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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a connecting device in claim 1 wherein connecting is a functional language with the term device being a generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The recited connecting device is interpreted as electrical electrodes as disclosed in the specification or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philip et al (US 2015/0382403).
Philip discloses the structure of the trim element claimed including at least one support layer (6) having an inner face and an outer face, at least one heating element (3) extending over a part of the inner face of the support layer, the heating element comprising at least one continuous carbon element (para 0013 and 0016) that extends from a first edge to a second edge, and a connecting device (shown by electrodes or busbars 4) connected to the resistive carbon element for electrically connecting to a source of current (power source), the connecting device (4) including a first electrode provided or extended in a vicinity of the first edge of the carbon element and a second electrode provided or extended in a vicinity of the second edge of the carbon element (also, see para 0052), and the first and second electrodes are electrically connected to the source of current (power supply via a connectors 5) wherein Philip discloses that the first electrode and the second electrode can be provided above the resistive layer (para 0052) which allows the first and second electrodes being interposed between the resistive carbon element and the support player.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip et al (US 2015/0382403) in view of Barfuss et al (US 2013/0186884).
With respect to claim 1, Philip discloses the structure of the trim element claimed including at least one support layer (6) having an inner face and an outer face, at least one heating element (3) extending over a part of the inner face of the support layer, the heating element comprising at least one continuous carbon element (including carbon graphite; para 0016) that extends from a first edge to a second edge, and a connecting device (shown by electrodes or busbars 4) connected to the resistive carbon element for electrically connecting to a source of current (power source). But, Philip does not explicitly disclose for the carbon element having the carbon material that comprises 95% or more by weight of carbon fibers.
Barfuss discloses it is known to provide a heating element comprising a carbon element including carbon fibers wherein the heating element includes 95 percent by weight or more of carbon (also, see para 0031 and 0044) which is known to provide a flexible heating layer that exhibits uniform heating there across (para 0008).
In view of Barfuss, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Philip with the heating element having the carbon material including 95 weight percent or more of carbon fibers that would predictably provide the heating element having a good flexibility while providing a good heating uniformity across the heating element.
With respect to claim 2, Philip discloses a layer (2a) as a decorative layer (para 0045) extending over an outer face of the support layer and covering the heating element.
With respect to claim 3, Philip discloses at least one protective layer (2b) that extends between the carbon element (3) and the decorative layer (2a) wherein the protective layer is made of a foam (para 0024) which is a non-woven material.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Philip discloses the connecting device (4) including a first electrode and a second electrode each connected to the first edge and the second edge, respectively, of the carbon element for connecting the carbon heating element to the source of current/power (para 0022) wherein the electrodes are positioned flush with an inner face of the carbon element as illustrated in Figure 1. Also, see para 0043.
With respect to claim 7, Philip discloses the heating element (3) having an inner face and an outer face wherein the outer face is flush with the face of the support layer as illustrated in Figure 1.
With respect to claim 8, Philip discloses the method claimed including the structure of the trim element according to claim 1 wherein the support layer is provided with the heating element placed thereon wherein the heating element and the support are assembled layer with the support layer that is shaped to encapsulate the heating element as illustrated in Figure 1.
With respect to claim 9, Philip discloses that the support layer is made to encapsulate (para 0010) the resistive heating element, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form and shape the support layer (6; having a corresponding shape into which the laminated heating element is encapsulated therein) during or after the support layer is sized so at to encapsulate the heating element as a matter of routine operations which would have been made from a finite number of identified or predictably solutions to form the encapsulated heating element as illustrated in Figure 1.
With respect to claim 10, Philip discloses the connecting device (electrodes) that can be provided below (para 0052) the resistive/carbon element so as to form the heating element wherein the heating element would have been formed before placing the heating element on the inner face of the support layer so that both carbon element and the connecting device are placed and encapsulated on the inner face or outer face of the support layer.
With respect to claim 11, Philip discloses the connecting device connecting the heating element to a source of current/power to supply power to the heating element (para 0022).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip in view of Barfuss as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-11 above and further in view of Yi et al (US 2015/0044924).
Philip in view of Barfuss discloses the trim element claimed including the support layer, which is made of polyurethane, but does not disclose that the support layer is made of natural fibers in a polypropylene matrix.
Yi discloses it is known to provide a composite material that can be a matrix resin including polyurethane or polypropylene (para 0014) which such material is known to provide a light weight with a high strength in the art.
In view of Yi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Philip, as modified by Barfuss, with the support layer that is made of natural fibers in polypropylene matrix that is known to provide a light and high strength material that would predicably provide a good mechanical strength to the trim element of Philip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim interpretation of the connecting device as a means plus function under the 35 USC 112(f), Applicant argues that the term connecting device is not subjected to interpretation under the 112(f) because such term denotes known physical structure used for electrical interconnection. This argument is not deemed persuasive since there is no physical known structure for “connecting” as connecting can be performed by other forms or shapes that include electrical clamping means by which electrical connection can be made. Because there is no particular known structure associated with the “connecting device”, such term would be subjected to the interpretation under the 112(f) as stated in the ground of rejection.
With respect to the newly amended claim recitation regarding the carbon material comprising 95% or more by weigh of carbon fiber, the Barfuss is applied to teach such claim recitation. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot.
With respect to the newly submitted claim 12, the Philip is applied as stated in the ground of rejection.
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights