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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed with the RCE submission of April 14, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-13, 19 and 21-24 are canceled, and claims 14-18 and 20 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-20, in the reply filed on August 15, 2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that non-elected claims 1-13 and 21-24 have been canceled by the amendment of December 12, 2025.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the features of original claim 18 that are still in present claim 18 are not provided in the specification itself, including the “cycled repeatedly supporting a predetermined color change without damaging the wire or carbon fiber”. Note also the original temperature change of Δ60 degrees C or less was also not provided in the specification. Furthermore, that the liquid crystal is selected to match color change over a full color spectrum when subjected to the original Δ60 degrees C or less temperature range as in claim 20 was not provided in the specification.
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: free meniscus coating apparatus in claim 14.
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.
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.
It is understood that “resistively heated” as to the “flexible resistively-heated conductive filament” in claim 14 means that the end product filament can be resistively heated. Note the statement at page 6 of the amendment of December 12, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 has been amended to provide that “the conductiv filament is adapted to be resistively heated by passage of electric current less than 1A to achieve temperature change in a range of Δ1 oC to Δ10 oC”. However, the disclosure as filed does not provide using any amount of current less than 1A to provide the color change. Instead it is indicated that the ampere amount can be as small as 0.001 amperes and a current above 1A would be undesirable in most settings (note 0030 of the specification) and therefore, a range of 0.001 A to 1 A is taught, for example, and not including a range below 0.001 A, which would be allowed by the amended languages. Therefore, the amendment to claim 14 is broader than the originally provided features, and the claim contains new matter. The other dependent claims are also rejected, since they do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Claim 20 depends from claim 18, which claim 18 has been amended to provide a temperature arrange for heating Δ1 degrees C to Δ10 degrees C rather than Δ60 degrees C or less. However, for claim 20, it is not taught by the disclosure as filed that the Δ1 degrees C to Δ10 degrees C is a range that would give a color change over a full spectrum. For example, in the specification it is described that a change of 1 degrees C may simply change from red to yellow, or a 20 degree change can also give this single color change (note 0024). Therefore, the amendment to claim 20 appears to contain new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/169843 (hereinafter ‘843, used as provided with the IDS of August 29, 2023) in view of Lorch et al (US 2528009) and Chin et al (US 2010/0151228) is withdrawn due to the amendments of April 14, 2026 changing the scope of the claims.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘843 in view of Lorch and Chin as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Haubs et al (US 5156888) is withdrawn due to the amendments of April 14, 2026 changing the scope of the claims.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘843 in view of Lorch and Chin as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Viol (US 2005/0066896) is withdrawn due to the amendments of April 14, 2026 changing the scope of the claims.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘843 in view of Lorch and Chin as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Nakano (US 5508068) is withdrawn due to the amendments of April 14, 2026 changing the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
(1) Due to the amendments to the claims, note the new 35 USC 112 new matter rejections. Also note the new objection to the specification.
(2) With the amendment to the claims changing their scope and arguments provided by applicant, the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections above been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights