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 .
Examiner Note
While not required Applicant may wish to consider spelling “fibre” as “fiber” in the claims to conform to typical United States spelling convention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 states that the “determining said temperature associated with an area adjacent to said first portion of conductive fibre comprises determining an electrical resistance of said first portion of conductive fibers which is merely a rewording without changing the scope of the limitation “configured to measure an electrical resistivity of the first portion of the conductive fibre to determine a temperature associated with an area adjacent to said first portion of conductive fibre”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/099907 to Chahin in view of US 2020/0039399 to Oomen.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 13 and 15
Chahine teaches: A system for a fibre-based temperature sensor and heater integrated into a base fabric layer for a textile (abstract), the system comprising: a first portion (70) of conductive fibre electrically connected to a second portion of conductive fibre (66); a heating circuit for heating an area adjacent to the first portion of conductive fibre (the circuit in its totality that includes the fibers for heating), the heating circuit comprising a power source (¶s 45,55),
Chahine fails to teach:
selectively connected to said second portion of conductive fibre via one or more switching elements; said controller further configured to selectively activate said one or more switching elements to cause said power source to heat said area adjacent to said first section of conductive fibre. a controller.
It is known from Oomen to provide a sensing fiber (31) and heating fiber (18) along with a switch and controller to cause said power source to heat the heating fibers (and thus their adjacent sections) based on the sensing fibers (¶ 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Chahine with a control system and switch to selectively control power to the conductive fibers as claimed in order to allow for a more precise and selectable temperature control.
Neither Chahine or Oomen directly teach wherein the controller is configured to measure an electrical resistivity of the first portion of conductive fibre to determine a temperature associated with an area adjacent to said first portion of conductive fibre. It is noted that Oomen implies this relationship in ¶ 21 by stating that there is a target ohm resistance to achieve a temperature and that a sensor is used in this process, but whether a resistance is measured is not explicit.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that using the change in resistance of a conductive material to determine the temperature is a well-known and ubiquitous technique embodied in a wide range of commercially available products. Such products go by the acronym RTD (resistance temperature detector) and would be known electrical engineers in the field. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to measure the temperature by means of the electrical resistance of the sensor wire as this is an old well-known and predictable way of determining temperature and would have yielded only the predictable result of an accurate temperature measurement.
With respect to claim 9 it is not seen how any additional limitations beyond claim 1 are required as it appears to be a simple rewording of limitations already contained in claim 1 (see rejection under 35 USC §112d above).
Regarding specifically the method steps in claims 13 and 15, as the switch is stated by Oomen to as being switched to provide power to the heating fiber in ¶ 54, then the condition where it is not providing power is the “disconnected” state. It is also noted that since the time durations aren’t specified the off state is a first time duration and the sensing time is the second time duration and there is nothing in the claim prohibiting these durations from overlapping.
Regarding claim 2
Chahine as modified does not teach that the first portion of conductive fibre has a first thickness which is less than a second thickness of the second power of the second portion of conductive power. However, such an arrangement can be seen in Oomen (Fig. 1/ note difference between 31 and 18). Further the thickness of the fibers would be a direct result effective variable which would impact the linear electrical resistance of the wires (this is known from basic electrical engineering and is not examiner assertion, for example wire gauges). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the thickness of the wires as claimed to arrive at the desired thicknesses as claimed as such an optimization would yield only the predictable result of a fiber with an appropriate resistance for sensing and a fiber with appropriate resistance for heating.
Regarding claim 3
Chahine as modified further teaches wherein said controller is configured to activate said one or more switching elements in accordance with a duty cycle (¶ 54, heating to a sensed temperature may be considered a “duty cycle”)
Regarding claims 4 and 14
Chahine as modified does not teach specifics of a time based duty cycle as required by the claim, i.e. wherein said duty cycle comprises heating said area adjacent to said first portion for 900ms and determining said temperature associated with said area adjacent to said first portion for 100ms.
However, since from basic physics/statistics it would be known that the time heating would simply be a result effective variable of the total heat energy produced and the time sensing would be a result effective variable controlling measurement accuracy and sample size, it would have been nothing more than a predictable optimization of result effective variables to vary the duty cycle to arrive at the claimed times.
Regarding claim 5
wherein causing said power source to heat said area adjacent to said first portion of conductive fibre comprises electrically connecting said power source to said first portion of conductive fibre (as discussed in the modification above the power source is switched to the fibers in off/region/bundles for heating ¶ 54 of Oomen).
Regarding claims 6 and 7
Chahine as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach any details of the switch such as it being a pulse width modulation switch activated by the controller at a frequency of 1 Khz.
The Examiner takes official notice that pulse width modulation switches activated by associated controllers are well known commercial switching products used to control duty cycles and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Chahine to have the pulse width modification switch control as claimed as this would yield only the predictable result of a switching control well-known in the art to control power delivery and duty cycles.
As to the 1 Khz this is a known result effective controlling the speed at which the switch operates (this is definitional, not conjecture by the Examiner) and thus the granularity of the duty cycle control and as such it would have been an obvious matter of optimization to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed switch frequency.
Regarding claim 8
Chahine further teaches: a current source configured to apply an electric current to said first portion of conductive fiber (¶ 54, A power source is necessarily also a current source as power is voltage x current).
Regarding claim 10
Chahine as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but does not specifically teach wherein obtaining the temperature comprises inputting said resistance value to an analog to digital converter having stored thereon a mapping of resistance values to temperature values.
What applicant has described here is a ubiquitous control scheme in which an analog signal is discretized in an ADC and then mapped to a pre-stored value, commonly referred to as a lookup table. The examiner takes official notice that using an ADC and lookup table is one of the most ubiquitous forms of control and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as a well-known and predictable control architecture for deployment in commercial products.
Regarding claim 11
Chahine as modified further teaches wherein said first portion of conductive fibre is electrically connected to said second portion of conductive fibre via a knitted connection pad (11) connecting conductive fibre from said first portion of conductive fibre to conductive fibres from said second portion of conductive fibre (Fig. 16).
Regarding claims 12 and 16
Chahine as modified further teaches wherein said first portion of conductive fibre is directly knitted into said base fabric/textile layer (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 17
Chahine as modified further teaches wherein said power source is connected to said first portion of conductive fibre via a second portion of conductive fibre (Fig. 16)
But does not specifically teach wherein said second portion of conductive fibre has an electrical resistance which is less than an electrical resistance of said first portion of conductive fibre.
However, as is known from basic electrical principles the heat emitted by a conductor is determined in part by the resistance of the conductor and as such the resistance is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the resistance values of the modified Chahine to arrive at the claimed resistance relationship as optimizing a heat producing portion for a lower resistance (thus more heat produced) and an information carrying portion for a higher resistance (thus eliminating waste heat) would be nothing more than an obvious optimization of the resistances to arrive at desired heat outputs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights