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 § 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), 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; “covering film” has mentioned in the summary) comprising a polymer positioned outside of an electrical device (8); wherein the at least one film is configured to prevent or limit migration of liquid from the at least one layer of water-based adhesive toward the electrical device; for the purpose of creating a barrier for contaminants (see summary section; the summary expressly mentions the film forms a barrier for gas, liquid or dissolved solid chemicals and thus expressly reads on this “configured” limitation).
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).
Regarding claim 18, Hilmer teaches the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein the film comprising a polymer includes polyethylene, polyurethane, polymer of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer, polyvinyl chloride, 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).
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 the electrical conductor is attached by an adhesive (as mentioned in the references).
Regarding claim 22, Combo A discloses the vehicle steering wheel according to claim 16, wherein a second 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 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 comprises polyethylene, polyurethane, polymer of ethylene-propylene-diene monomer, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, regarding claim 16, Applicant makes a series of arguments that appear to mischaracterize the references, especially as utilized in the 103 rejection above. Firstly, Applicant’s allege that the base reference Nonoyama fails to disclose the adhesive layer. However, as noted above, the adhesive layer in Nonoyama is seen in clearly in fig.5 as layers 8 and 9 and mentioned in paragraph 47 wherein the reference mentions how the adhesive in the form of double sided tape is placed between the substrates and the corresponding layers 47 and 48.
Applicant further argues that Hilmer fails to teach the film and that the film mentioned in Hilmer is part of the laminate of the heating element. This is wrong, while Hilmer explicitly discloses a heating element having a conductor and a laminate, it further expressly teaches the use of a covering film which is mentioned in col.1, lines 66- col.2, lines 1-9. In addition, the covering film functions in the manner claimed of limiting migration of liquid as also expressly mentioned in that paragraph. Since Applicant argues that it is incapable of doing that, could they please elaborate on exactly how their film is “configured” to do so because the claims simply calls for a “configuration” of a film which is nothing more than a layer of plastic like material and in addition, elaborate how the reference fails to meet this limitation.
Regarding the Letzas reference, Applicant argues that Letzas doesn’t teach the location of the adhesive. However, as applied above, Letzas does not need to teach the location because the location is already disclosed in Nonoyama. The teaching is merely a substitution of the type of adhesive utilized. Furthermore, the arguments that Letzas teaches away are moot in light of the Hilmer teaching which solves the problem of any liquids penetrating the heating element.
Applicant appears to argue the bodily incorporation of these references but that argument appears to ignore the fact that Nonoyama as a base reference already discloses the general layout of all the layers with the only exception of missing an additional film/covering layer which is expressly then taught by Hilmer. Thus, this clearly allows for any form of adhesive to be utilized and since Nonoyama already discloses an adhesive precisely where needed and simply does not explicitly mention the use of a known water based adhesive, a teaching was provided for said simple substitution.
It is important to note that, Hilmer could have also functioned as a base reference with only the need to teach the adhesive which is expressly taught by all other teaching.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights