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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6, 10-11) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9, 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last (EP3205945).
Regarding claim 1,
Last teaches a heating or cooling element (see par. 1) comprising: a carrier mat 4; and a first tube 6 which is attached in meander or spiral form to the carrier mat (see pars. 5, 106-107); wherein the heating or cooling element can be rolled up (see pars. 5, 9); wherein the carrier mat is made of polymer material (see par. 26).
Last does not teach wherein the polymer material is cut and bent around the first tube to connect the first tube to the carrier mat.
However, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (see MPEP 2113). Here, the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art product of Last, and although potentially produced by a different process, the burden is shifted to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 2,
Last teaches wherein the polymer material is a thermoplastic polymer (e.g. polyethylene, see par. 26).
Regarding claim 3,
Last teaches wherein the polymer material is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene polyvinyl chloride, and a combination thereof (see par. 26).
Regarding claim 4,
Last teaches wherein the carrier mat has a wired mesh shape (see pars. 20, 26, 28, 58. 127).
Regarding claim 5,
Last teaches wherein the carrier mat comprises wires of polymer material with a thickness between 1 and 20 mm (see pars. 20-21, 26, 127).
Regarding claim 6,
Last does not teach wherein the cut polymer material is: heated to soften the polymer material; bent to include and fasten the first tube to the carrier mat; and cooled to harden the polymer material.
However, in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (see MPEP 2113). Here, the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art product of Last, and although potentially produced by a different process, the burden is shifted to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 10,
Last teaches wherein the polymer material is selected from a group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride (see par. 26); and the carrier mat comprises wires of polymer material with a thickness between 1 and 5 mm (see pars. 20-21, 26, 127).
Regarding claim 11,
The subject matter of claim 11 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 6 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Last (WO2021/080423) teaches a carrier mat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763