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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: to be consistent with other limitations, it is suggested to remove a reference number “(4)” at line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-5 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, recite the limitation "the upper fabric" in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the upper fabric” and “an upper layer of fabric” and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the upper fabric) or provide proper antecedent basis.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Shaler (US 1,044,270).
Regarding claim 1, Shaler discloses an electric blanket (i.e. called an electrical heating pad), comprising:
an electric blanket body having an upper layer of fabric (A), a middle layer of fabric (i.e. called an intermediate layer), and a lower layer of fabric (B) stitched (3, i.e. called lines of stitching) together in sequence (page 5, lines 55-69);
a resistance wire (1, 2, 6, 7, i.e. called conducting wires) fixed on the middle layer of fabric (i.e. called an intermediate layer) by circumferentially quilting a sewing thread (i.e. stitching strands/threads) around the resistance wire (1, 2, 6, 7, i.e. called conducting wires) in a zig-zag manner (i.e. called looping), with the quilting spacing (see figures 2 and 3) between adjacent portions of the sewing thread (i.e. stitching strands/threads) is one to five times (i.e. about 2 or 3 times) the diameter of the resistance wire (1, 2); and
a controller (i.e. automatic heat controlling device or a manual controlled switch) electrically connected to the resistance wire (1, 2, 6, 7, i.e. called conducting wires) (page 3, lines 58-59; page 5).
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) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaler (US 1,044,270) in view of Xia et al. (US 20220151025).
Regarding claim 2, Shaler discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein a connector female end fixedly installed on the upper fabric and electrically connected to the resistance wire, and the controller has one end which is provided with a connector male end for detachable plug-in connection with the connector female end.
However, Xia teaches wherein a connector female end (31) fixedly installed on the upper fabric and electrically connected to the resistance wire (21), and the controller (5) has one end which is provided with a connector male end (i.e. called a connector male end) for detachable plug-in connection with the connector female end (31) (¶ 0013, 0041).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an electric heating blanket/pad. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shaler and Xia before him or her, to include such connectors arrangement of Xia because it facilitates operation and avoid a solution of directly operating by a controller, so that the electric heating blanket is more convenient and faster to use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves the purpose of controlling each heating shift position at a constant temperature (¶ 0044).
With respect to claim 3, Shaler in view of Xia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Xia further discloses wherein the connector male end (i.e. called a connector male end) has an anti-detachment hook (see figure 3 the hooks adjacent to reference number 351; ¶ 0019, 0043), and the connector female end (31) has a hook groove (not labeled, see female connector end 31) for releasably engaging the anti-detachment hook (see figure 3 the hooks adjacent to reference number 351).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shaler and Xia before him or her, to include such connectors arrangement of Xia because it facilitates operation and avoid a solution of directly operating by a controller, so that the electric heating blanket is more convenient and faster to use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it achieves the purpose of controlling each heating shift position at a constant temperature (¶ 0044).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaler (US 1,044,270) in view of Franklin (US 2,850,712).
Regarding claim 4, Shaler discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the upper fabric is provided with lead-out openings for facilitating the extraction of the resistance wire.
However, Franklin teaches wherein the upper fabric (not labeled, i.e. the upper surface of the electrically heated blanket 10) is provided with lead-out openings (20, i.e. called a pocket) for facilitating the extraction of the resistance wire (11).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of the electrically heated blanket/pad. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Shaler and Franklin before him or her, to include such lead-out opening/pocket of Franklin because a mating terminal cap connected thereto and having a cord leading therefrom to a control unit plug adapted to be connected to a source of current. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides an improved method of making an electrical connector provided with a strain relief wherein only a very few parts are used and which parts can be quickly and easily assembled and manufactured (col. 1, lines 27-32).
With respect to claim 5, Shaler in view of Franklin discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Shaler does not disclose wherein the upper fabric (A) has an outlet that is sewn with a keyhole cloth.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such outlet for the purpose of enforcing the electrical heating pad/blanket since applicant has not disclosed that having such port provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Furthermore, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luo et al. (US 20230232500). And Chen (US 20130228562).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights