DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/21/2024, 03/17/2026, and 07/31/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites, “…the resistance heater includes a sewed heater wire…” The term “sewed heater wire” is slightly informal; “sewn heater wire” is the standard past participle. While the meaning is clear, a minor amendment would improve grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites components that are electrically connected to “a positive electrode of the power source” and “a negative electrode of the power source.” However, “the power source” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Base claim 1 recites, “…a power supply voltage of a power source,” introducing the power source inferentially as part of the environment rather than positively claiming it as an element of the “heater control system.” Claim 5 is indefinite because it attempts to make positive structural connections to an unrecited element. To overcome this rejection, the applicant may amend claim 1 to positively recite the power source, or amend claim 5 to recite terminals adapted to connected to the respective electrodes of the power source.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the first wiring and the second wiring “belong to mutually different systems.” This phrase relies on relative, vague terminology that lacks a recognized structural definition in the art. While the specification explains that the first wiring receives a lower voltage and the second wiring receives a higher voltage, the claim language fails to define the physical boundaries or structural differences that constitute “mutually different systems” (e.g., whether this requires separate wiring harnesses, different printed circuit boards, or merely distinct electrical nodes). Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that the apparatus comprises a resistance heater that “has a resistance value that increases as a boost ratio increases.” This language renders that claim indefinite because it improperly attempts to claim a mathematical design relationship as a physical limitation of a single apparatus. A single, constructed heater control system possesses a resistance heater with a fixed physical resistance value. The physical resistance of the heater itself does not dynamically increase in response to a change in the boost ratio during operation. By claiming a method of designing or selecting a heater based on a planned boost ratio rather than defining the physical properties of the system itself, the claim fails to clearly define the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that the boost voltage is “adjusted based on the heat generation power specification.” This renders the claim indefinite. A “heat generation power specification” is an abstract design requirement. Stating that the boost voltage is “adjusted based on” this specification defines a human design or manufacturing calibration step rather than a physical limitation, operational capability, or hardware configuration of the claimed system. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In the event that the applicant traverses the 112(b) rejection above by arguing that claim 8 structurally requires a smart of variable resistance heater that physically alters its ohmic resistance during operation in response to a changing boost ratio, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). The specification provides no written description or enabling disclosure for a hardware component capable of dynamically altering its physical resistance based on the boost ratio. The specification (paragraphs [0058] – [0062] of the US PG Pub document) only provides an enabling disclosure for calculating and selecting a standard, fixed-resistance wire during the design phase using the formula R = K2 * V1^2 / W. Because the specification does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use a heater that dynamically changes its resistance value in operation as claimed, the claim is not enabled and lacks adequate written description.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuno (JP2010244861 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yuno discloses a heater control system (Described in ¶ [0006] - "The present invention aims to solve the aforementioned conventional problem by providing a control device for a comfortable seat heater that has a fast rise time and does not feel temperature changes during temperature stabilization.") comprising:
a resistance heater (Described in ¶ [0017] - "In Figure 1, a heater temperature detection unit 2 that detects temperature signals from thermistors arranged near the sheet-shaped heater 1..."); and
a boost converter that is electrically connected to the resistance heater (Described in ¶'s [0017] - "...a voltage variable section 5 that can vary the voltage supplied to heater 1, a power on/off section 6 that in/off the voltage supplied to the heater...", [0021] - "Subsequently, the control unit 4 detects the supply voltage and calculates the deviation between the heater temperature T1 at the start of power-on detected by the heater temperature detection unit 2 and the temperature setting set of the temperature setting unit 3, and controls the voltage variable section 5 to increase the heater voltage so that the heater temperature rises as quickly as possible according to the deviation.", & [0025] - "Variable control suppresses overshoot of heater temperature during stand-up, and the temperature change during stable temperature changes of 40 It provides a comfortable experience without feeling it."), wherein
the boost converter outputs, to the resistance heater, a boost voltage that is higher than a power supply voltage of a power source that is electrically connected to the boost converter (Described in abstract - "...By variably controlling the heater voltage to minimize overshoot during startup while ensuring the fastest rise, the heater voltage can be boosted without dependence on the supply voltage, enabling faster stand-up time. By controlling the heater voltage variably, it is possible to suppress overshoot during startup and provide a seat heater that does not feel temperature changes during temperature stabilization." & in ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Yuno further discloses a temperature detector that detects a temperature of the resistance heater (Described in ¶ [0017] - "In Figure 1, a heater temperature detection unit 2 that detects temperature signals from thermistors arranged near the sheet-shaped heater 1..."), wherein
the boost converter controls the boost voltage based on a temperature detected by the temperature detector (Described in ¶ [0021] - "Subsequently, the control unit 4 detects the supply voltage and calculates the deviation between the heater temperature T1 at the start of power-on detected by the heater temperature detection unit 2 and the temperature setting set of the temperature setting unit 3, and controls the voltage variable section 5 to increase the heater voltage so that the heater temperature rises as quickly as possible according to the deviation.").
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuno in view of Tanaka (WO 2017208577 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yuno does not specifically teach the resistance heater includes a sewed heater wire including a plurality of stranded wires.
Tanaka teaches the resistance heater includes a sewed heater wire including a plurality of stranded wires (Described on page 1 - "This invention relates to a heater wire and seat heater that are flexible and durable, and are used in seat heaters for automobiles and the like, and reduce the feeling of foreign objects when seated." and page 10 - "...The heating wire 2 is an essential component of the stranded wire 5 and generates heat when an electric current is applied. The heating element 2 is twisted together with the fiber yarn 1 to form a twisted wire 5. As shown in Figure 2, the heating wire 2 is composed of a heating element 3a and an insulating coating 3b provided on the outer circumference of the heating element 3a. The heating element 3a is a resistance wire that generates heat when current is applied, and the diameter and number of heating elements 3a are arbitrarily selected so that the resistance value matches the heat generation specifications...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yuno to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka to include the resistance heater including a plurality of stranded wires with the motivation of providing a wire which can undergo repeated bending (consistent with passengers entering and exiting a car seat), as recognized by Tanaka on pages 2-3.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(a) are overcome, claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9 would be 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights