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 .
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.
Claims 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 17, 20, 21 recite limitations such as “preferentially”, “ideally”, “preferably”, “in particular”. These limitations render the claims indefinite as we can not ascertain whether the scope of the claim is limited to the more narrow limitations that follow these words or not. It is recommended to only recite the desired limitation and not alternatives in this manner. For purpose of examination the broadest interpretation will be applied.
Claims 18, 21, 25, 27 make use of the word “and/or” but this is unclear and quite possibly presents a 112 a issue because it is not clear how Applicant would have support for the “and” clause in claims like 18 and 25, 27. It wouldn’t make sense for the “and” condition to exist. For claim 21, it is not clear what forms the laminated structure because of this “and/or” statement. It is recommended to not use the “and/or” clauses and clearly claim which one Applicant is relying upon unless Applicant can prove they have support for both conditions.
Claims 19, and 26 recite “comprised within” followed by a range. This type of language is unclear and renders the scope of the range indefinite. Does this mean the range is open to other ranges or has some tolerances associated with it? What are the tolerances? It is recommended to just state “within” without the word “comprised”.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it now places the film in a different position than what is claimed in claim 16 and the two positions are mutually exclusive. Claim 16 already recites the film would be between the electrical device and the adhesive. Since in claim 16 the adhesive is used to attach the trim piece to the rim, then this means the film would have to be outside of both the core and the electrical device. Thus it can not be between the core and electrical device and at the same time between the electrical device and adhesive that is placed between the trim and the electrical device.
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) 16-18, 20-25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonoyama et al. (USpgpub 20150367875) in view of Hilmer (USP 7329835) and in view of Letzas et al. (USP 9045158). Hereinafter this combination of references will be considered Combo A for shorthand.
Regarding claim 16, Nonoyama et al. discloses a vehicle steering wheel (fig.1), comprising:
a hub (fig.1, 43) arranged to be connected to a steering element of the vehicle,
at least one branch (fig.1, 42) attached to the hub,
a rim (fig.1, 41) attached to said at least one branch, comprising:
at least one electrical device (fig.5, 20) covering at least part of a core (fig.5, 45 and 47 form the core) of the rim and comprising a substrate (10a, 10b, 7) supporting at least one electrical conductor (1),
at least one trim piece (fig.5, 48), such as an outer sheath, defining an outer surface of the rim,
at least one layer of adhesive (fig.5, 8 and 9 read on this; described in paragraph 47) arranged to attach the trim piece to the rim,
Nonoyama et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rim comprises at least one film comprising a polymer, arranged between the electrical device and the layer of adhesive and further fails to explicitly disclose the adhesive is water-based.
Hilmer teaches the concept or method of utilizing at least one film (fig.2, films 6 and 7) comprising a polymer positioned outside of an electrical device (8) for the purpose of creating a barrier for contaminants (see summary section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical device disclosed in Nonoyama et al. to include the use of film as taught by Hilmer in order to create a barrier for contaminants and prevent corrosion of the device.
Letzas et al. teaches the concept of utilizing a water-based adhesive for attaching various components of a heatable steering wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive in Nonoyama et al. to be a water based adhesive, as taught/suggested in Letzas et al. in order to provide the same predictable result of securely attaching the various components together. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these types of adhesives are common place in the art and further can come in pure liquid form or as double sided tape or rather the layer of adhesive on said double sided tape.
Regarding claim 17, Hilmer teaches the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer has a thickness of less than 200 microns (col.3, lines 36-38 describe the films having a thickness less than this) preferentially between 10 pm and 100 pm, ideally between 10 pm and 50 pm.
Regarding claim 18, Hilmer teaches the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer comprises polyethylene, and/or polyurethane, and/or polymer of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer, and/or polyvinyl chloride, and/or thermoplastic polyurethane (Hilmer discloses the film could be a polyurethane film in col.3, line 38).
Regarding claim 20, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer and the electrical device form a laminated structure (seen in the figures, the film and device would form a laminated structure as taught above), preferably before the electrical device is assembled on the steering wheel.
Regarding claim 21, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the electrical device is a laminated structure wherein the film comprising a polymer (as best understood, the device and film form a laminated structure) and/or the electrical conductor is attached by an adhesive, such as a double-sided adhesive film, in particular water-based.
Regarding claim 22, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer is arranged between the core and the electrical device (as taught by Hilmer, the film would be placed on either side of the electrical device and thus one of the films would be between the core and electrical device).
Regarding claim 23, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer is arranged between the electrical device and the trim piece (as taught by Hilmer, the film would be placed on either side of the electrical device and thus one of the films would be between the trim and electrical device). .
Regarding claim 24, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the rim comprises a second film comprising a polymer, and wherein the electrical device is arranged between the two insulating films (taught by Hilmer above for claim 16).
Regarding claim 25, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the electrical device forms a heating device and/or a device for detecting contact or proximity of a user with the steering wheel (base reference is a heating device).
Regarding claim 27, Nonoyama discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the substrate of the electrical device is made of polyethylene, and/or polyurethane, and/or polymer of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer, and/or polyvinyl chloride (disclosed as a polyurethane foam).
Regarding claim 28, Nonoyama et al. discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the substrate of the electrical device has a thickness greater than 500 microns (paragraph 58 describes this as being 2 mm which is greater than 500 microns).
Regarding claim 29, Nonoyama et al. discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the substrate of the electrical device is made of an open-cell foam (polyurethane foam is disclosed), or of a woven or non-woven piece.
Regarding claim 30, Nonoyama et al. discloses a vehicle comprising a vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combo A as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Simpson et al. (USP 11850835).
Regarding claim 19, Combo A fails to explicitly disclose the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer has a density comprised within a range of values from 1.10 g/cm3 to 1.30 g/cm3.
Simpson et al. teaches the use of a similar film made of polyurethane which has a density of 1.19 g/cm3 (col.14, line 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film to have said density since it would provide the same predictable result of corrosion resistance. This is also akin to a person of ordinary skill in the art selecting among known materials. It is very common place to have these properties in the art of these protective films.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combo A as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wada et al. (WO 2017026217 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nonoyama et al. discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the substrate of the electrical device is a foam (disclosed as a polyurethane foam).
Nonoyama et al. fails to explicitly disclose the substrate has a density comprised within a range of values from 0.10 g/cm3 to 0.80 g/cm3
Wada et al. teaches within a similar heater the use of a substrate that has a density of 0.32 g/cm3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate disclosed in Nonoyama to include one having a density of 0.32 as taught by Wada et al. in order to provide the same predictable result of providing a sufficiently flexible heater for the steering wheel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art contains numerous relevant references which could readily apply as teachings or other possible base references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617