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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thermistor of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrases which can be implied (“The present utility model relates to”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1–6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because it is presented as a block of text without suitable sectioning. See 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Claims 2–6 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 202749845 U)
Claim 1: Li discloses a light with a heating function, comprising a PCB (17), a light cylinder (5, 7), a heating sheet (19), and a sleeve (14), wherein the heating sheet is electrically connected to the PCB (“the main PCB 17 and indicator light PCB board 15, a rechargeable battery 6, a USB base board 11, LED lamp fixing PCB board 3, the heating film 19 are connect to realize all functions”), the sleeve is sheathed outside the light cylinder (appreciable from figs. 1 and 2), and the heating sheet is disposed between the light cylinder and the sleeve (“the upper shell 7 and the lower shell 5 is provided with a radiating 14, the radiating 14 tube through a heating film 19 is covered on the upper shell 7 and the lower shell 5”); and comprising a heating switch (2) and a power supply (6), wherein the power supply and the PCB are mounted inside the light cylinder (figs. 1 and 2 plainly illustrate that these elements are internally mounted).
Li does not explicitly disclose that the power supply and the heating switch are electrically connected to the PCB separately.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the power supply (6) and the heating switch (2) would be electrically connected to the PCB separately since the heating switch is not an active electrical element that requires power, and instead is only a manually-actuated element that initiates the transfer of power (with the aid of the circuit board) from the power supply to the electrically powered elements in the device.
Comment: The “light cylinder” is an abruptly presented limitation. It is simply understood to be a cylinder with a light on it.
Claim 5: Li discloses that the sleeve is made of aluminum (“radiating aluminum sheet 14”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon (KR 10-1467831 B1).
Li does not disclose that a gasket is disposed between the light cylinder and the heating sheet.
However, Jeon discloses a heated cylinder handle apparatus, including a gasket (173) between an analogous inner part of a cylindrical construction (see fig. 5) and a heater (175, see fig. 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install a gasket, like that disclosed in Jeon, into Li to prevent the battery (which is situated in Jeon similarly to how it is positioned in Li) from being overheated (Jeon: “the heat terminal member 173 prevents the heat of the heat-generating carbon fibers 175 from being directed to the battery 120 to prevent the battery 120 from being overheated”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Wang (WO 2013/181782 A1) is the next closest prior art of record compared to Li, but it does not seem to fairly disclose a light cylinder, as its heating sheet is described as sheathed to an interior of a casing, even though it is depicted as mounted on the outside of battery 2 in fig. 5.
Wang (WO 2015/003426 A1) is similar. It has a main body bracket 10, which has a structure like the skeleton of a light cylinder, but it is not properly characterizable as a cylinder.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed structure is specific, and is not shown in sufficiently analogous art.
Claim 6 depends from claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, given the slim and seemingly stiff construction of 170 and 173 shown in Jeong, it does not appear that the gasket taught therein would be constructed of a rubber.
Other pertinent prior art includes Hill (US Pat. 5,947,585), Wang (CN 202892187 U), Dai (CN 203810091 U), Zang (CN 205782167 U), Li (CN 216431321 U), Zhu (CN 200979081 Y), Chen (CN 208129640 U), Na (CN 105782752 A), Cen (CN 209012840 U), Cai (CN 111336864 A), Zhou (CN 104006362 A), He (CN 205919153 U), Li (CN 201561277 U), Zheng (CN 207230227 U), Zang (CN 105822930 A), and Tong Xiang City Kenier (DE 202013103727 U1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights