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 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.
Claims 1, 4-12 14-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. Patent No. 9,802,545) in view of Hibibi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0266666).
Regarding claim 1.
Salter Discloses:
A heated running board for a motor vehicle, the heated running board comprising:
a substrate(22) formed by an additive manufacturing process; and
a pre-fabricated heater(26) embedded within the substrate, wherein the pre-fabricated heater is not formed by the additive manufacturing process(26).
Salter does not disclose how the substate 22 is formed.
In related art, Habibi discloses:
a substrate(22) formed by an additive manufacturing process (See [0028]-[0029])
Habibi discloses that using the additive manufacturing process provides the benefit of allowing the device to be formed in a desired shape. As such, it would have been obvious to form the substrate of Salter by additive manufacturing for the obvious benefit of obtaining devices having a desired shape. Thus, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4.
Salter disclose
The heated running board according to claim 1, wherein the pre-fabricated heater comprises a resistive heating element surrounded by a dielectric core, the dielectric core being surrounded by a protective sheath. (See 26, col. 4, lines 24-55)
Regarding claim 5.
Salter disclose all of the features of claim 1.Salter does not disclose:
The heated running board according to claim 1, wherein the pre-fabricated heater comprises a radiant fluid channel configured to accommodate a heating fluid.
However, the heater may be liquid or not, and circulate the liquid through a heating channel. That is, it would have been obvious to try to use a heated liquid, especially in view of the well known process of cooling a car using a radiator heat exchanger. IT would have been obvious to use a heated liquid to heat the running boards as an obvious matter of design choice with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 6.
Salter disclose
The heated running board according to claim 1, wherein the pre-fabricated heater is disposed proximate an upper surface of the substrate. (See Fig.3, 26 abutting 28)
Regarding claim 7.
Salter disclose all of the features of claim 1.
Salter does not discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising an ice detector embedded within the substrate.
In related Habibi discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising an ice detector embedded within the substrate. (See abstract. [0028])
Habibi discloses that the heater provides the benefit of allowing the device to be heated in a desired spot. As such, it would have been obvious to embed the heater in the substrate of Salter as taught by Habibi. Thus, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8.
Salter disclose all of the features of claim 1.
Salter does not discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising at least one temperature sensor embedded within the substrate.
Salter discloses a sensor at 34 and 42. In related art, Habibi discloses that features may be embedded, in the abstract. As such, it would have bene obvious to embed a temperature sensor in the device of Salter for the obvious benefit of easing manufacturing of the device. Thus, the features of claim 8 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9.
Salter disclose
The heated running board according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a monolithic material. (22 being monolithic)
Regarding claim 10.
Salter disclose
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of embedded pre-fabricated heaters disposed in predetermined locations along a length of the substrate. (See Fig. 3, 26) Salter does not discloses that a plurality. HOwver, it would have been obvious to provide more than one as a mere matter of design choice without any undue experimentation or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11.
Salter disclose all of the features of 10.
Salter does not discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of pre-fabricated heaters is independently controlled.
Salter discloses that he heater may be controlled as shown in fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to control the heaters independently as a mere matter of design choice and duplication of the parts of the heaters and controller for the obvious benefit of providing more precise control. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)
Regarding claim 12.
Salter discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Salter does not discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising an electronic circuit embedded within the substrate.
In related art, Habibi discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 1, further comprising an electronic circuit embedded within the substrate. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to embed a circuit in the device of Salter for the benefit of making the device smaller and easing manufacturing. Thus, the features of claim 12 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14.
Salter discloses:
A system for operating a heated running board for a motor vehicle, the system comprising:
a heated running board, the heated running board comprising a substrate(22) and a pre-fabricated heater(26) embedded within the substrate(22);
at least one sensor (42); and a controller(Fig. 10,), wherein the controller is configured to receive signals from the at least one sensor and supply power to the pre-fabricated heater to control a temperature of the pre-fabricated heater based on at least one operational characteristic from the at least one sensor. (See Fig. 10, receives sensor at 202 208, and supply heat at 214)
Salter does not disclose:
formed by an additive manufacturing process
Habibi discloses that using the additive manufacturing process provides the benefit of allowing the device to be formed in a desired shape. As such, it would have been obvious to form the substrate of Salter by additive manufacturing for the obvious benefit of obtaining devices having a desired shape. Thus, the features of claim 14 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15.
Salter discloses:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is a temperature sensor, and the at least one operational characteristic is outside air temperature (OAT). (See Fig. 10, 202 sensor detecting temperature)
Regarding claim 17
Salter discloses:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is an external camera mounted to the motor vehicle, and the at least one operational characteristic is foreign substance accumulation along the substrate. (34 and 42)
Regarding claim 19.
Salter discloses all the features of claim 14.
Salter does not disclose:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the controller provides power to the pre-fabricated heater based on a predetermined schedule when the motor vehicle is started.
However, Salter discloses that the heater is controlled as shown in Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious to control the heater as recited as a mere matter of design choice, as a mere rearrangement of parts with no undue experimentation or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 20.
Salter discloses
The system according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to deploy the heated running board based on the at least one operational characteristic. (See Fig. 10, 204.)
Claims 2, 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. Patent No. 9,802,545) in view of Hibibi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0266666) in view of Chevalier (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0012295)
Regarding claim 2.
Salter discloses
The heated running board according to claim 1, wherein and the pre-fabricated heater defines a trace pattern extending around the plurality of apertures.
Salter does not disclose:
the substrate comprises a plurality of apertures,
in related art, Chivalier discloses:
the substrate comprises a plurality of apertures, ([0023], 32)
Chivalier discloses that the apertures may allow for moisture to drain.
Saiter discloses that the heater may be inside the substrate. It would have been obvious to arrange the trace pattern around the substrate to include the traces inside the substrate while including the apertures of Chivalier for the benefit of allowing moisture to be removed by drainage. As such, the features of claim 2 would have be nonobvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3.
Salter discloses all of the features of claim 2.
Salter does not disclose:
The heated running board according to claim 2, further comprising a plurality of LEDs (light-emitting diodes) embedded within the substrate and positioned across at least a portion of the plurality of apertures.
In related art, Habibi discloses:
The heated running board according to claim 2, further comprising a plurality of LEDs (light-emitting diodes) embedded within the substrate and positioned across at least a portion of the plurality of apertures. (See abstract, device may include LEDs)
It would have been obvious to place the LEDs of Habibi as recited as a mere matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have been obvious to provide light at locations where light is desired. As such, the recited features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13.
Salter discloses:
A heated running board for a motor vehicle, the heated running board comprising:
a substrate(22) formed
a pre-fabricated heater(26) embedded within the substrate(22), the pre-fabricated heater being disposed proximate an upper surface of the substrate(26 proximate to 22 top); and
and the pre-fabricated (26)heater defines a trace pattern extending around the plurality of apertures,
Salter does not disclose:
by an additive manufacturing process; a plurality of LEDs (light-emitting diodes) embedded within the substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of apertures, and wherein the LEDs are positioned across at least a portion of the plurality of apertures.
In related Habibi discloses:
by an additive manufacturing process ([0029]); a plurality of LEDs (light-emitting diodes) embedded within the substrate([0046]),
in related art, Chivalier discloses:
the substrate comprises a plurality of apertures, ([0023], 32)
Chivalier discloses that the apertures may allow for moisture to drain.
Saiter discloses that the heater may be inside the substrate. It would have been obvious to arrange the trace pattern around the substrate to include the traces inside the substrate while including the apertures of Chivalier for the benefit of allowing moisture to be removed by drainage.
It would have been obvious to place the LEDs of Habibi as recited as a mere matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would have been obvious to provide light at locations where light is desired. As such, the recited features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, the features of claim 13 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. Patent No. 9,802,545) in view of Hibibi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0266666) further in view of Duncan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0263260).
Regarding claim 16.
Salter discloses all of the features of claim 14.
Salter does not disclose:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is a vibration sensor, and the at least one operational characteristic is ice accumulation.
In related art, Duncan discloses:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is a vibration sensor, and the at least one operational characteristic is ice accumulation.([0038]).
Duncan discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the device to sense Ice or moisture. As such, it would have been obvious to prove the recited sensor to the device of Salter. Thus, the features of claim 16 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter (U.S. Patent No. 9,802,545) in view of Hibibi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0266666) in view of Nosrati (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0159293)
Regarding claim 18.
Salter discloses: (26, )
Salter does not discloses:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is a resistive heating element of the pre-fabricated heater, the resistive heating element defining a sufficient temperature coefficient of resistance to function as a heater and as a sensor.
IN related art, Nosrati discloses:
The system according to claim 14, wherein the at least one sensor is a resistive heating element of the pre-fabricated heater, the resistive heating element defining a sufficient temperature coefficient of resistance to function as a heater and as a sensor. ([0016])
Nosrati discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the heater to be both a sensor and a heater. Thus, the features of claim 18 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill I the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights