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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numerals in the specification do not appear to correlate corresponding parts of the claimed invention. For example, a locking teeth is disclosed with a reference numeral 28 but the drawing illustrates a webbing body with the reference numeral 28, a clutch disk is disclosed in the specification with a reference numeral 38 but in the drawing illustrates the reference numeral 38 to a heating portion, an opening is disclosed with a reference numeral 44 but the reference numeral 44 is illustrated to correspond to a temperature measuring device/sensor, and a reference numeral 50 is disclosed with an actuator in the specification but the drawing appears to show a protective layer cover represented with the reference numeral 50.
Throughout the specification, there are many other reference numerals that do not appear to correlate with corresponding parts. Also, there are refence numerals in the drawing figures that are not disclosed in the specification. Corrections are required.
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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification discloses having drawing figures of Figures 1-20 but it is noted that there are drawing figures of only Figures 1-7.
The specification lacks proper terminologies including temperature measuring device/sensor, the heating portion, the heating device, the protective layer, the thermocouple, the thermometer, the optical fiber, the warp/weft threads, the woven-in chamber, and the control unit. It is suggested that the specification is corrected having the corresponding terminologies with proper reference numerals for illustrative purposes for the drawing figures.
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 temperature measuring device in claim 16 wherein temperature measuring is a functional language with the term “device” being a generic placeholder for means.
A heating device in claim 16 wherein heating is a functional language with the term “device” being a generic placeholder for means.
A control unit in claim 29 wherein control is a functional language with the term “unit” as 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 temperature measuring device is interpreted as a temperature sensor including a thermocouple, a thermometer, or 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 16-30 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.
Claim 17 recites a range within a range such as the claimed thickness being less than 50% ,and specifically less than 10% that does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim scope.
Claim 28 lacks proper antecedent basis for “the temperature sensor”
Claim limitations “ heating device” in claim 16 and “control unit” in claim 29 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure or material that performs the heating or control function as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masaru et al (JP 2016 141196; submitted on 9/13/2023 along with an English translation).
Masaru discloses the structure of a belt webbing claimed including a webbing body (16) with a heating portion formed by a heating device (30 or 50), and at least one temperature measuring device (48) disposed on the webbing body in the heating portion by which a temperature can be sensed in the heating portion. Also, see Figures 3A-3C and Figure 6.
With respect to claim 28, Masaru discloses the temperature measuring device shown by a temperature sensor that is accommodated in a chamber (28) that is sewn or woven in with the webbing body (para 0035 of the English translation).
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Masaru discloses a control unit (40) that is coupled with the heating device and the temperature measure device (also, see Figure 3A and 6) wherein the control unit is configured to change or control the temperature in the heating portion on the basis of the temperature sensed by the temperature measuring device (also, see para 0041-0047 on pages 8-10 of the English translation).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al (JP 2016 141196).
Masaru discloses the structure claimed including the at least one temperature measuring device (48) that shows embedded within a thickness direction of the webbing body (16; also, see Figures 3B and 3C).
While Masaru does not explicitly show a thickness of the temperature measuring device is less than 50% or less than 10% of the thickness of the webbing body, Masaru illustrates in Figure 3B/3C that the thickness of the temperature measuring device can be less than 50% of the thickness of webbing body, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru with the temperature measuring device with a thickness that can be less than 50% or 10% of the webbing body as a matter of routine optimization to reduce any bulkiness of the webbing body.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al (JP 2016 141196) in view of Oomen et al (US 2020/0039399).
Masaru discloses the structure claimed except for the temperature sensing device has at least same flexibility or non-deformability as the webbing body as claimed.
Oomen shows it is known to provide a woven fabric (as a webbing body) having a temperature sensing device (31) having the same or substantially same flexibility as the woven fabric as both the temperature sensing device and the woven fabric are made of woven fibers (para 0056).
In view of Oomen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru with the temperature measuring device having the same flexibility or non-deformability as the webbing body so that the temperature measuring device incorporated with the webbing body would predictably maintain and provide even flexibility throughout the webbing body for the comfort of the user.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al (JP 2016 141196) in view of Child et al (US 7,028,170).
Masaru discloses the structure claimed including the heating portion that extends in a longitudinal direction of the belt webbing but does not show the temperature measuring device that extends along the whole length of the heating portion.
Child shows it is known to provide a heating portion that includes a temperature measuring device (32/132) that also extends along the whole length of the heating portion (shown by a heating device 30/130). Also, see Figures 4 and 5.
In view of Child, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru with a temperature measuring device as taught by Child as an alternative temperature measuring device to measure the temperature of the entire length of the heating portion so that desired heating temperature along the heating portion can be predictably monitored and controlled.
With respect to claim 20, Child discloses the heating portion having a plurality of heating elements (shown by the heating elements that run parallel to each other) with the temperature measuring device that extends in parallel to the heating elements as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5.
Claim(s) 21, 22 ad 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru et al (JP 2016 141196) in view of Blaszczykiewicz et al (US 2009/0020521).
Masaru discloses the structure claimed including the at least one temperature measuring device but does not show that the temperature measuring device is woven or stitched onto the webbing body as claimed.
Blaszczykiewicz shows it is known to provide a temperature measuring device comprising a temperature sensor (38; para 0022) that is sewn onto a heating element provided on a fabric layer (24).
In view of Blaszczykiewicz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru with the temperature measuring device/sensor that is sewn or stitched on the webbing body, as an alternative means, to securely attach the temperature measuring device/sensor thereto.
With respect to claim 22, Blaszczykiewicz discloses the temperature measuring device with a protective layer or a conformal coating (para 0022) that protects the temperature measuring device from moisture.
With respect to claim 24, Blaszczykiewicz disclose that the temperature measuring device/sensor is a thermometer (para 0022) wherein it would have been obvious to adapt Masaru with the temperature sensor with a resistance thermometer as an another suitable substitute temperature sensor for measuring temperature as known in the art.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz as applied to claims 21, 22 and 24 above and further in view of West (US 6,331,695).
Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz discloses the structure claimed including the temperature sensor but does not show the temperature sensor being a thermocouple.
West shows it is known to provide a temperature sensor including a thermistor, thermocouple, or thermometer (column 3, lines 49-56).
In view of West, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru, as modified by Blaszczykiewicz, with the temperature sensor that can be alternatively provided with a thermocouple in place of a thermistor (of Masaru) or a thermometer (of Blaszczykiewicz) as an alternative and substitute temperature sensor to also effectively measure temperature as known in the art.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz as applied to claims 21, 22 and 24 above and further in view of Kochman et al (US 2002/0117495).
Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz discloses the structure claimed including the temperature sensor but does not show the temperature sensor being a coated optical fiber. .
Kochman shows it is known to provide a temperature sensor including an electrical conductive fiber including an optical fiber (para 0055 and 0056) wherein the electrically conductive fiber is provided with electrically conductive coating (para 0045).
In view of Kochman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru, as modified by Blaszczykiewicz, with the temperature sensor that can be alternatively provided with a coated optical fiber as an alternative and substitute temperature sensor to also effectively measure temperature as known in the art.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz as applied to claims 21, 22 and 24 above and further in view of Shimazaki et al (US 2017/0282851) and Oomen et al (US 2020/0039399).
Masaru in view of Blaszczykiewicz discloses the structure claimed except for explicitly showing the webbing body with warp and weft threads and the measuring device being woven as claimed.
Shimazaki discloses it is known to provide a webbing that is known to be woven with warp and weft yarns (also, see Figure 2).
Oomen discloses it is known to woven a temperature measuring device (31) that is woven into a woven fabric having warp and weft yarns.
In view of Shimazaki and Oomen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Masaru, as modified by Blaszczykiewicz, with the webbing that is known to be a woven fabric with warp and weft threads/yarns as taught by Shimazaki with the temperature measuring device woven into the webbing as taught by Oomen so that the temperature measuring device can predictably be integrated within the fabric of the webbing body for more secured attachment of the temperature measuring device as known in the art.
With respect to claim 27, Oomen shows the temperature sensor that is in a measuring wire formed by one or more fibers (31; para 0056).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maranville et al (US 2019/0176566) discloses a seat belt webbing with a heating element.
Sullivan et al (US 2004/0004070) discloses a temperature sensing device in a sensor wire.
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