DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-… are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haag et al (US Publication 20030111453) in view of Zhang et al (CN 212605387 which has been machine translated).
Haag discloses a method of making a heated steering wheel, comprising depositing an electrically conductive layer on at least a portion of the steering wheel substrate (abs). The heating element comprises an electrically conductive layer 26 deposited on the surface of support member 24. The conductive layer 26 comprises of electrically conductive material, which includes metal particles (paragraph 21). The conductive layer may be a single layer or can include a plurality of layers at least one which is conductive (paragraph 30). The plurality of layers includes protection layers applied to provide wear and abrasion resistance (paragraph 30) these layers can be applied before or after the conductive layer is applied on the substrate. The conductive layer can be applied by being dispersed within an ink with a binder, the binder can read on the claimed primer. However, this reference is silent to a structural reinforcement component.
Zhang discloses a steering wheel with an electrically conductive layer applied to the steering wheel (abs). Zhang discloses that the conductive coating can comprises a reinforcing material and that the conductive coating can be adhered to the base though an adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haag and added reinforcing material to the conductive layer or having a layer of reinforcing material within the plurality of layers because it would allow for improved detection precision for the sensors/control device and provide extra strength and durability to the steering wheel. Further in the alternative, it would have been obvious to add an adhesive to increase adhesion of the layers. The coating would therefore be able to be configured to be tolerant to rigid connection
It should be noted that claim 1 is a product by process claim in that it defines how the coating was formed. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply the same structure, and the reference discloses such a product.
As to claim 2, the structural reinforcement portion is an electrically conductive layer or part of the electrically conductive layer, therefore the coating and a target component are capable of achieving an equipotential effect.
As to claim 3, Haag discloses that the electrically conductive layer can comprises copper as the metal (paragraph 21). Further the conductive layer may be a single layer or can include a plurality of layers at least one which is conductive. However this reference is silent to the layer structure of the component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed an adhesive layer with a copper layer and to have duplicated these two layers and formed adhesive layer, copper layer, adhesive layer, copper layer, since it has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 4, Haag discloses that the electrically conductive layer can comprises silver as the metal (paragraph 21). Further the conductive layer may be a single layer or can include a plurality of layers at least one which is conductive. However this reference is silent to the layer structure of the component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed an adhesive layer with a silver layer and to have duplicated these two layers and formed adhesive layer, silver layer, adhesive layer (carrier), silver layer, adhesive layer, silver layer, since it has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 5, Haag discloses that the plurality of layers includes a protection layer applied to provide wear and abrasion resistance (paragraph 30) these layers can be applied before or after the conductive layer is applied on the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haag and Zhang and formed the reinforcement layer between the conductive layer and the topcoat layer as it allowed the reinforcement layer to be applied after the conductive layer and to have a top coat layer to protect both the reinforcement layer and conductive layer.
As to claims 6 and 8, Zhang discloses that the reinforcement layer is only partially provided on the steering wheel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haag and Zhang and had the topcoat layer be flush with the reinforcement portion as to have a smooth steering wheel without a thickness change and would be an obvious design choice.
As to claims 9, 10, 11, and 14-20, Haag and Zhang discloses a steering wheel as part of a vehicle wherein the component is connected to a steering wheel frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12 and 13 are 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 CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights