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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and species 1 which is drawn to claims 1-5, 7 and 8 is acknowledged. Claims 6, 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/12/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 22, it is suggested to delete the ending period after the term “expression (1)” and replace with another parathesis such as “,” or “:” since a single claim is only allowed to have one ending period.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP 2004079459 A and see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses, a planar heat-generating element (see sheet heating element 10 in Fig. 1A-B) comprising:
a base material (see base material 11 in Fig. 1B);
a heat-generating layer (see conductive film 12 in Fig. 1B) formed on the base material (see Fig. 1B), the heat-generating layer having conductivity (disclosed in the specification “a rectangular conductive film 12 consisting of conductive powder and a binder resin”);
a pair of electrodes (see pair of conducting lines 13 in Fig. 1A and B) arranged to be brought into contact with the heat-generating layer (see Fig. 1A and B and disclosed in the specification “pair of conducting lines 13 made of copper foil or the like is attached to one or both surfaces of the conductive film 12 at one of the two opposing edges”); and
a protective layer (see electrically insulating sheets 15 in Figs. 1A-B) covering at least part of each of the pair of electrodes and the heat-generating layer (see Fig. 1B), wherein the pair of electrodes (13) are arranged so as to be opposed to each other in a direction parallel to a first direction (see annotated Fig. 1A), wherein the heat-generating layer (12) has a plurality of holes (see holes 16) in a region between the pair of electrodes (see Figs. 1A-B), wherein the base material(11) and the protective layer (15) each have holes (see through holes 16) to be connected to the holes of the heat-generating layer at positions corresponding to the holes of the heat-generating layer (see Fig. 1B), and wherein, when widths of two holes out of the plurality of holes in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1A), the two holes being present adjacent to each other on one and the same straight line parallel to the second direction, are represented by a1 and a2 (see annotated Fig. 1A), respectively, and an interval between the two holes in a direction parallel to the second direction is represented by D (see annotated Fig. 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyamoto does not explicitly disclose, the D, the a1, and the a2 satisfy a relationship represented by the following expression (1): 2×(a1+a2)/2<D<10×(a1+a2)/2 (1).
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art since in Fig. 1A, it appears that the distance D between the two adjacent holes is larger that the total widths of the 2 adjacent holes and smaller than the total width of the 5 adjacent holes which showing that the D, the a1, and the a2 of Miyamoto satisfy a relationship represented as claimed 2×(a1+a2)/2<D<10×(a1+a2)/2, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, and Miyamoto further discloses, wherein the planar heat-generating element is configured such that a current flowing between the pair of electrodes when a voltage is applied between the pair of electrodes flows while having a component in a direction parallel to the first direction across an entire region of the heat-generating layer present between the pair of electrodes (see Fig. 1A and disclosed in the specification “A pair of conducting lines 13 made of copper foil or the like is attached to one or both surfaces of the conductive film 12 at one of the two opposing edges. Is connected to an electric wire 14 for supplying power from the outside”).
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, but Miyamoto does not explicitly disclose, wherein a ratio of a sum total of opening areas of the holes to an area of the heat-generating layer falls within a range of from 1.2% or more to 15% or less.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Fig. 1A) and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claim 4, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, and Miyamoto further discloses, wherein mutually connected holes of the base material (11), the heat-generating layer (12), and the protective layer (15) have cross-sectional shapes identical to each other in directions perpendicular to a lamination direction of the base material, the heat-generating layer, and the protective layer (see Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, and Miyamoto further discloses, the shapes of the holes may be elliptical, rectangular, polygonal, etc. other than the circular shape, and the shapes are not particularly limited (see the specification).
Miyamoto does not explicitly disclose, wherein, when a ratio of a width of each of the holes of the heat-generating layer in the first direction to a width thereof in the second direction is represented by b/a, the b/a is 1 or more.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art since the shapes of the holes may be elliptical, rectangular, polygonal, etc. other than the circular shape which showing that a ratio of a width of each of the holes of the heat-generating layer in the first direction to a width thereof in the second direction is represented by b/a, the b/a is 1 or more, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claim 7, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, and Miyamoto further discloses, wherein the holes of the heat-generating layer are arranged in a staggered shape as seen from a direction parallel to a lamination direction of the base material and the heat-generating layer (see Figs. 1A and 1B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP 2004079459 A and see PDF translation attached) in view of DE 202009013438 U1 (see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Miyamoto discloses, the planar heat-generating element according to claim 1, but Miyamoto does not explicitly discloses, a hot air supply apparatus comprising: the planar heat-generating element of claim 1; and an air blower configured to generate an air flow.
Nonetheless, DE 202009013438 teaches, as shown in Fig. 9, the air inlet opening 12 of the mat 1 is connecting pipe 21' to the blower 2' that allows the hot air through the connecting pipe 21 ' to the air outlet openings 13 reach and those on the mat can 1 lying feet of the user are dried (see Fig. 9 and disclosed in the speciation ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to the planar heat-generating element of Miyamoto wherein a hot air supply apparatus comprising: the planar heat-generating element and an air blower configured to generate an air flow as taught/suggested by DE 202009013438 in order obtain a drying technique.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights