s) 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), and in further view of Ross (US 2015/0257554).
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Ross teaches (Claim 11; Para6/8/34) that polyester plush is a known material to select for the outer surface of a human user fabric device that may also be heated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Ross teaches that polyester plush is known in the art outer material selections for a human user fabric device that may also be heated, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of polyester plush on both sides in order to provide a user with a comfortable feeling material.
Claim 8, see Claim Interpretation Section above
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Ross teaches (Claim 11; Para6/8/34) that polyester plush is a known material to select for the outer surface of a human user fabric device that may also be heated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Ross teaches that polyester plush is known in the art outer material selections for a human user fabric device that may also be heated, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of polyester plush on both sides in order to provide a user with a comfortable feeling material.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), and in further view of Yates (US 2009/0229054) and Ross (US 2015/0257554).
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Yates teaches (Para33) that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user.
Ross teaches (Claim 11; Para6/8/34) that polyester plush is a known material to select for the outer surface of a human user fabric device that may also be heated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Yates teaches that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user, and Ross teaches that polyester plush is known in the art outer material selections for a human user fabric device that may also be heated, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of lambswool and polyester plush on opposite sides in order to provide a user with a known material to be selected and to provide the user a choice of selecting alternating materials at different uses of the arrangement.
Claim 7, see Claim Interpretation Section above
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Yates teaches (Para33) that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user.
Ross teaches (Claim 11; Para6/8/34) that polyester plush is a known material to select for the outer surface of a human user fabric device that may also be heated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Yates teaches that lambswool is known in the art outer material selections for a blanket that provide the advantage of feeling warm to a user, and Ross teaches that polyester plush is known in the art outer material selections for a human user fabric device that may also be heated, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of lambswool and polyester plush on opposite sides in order to provide a user with a known material to be selected and to provide the user a choice of selecting alternating materials at different uses of the arrangement.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), and in further view of Zou (CN 107815780).
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to a particular required material selected to form the shell of Kohn.
Zou teaches (Abstract) that coral fleece weft-knitted cloth is known in the art cloth that has improved cleanability for a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the upper/lower shell material for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as Kohn does not require a particular material selection, and Zou teaches that coral fleece weft-knitted cloth is known in the art material selection for a cloth that has improved cleanability for a user, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a selection of coral fleece weft-knitted cloth on both sides in order to provide a user with an improved cleanability arrangement.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US 2009/0107984) in view of Morgandi (US 7,180,033), Jung (US 8,197,621), and Yamazaki (US 6,198,377), and in further view of Kim (US 8,383,993).
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
The modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki is silent to the material of the intermediate layer being NTC resin.
Kim teaches (Fig4, thermos-sensitive material; abstract, C9L35) that a NTC thermo-sensitive resin is a is a known in the art material choice for the intermediate layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the intermediate layer material selection for the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki, as the arrangement is silent to the particular intermediate layer material selection, and Kim teaches that NTC thermo-sensitive resin is a is a known in the art material choice for the intermediate layer, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Kohn by the teachings of Morgandi, Jung, and Yamazaki with a known in the art material choice for the intermediate layer as NTC thermo-sensitive resin as such a selection would have to be made in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the disclosure of the arrangement.
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights