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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “Elson does not describe or suggest heating conductors associated with a heatable section guided to a surface of a webbing at the beginning and/or at the end of each heatable section.” Applicant further argues that “Elson does not describe or suggesting heating conductors associated with a heatable section guided to a surface of a webbing at the beginning and/or at the end of each heatable section.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 5 of Elson shows multiple heating pads and shows
that these heating pads have wires (which can reasonably be considered “conductors associated with a heatable section”) which are guided to the surface of a webbing. Figure 5 clearly shows that the wires connect the heating pads to the extent of the seatbelt. Figure 3 of Elson also shows that heating wire 42 reaches the extent of the seatbelt.
Applicant argues that combining Elson and Yasuhiko would result in the sheet-like heater of Yasuhiko attached to Elson to replace Elson’s heaters.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While this might be an alternate interpretation of how these references could be combined, it was not the combination presented by the Examiner. Instead, the Examiner is relying on Elson already disclosing that “the resistance heating wire 42 may extend through the webbing 24 in a stitch pattern extending along a length and/or width of the webbing 24.” Yasuhiko was relied upon for explicitly disclosing that a weave can be made of a conductive warp 20 and a non-conductive weft 24. Yasuhoki was relied upon to show that it is known to create a heatable weave made of conductive warp 20 and a non-conductive weft 24, not to replace the pad of Elson with the pad of Yasuhiko.
Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to set out how the device of Elson would be modified and only uses a conclusory statement. The Examiner notes that it is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant application, Elson discloses a heated seatbelt with multiple heating zones and further discloses that there is a heating wire extending through a webbing, further disclosing that the conductors extend to the extent of the seatbelt. Yasuhiko teaches that a heating weave can be made of a heatable weave and a non-conductive warp. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art teachings suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that a weave such as Yasuhiko’s could be used in an apparatus such as Elson’s. The Examiner did not merely conclude this, but posed that it would lower the manufacturing costs because a heating pad would no longer be needed because the heating element is part of the weave already.
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 10-18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elson (U.S. Patent 10,143,043) in view of Yasuhiko (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP-2008-067850).
Elson discloses a heated seat belt arrangement which has a plurality of heating zones (see at least Figure 5). Elson also discloses that “the resistance heating wire 42 may extend through the webbing 24 in a stitch pattern extending along a length and/or width of the webbing 24.” However, it is unclear to the Examiner whether or not this means that the heating conductors are woven directly into the weaved webbing as claimed. Yasuhiko, however, discloses a weave which is made of a conductive warp 20 and a non-conductive weft 24. Both of these apparatuses are used in the same field of endeavor (heating of motor vehicle subparts) and it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the woven material of Yasuhiko to be used as a heating source in the heated seatbelt of Elson in order to provide Elson with the predictable established function of Yasuhiko, which is to allow for reduced manufacturing costs of a heating element. Furthermore, this is considered to be a simple substitution of one known heating element for another known heating element.
Regarding Claim 10, this combination makes obvious a heatable belt webbing for a seatbelt system of an automotive vehicle, wherein the webbing comprises plural heatable sections (Fig 5 of Elson) extending over respective different longitudinal portions of the webbing, wherein at least one heating conductor (conductive portion of Yasuhiko) is associated with each heatable section in such a manner that the heatable sections can be heated separately from each other by appropriate activation of the individual heat conductors (Elson refers to these as zones), wherein the webbing has a woven webbing body which includes warp threads extending in the longitudinal direction and weft threads extending transversely to the warp threads, the heating conductors being woven into the webbing body as a warp thread thread, and in that the heating conductors associated with a heatable section are guided to a surface of the webbing at the beginning and/or at the end of each heatable section (See Fig 5 of Elson).
Regarding Claim 11, Elson discloses the use of zones next to each other and Yasuhiko discloses conductive warp threads 20. Every warp thread in one zone is considered to be parallel to every other warp thread in a neighboring zone.
Regarding Claim 12, Elson does not show the zones overlapping. However, this is considered to be a mere relocation of one of the heating zones and is therefore not considered to be a patentable distinction because it has been held that rearrangement of parts is within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Elson shows the wiring of the zones converging to the same area at the top right of Figure 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination is considered to make obvious an arrangement where all of the heating conductors are electrically interconnected. A closed circuit would be needed for electricity to flow and this is considered an interconnection.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Figure 1 of Yasuhiko shows that the conductors 20 extend vertically, but are also connected to one another by horizontal conductors connected to the positive and negative terminals in order to close the heating circuit. These positive and negative terminals are also considered to be a bipolar arrangement.
Regarding Claim 17, it is well known in the art of heating elements to include a heating sensor in order to allow a user to control the level of heat they feel when using an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, Elson discloses a power source to provide heat.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, at Least Figure 5 of Elson shows all of the heating conductors being brought to the same location (the right side of Figure 5). These heating conductors are only guided to a surface at the beginning and/or end of each heatable section. Elson shows the top and bottoms of the pads being the only time conductors are routed to the edge of the seatbelt.
Regarding Claim 23, Elson shows using a power source at the same position on the seatbelt.
Regarding Claim 24, Elson shows similarly sized heating sections, but changing the size of an element is considered to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination proposed by the Examiner shows heating conductors each being individually
routed to their respective heatable sections. Claims 19 and 20, however, claim that heating conductors extend through other heatable sections. It is the Examiner’s position that this would not be an obvious change, absent using improper hindsight reconstruction via Applicant’s specification.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Kelleher whose telephone number is (571)272-7753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7am-3:30pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
William J. Kelleher
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3658
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648