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 heating element in claim 12 wherein heating is a functional language with the term element being a generic placeholder for means.
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.
A heating element is interpreted to include a wire or a conductive trace or as a carbon-based material incorporated in or coated in a base as described 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 § 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 16 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 16 lack proper antecedent basis for “the electrical connector”
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, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0284031) in view of Hu et al (US 2018/0370637) and Forrest et al (US 2008/0296279).
Lee discloses the component claimed including a main body (12 shown by a wheel well liner) that defines a part of a wheel well of a vehicle having an outer face that faces a wheel of the vehicle with an inner face (that is inherently present on the opposite side of the liner 12; also, see Figure 1) spaced and facing away from the wheel well (also, see Figures 1 and 4) wherein a heater (18) is carried by the main body. But, Lee does not explicitly show the heater including a base and a conductor element carried by the base wherein the base is polymeric and the conductor element includes carbon nanotubes, and an electrical connector as claimed.
Hu discloses it is known to provide a flexible heater that includes a base (12) made of a polymeric material (14) with conductive elements such as carbon nanotubes embedded or mixed therein to render the heater electrically conductive and also to control its electrical resistivity as desired for ice protection/heating (also, see Abstract).
Forrest shows it is known to provide a heater that is provided in or on a wheel well of a vehicle for deicing or melting snow build up wherein the heater is known to have an electrical connector (125) that provides an electrical connection with a power source.
In view of Hu and Forrest, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee with the heater having a base made of polymer with conductive elements including carbon nanotubes to predictably render the heater electrically conductive with a desired resistivity to produce a desired electrical resistance heating as taught by Hu wherein the heat would further include an electrical connector carried on by the heater, as taught by Forrest, so that an electrical connection can be made with a power source of a vehicle to power the heater as known in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Hu discloses that the conductive element includes a conductive material that is embedded in or mixed in with the base (para 0009).
With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses for the heater (18) that is arranged at a portion of the main body that defines a lower end of the wheel well as illustrated in Figure 1.
With respect to claim 9, Lee discloses the heater that provides heat to the main body by heat conduction as the heater is in thermal contact with the man body.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu and Forrest as applied to claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 above and further in view of Brown et al (US 3,166,371).
Lee in view of Hu and Forrest discloses the component claimed including the electrical connector (125 as show by Forrest) but does not explicitly show a cavity of the main body where the electrical connector is arranged to provide for a water-tight connection as claimed.
Brown discloses it is known to provide an electrical connector/wire (16) connected to a cavity of a body such as a socket (56) to be electrically engaged with the electrical connector wherein the electrical connector is further arranged to provide a water-tight electrical connection between the electrical connector and the socket/cavity (also, see column 4, lines 54-73).
In view of Brown, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Hu and Forrest, with the main body having a cavity such as a socket that would allow an electrical connection of with an electric connector of the heater element with a power source so that electric power can be supplied to the heater, and the cavity would be further arranged to provide a water-tight connection to predicably prevent any water contaminations or electrical shorts due to water that may come between the heating element and the power supply of the vehicle and ensure an effective operation of the heater.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu and Forrest as applied to claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 above and further in view of Bouman (US 6,211,493).
Lee in view of Hu and Forrest discloses the component claimed except for a temperature sensor that is responsive to the temperature of the heater.
Bouman discloses it is known to provide a heater that is provided with a temperature sensor (36) that is responsive to the temperature of the heater that would further control the activation/deactivation of the heater when its temperature is above a threshold temperature. Also, see column 5, lines 10-18.
In view of Bouman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Hu and Forrest, with a temperature sensor that is responsive to the temperature of the heater including when the heater temperature exceeds or goes over a threshold temperature to prevent overheating of the heater.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0284031) in view of Ghannam et al (US 2017/0347395).
Lee discloses the structure claimed including a vehicle with a wheel well component that defines a least part of a wheel well (also, see Figure 1) which is open to an exterior of the vehicle and extends to and is open to a lower side of the vehicle, a wheel (shown in Figure 1) located within the wheel well having an axis of rotation (which is inherently provided for the rotation of the wheel) wherein the wheel well component is radially spaced from the wheel with the wheel having an axial thickness that is axially overlapped by the wheel well component (also, see Figure 1), the wheel well component including a main body main (12 shown by a well liner) that defines a part of a wheel well of a vehicle having an outer surface that is exposed to the exterior of the vehicle and an inner surface (inherently present on the opposite of the outer surface of the main body/line 12) opposite the outer surface, and the wheel well component including a heater (18) that is carried by the main body and arranged to increase a temperature of the wheel well component when electricity is provided to the heater, a temperature sensor (26) to sense a temperature of an area including the wheel well component (para 0026), a control system (24) coupled to the heater (18/28) and the temperature sensor wherein in response to an output form the temperature sensor, the control system is operable to actuate the heater when the temperature falls below a threshold temperature (para 0026). But, Lee does not show a vehicle component including a camera, a sensor, or a movable side step as claimed.
Ghannam discloses it is known to provide a sensor including a camera or other sensors (e.g., lidar sensors or infrared sensors) located adjacent or near a wheel well of a vehicle (also, see Figure 2) wherein the vehicle sensor is known to be heated for protection against ice or snow via a control system coupled to a heating element and a temperature sensor (also, see para 0008-0010 and 0017 and Figure 1).
In view of Ghannam, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee with a vehicle sensor which is known to provide vehicle operating functions to further enhance the operation of the vehicle wherein such vehicle sensor would also be heated when exposed to snow or ice conditions or falls below a threshold temperature to predictably provide an optimal operating temperature condition for proper and adequate operations of the vehicle sensor.
With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses the heater (18) that is arranged against the inner surface of the wheel well component.
With respect to claim 18, Lee discloses a temperature sensor (26) that provides an indication of an ambient temperature outside the vehicle (para 0021).
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghannam as applied to claims 10, 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Forrest et al (US 2008/0296279)..
Lee in view of Ghannam discloses the structure claimed including the heater but does not explicitly show a base and a heating element carried by the base.
Forrest discloses it is known to provide the heater that is formed with a base (110) with a heating element (120) carried by the base (para 0011).
In view of Forrest, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Ghannam, with the heater that is provided with a base and a heating element carried by the base as a known heater arrangement that forms a heater that can predictably and effectively melt snow or ice accumulations in the wheel well.
With respect to claim 13, Lee discloses that the heating element can be a resistive heating wire (para 002), and Forrest also discloses the heating element that can be a resistive wire (para 0012).
With respect to claim 15, Forrest discloses the heating element that is integrated and sandwiched between two flexible layers/base of plastic (para 0015) with the plastic being polymer (para 0011) wherein such heating element would provide an effective heating capabilities for deicing or removing snow buildups.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghannam and Forrest as applied to claims 12, 13 and 15 above and further in view of Gullerud et al (US 2005/0098684).
Lee in view of Ghannam and Forrest discloses the structure claimed including the heating element that is incorporated into the base that is made of a polymeric sheet of material as taught by Forrest but does not show that the heating element includes a carbon based material.
Gullerud discloses it is known to provide a heater having a heating element that includes a carbon based material (para 0047).
In view of Gullerud, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Ghannam and Forrest, with the heating element that includes a carbon-based material or any other suitable materials since such material is well known material as a simple substitution that can form an electrical resistance heating element suitable for an electric heater as known in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghannam as applied to claims 10, 11 and 18 above and further in view of Forrest et al (US 2008/0296279) and Brown et al (US 3,166,371).
Lee in view of Ghannam discloses the structure claimed except for an electrical connector provided in a cavity of the main body where the electrical connector is arranged to provide for a water-tight connection as claimed.
Forrest shows it is known to provide a heater that is provided in or on a wheel well of a vehicle for deicing or melting snow build up wherein the heater is known to have an electrical connector (125) that provides an electrical connection with a power source.
Brown discloses it is known to provide an electrical connector/wire (16) connected to a cavity of a body such as a socket (56) to be electrically engaged with the electrical connector wherein the electrical connector is further arranged to provide a water-tight electrical connection between the electrical connector and the socket/cavity (also, see column 4, lines 54-73).
In view of Forrest and Brown, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Ghannam, with the heater having an electrical connector carried on by the heater so that an electrical connection can be made with a power source of a vehicle to power the heater as known in the art wherein the main body having a cavity such as a socket that would allow an electrical connection of with the electric connector of the heater element with a power source so that electric power can be supplied to the heater, and the cavity would be further arranged to provide a water-tight connection to predicably prevent any water contaminations or electrical shorts due to water that may come between the heating element and the power supply of the vehicle and ensure an effective operation of the heater.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghannam as applied to claims 10, 11 and 18 above and further in view of Bouman (US 6,211,493).
Lee in view of Ghannam discloses the component claimed except for a temperature sensor that is responsive to the temperature of the heater.
Bouman discloses it is known to provide a heater that is provided with a temperature sensor (36) that is responsive to the temperature of the heater that would further control the activation/deactivation of the heater when its temperature is above a threshold temperature. Also, see column 5, lines 10-18.
In view of Bouman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Ghannam, with a temperature sensor that is responsive to the temperature of the heater including when the heater temperature exceeds or goes over a threshold temperature to prevent overheating of the heater.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghannam as applied to claims 10, 11 and 18 above and further in view of Hu et al (US 2018/0370637).
Lee in view of Ghannam discloses the structure claimed except for the heater including a base and a conductor element carried by the base wherein the base is polymeric and the conductor element includes carbon nanotubes.
Hu discloses it is known to provide a flexible heater that includes a base (12) made of a polymeric material (14) with conductive elements such as carbon nanotubes embedded or mixed therein to render the heater electrically conductive and also to control its electrical resistivity as desired for ice protection/heating (also, see Abstract).
In view of Hu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Lee, as modified by Ghannam, with the heater having a base made of polymer with conductive elements including carbon nanotubes to predictably render the heater electrically conductive with a desired resistivity to produce a desired electrical resistance heating as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the argument regarding the claim interpretation under the 112 sixth paragraph, it is noted that the heating element is given a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification that can be not only as a heater wire or conductive trace but also that includes a base and a carbon-based material as argued by Applicant.
Regarding the newly claimed amendment of claim 1 including the heater that includes a base that is polymeric with a conductive element including carbon nanotubes, the newly applied Hu as stated in the ground of rejection.
Regarding the newly claimed amendment of claim 10, Ghannam is applied to teach the vehicle component including a camera or a sensor 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