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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 44 lines are extremely thin and blurry such that they are not sufficiently dark and dense for reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 includes the portion “disposed laterally beyond the first attachment region” which includes the recitation “beyond the first attachment region” which lacks antecedent basis. It appears that claim 14 was intended to depend from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim(s) 1-11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,422,462 to Kishimoto.
Regarding claims 1 and 2
A heating blanket comprising: a first heating segment (annotated figure) comprising a first heating section (portion of heating wires 7/8 in first heating segment as annotated) and a first sensing section (18), the first heating section comprises one or more heating elements and the first sensing section comprises one or more sensing elements (follow electrical wires in annotated circuit), a second heating segment (annotated Fig) comprising a second heating section (annotated Fig.), the second heating section comprises one or more heating elements (portion of heating wires 7/8 as annotated), wherein the first sensing section overlaps the second heating section and the one or more sensing elements in the first sensing section monitor or determine an amount of heat generated by the one or more heating elements in the second heating section (see how portion 18 extends into second heating section). wherein the second heating segment comprises a second sensing section (annotated Fig. 17), the second sensing section overlaps the first heating section and one or more sensing elements in the second sensing section monitor or determine heat generated by the one or more heating elements in the first heating section (see overlap of 17 into segment 1 in Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3
The heating blanket according to claim 1, wherein the first sensing section extends from a long edge of the first heating segment (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 18
The heating blanket according to claim 1, wherein the second sensing section extends from a long edge of the second heating segment (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 19
Wherein the first/second sensing section comprises one or more first/second fingers (threads 17/18 may be reasonably considered fingers) that project or cantilever from an edge of the first/second heating segment (see interpretation note below), the one or more first/second fingers overlap the first/second heating section (Fig. 7).
Claim interpretation note: The claims use the term “cantilever” to describe the portion of the sensors (46”, e.g.) which extends from one heating segment into the other. When viewed in isolation (see Fig. 9) these sensors are in fact cantilever from the heating segment. However, when the blanket is assembled the sensors become stitched in and are no longer cantilever (Fig. 10). As such interpreting 17/18 of the prior art as cantilever is consistent with the definition used by Applicant (i.e. it is cantilever with respect to the originating segment only, but not when entirely assembled).
Regarding claims 7 and 8
wherein the first/second sensing section overlaps a top surface of the first/second heating section, and the first/second sensing section overlaps a bottom surface of the first/second heating section such that the first sensing section and the second sensing section are in different planes (see explanation below).
In the case of claim 7 and 8 we have a first/second sensing sections 17 and 18 in a weave pattern with heating segments 1 on either first/second segment. When the first/second sensing sections are over the top of a heating element they overlap a top surface. When the first/second sensing sections are under the bottom of a heating element they overlap a bottom surface. As to being in different planes as can be seen in Fig. 7 17 and 18 alternate such that when one is over the top of the heating element the adjacent passes under the bottom of the heating element and thus they are at many points on separate planes.
Regarding claim 9
wherein the first heating segment comprises a heating layer (the mesh of elements 7/8 form a layer in each segment) comprising an electrically conductive foil layer (“The foil-like (ribbon-like) metal conductive wire”) disposed on an electrically insulative base layer (polymer 8).
Regarding claim 10
wherein the heating layer comprises one or more elongated slits that extend through a thickness of the heating layer (The space between each heating wire 7/8 can be considered a slit).
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 17
wherein the heating layer comprises a laminate covering the foil layer and the base layer (the thermosensitive layer between the electrodes is stated to have a “polymeric compound” over the conductive yarn which may be considered a “laminate covering the foil layer and the base layer as it covers at least portions).
Regarding the claim terms “wherein the one or more heating elements and/or the one or more sensing elements on the electrically insulative base layer are portions of the electrically conductive foil that remain on the electrically insulative base layer after a portion of the electrically conductive foil has been removed”. The prior art shows a foil-like wire on an insulative base, which means the foil “remains” in the structural sense. The term “after a portion of the electrically conductive foil has been removed” is considered a product by process limitation which imparts only the structural requirement of a “remaining” amount of foil.
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) 12-14 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto in view of US 12,336,061 to Seacord.
Kishimoto teaches all of the limitations as discussed above including that the heating sheet may be used in a blanket but teaches no details of the blanket cover.
In as much as it is not inherent the Examiner cites Seacord to show that heating blankets often have the inner heating layer in-between a top cover layer (12a) and a bottom cover layer (12b) with a first attachment region that joins the top and bottom cover layer laterally beyond one or more edges of the first attachment region (while not exhaustive of what could be considered an “attachment region” an exemplary interpretation is given below).
PNG
media_image2.png
491
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kishimoto to include cover layers with attachments as claimed and shown in Seacord as Seacord states that these covers may be used to provide many desirable properties such as water/fire resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights