DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the each of the first metal layer and second metal layer including a substrate, first metal film layer and second metal film layer (Claim 27) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
As best understood, Claim 27 requires a total of seven layers (in the pattern of metal film layer-substrate-metal film layer-substrate- metal film layer-substrate-metal film layer. This does not appear to be shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification does not appear to disclose reference numbers for the substrate, first metal film layer and second metal film layer that comprise each metal layer (Claim 27).
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the a second electrically insulative substrate” should be recited as --the second electrically insulative substrate--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 10-35 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second metal layer" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 27, line 9, each metal layer is recited as including a substrate, first metal film layer and second metal film layer. However, a layer is understood to be one single thickness/layer, therefore it is not clear how it can further include three additional layers. Rather, it appears to be a composite of multiple layers.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the first electrically insulative substrate" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6, 10-26, 28-30 and 32-35 are rejected by dependency.
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) 1-6, 10-21, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0053482 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakano et al. discloses
an electrically insulative substrate (832, Fig. 37) having a first surface (i.e. its outer circumferential surface) and a second surface (i.e. its inner circumferential surface) that is opposite the first surface;
a first metal layer (831) disposed on the first surface of the electrically insulative substrate;
a first electrical conductor (i.e. the line extending from 831 to 925) having a first end that is directly electrically connected to the first metal layer,
wherein the first metal layer is attached to the first surface of the electrically insulative substrate without an adhesive (i.e. fusion-bonding, [0226]); and
a plurality of apertures (323a, 323b, Fig. 17) that extend through the electrically insulative substrate, the first metal layer, and the second metal layer,
Nakano et al. does not disclose the apertures to be of at least two different sizes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Nakano et al. by including two different
sized apertures since it would have been “obvious to try” among a limited number of
options (i.e. same size or different sizes), for the purpose of accommodating geometric
design constraints.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakano et al. discloses
the first metal layer is a first metal film layer ([0094], [0224], Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakano et al. discloses
a second metal film layer (936) disposed on the second surface of the electrically insulative substrate; and
a second electrical conductor (i.e. the line extending from 936 to 925) having a first end that is directly electrically connected to the second metal film layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakano et al. does not disclose aluminum film.
However, since the specification is silent as to any criticality, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of
Nakano et al. by including an aluminum film, since it has been held to be within the
general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability
for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and for the purpose of
reducing weight.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakano et al. discloses
the first and second metal film layers are layers of copper film ([0094]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakano et al. discloses
the electrically insulative substrate includes one of polyester, polyurethane, and a polymer (i.e. polymer dielectric, [0010]) film.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakano et al. discloses
the apertures all have the same shape (see Fig. 17).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Nakano et al. does not disclose the claimed limitations.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Nakano et al. by including these
limitations, since it would have been “obvious to try” among a limited number of
options (i.e. same shape/different shape, same spacing/different spacings), for the
purpose of accommodating geometric design constraints.
Regarding Claim 14, Nakano et al. discloses
the first end of the first electrical conductor is adhered to the first metal film layer and the first end of the second electrical conductor is adhered to the second metal film layer (Fig. 37).
Regarding Claim 15, Nakano et al. discloses
one of electrically conductive adhesive and electrically conductive glue that adheres the first end of the first electrical conductor to the first metal film layer and the first end of the second electrical conductor is adhered to the second metal film layer ([0208]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakano et al. discloses
a first thickness of the first metal film layer and a second thickness of the second metal film layer are less than a third thickness of the electrically insulative substrate (i.e. the thickness of 831 and 936 is less than that of 832, Fig. 37).
Regarding Claims 17-19, Nakano et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed thicknesses.
However, since the specification is silent as to any criticality, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the
invention of Nakano et al. by including the recited thickness ranges, since it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art and for
the purpose of reducing weight.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, it is noted that these are product-by-process claims.
Regarding Claim 25, Nakano et al. discloses
a hands off module (925) configured to:
electrically connect to second ends of the first and second electrical conductors; and
detect when a driver's hands are off of the steering wheel based on a capacitance between the first and second metal film layers ([0275]).
Regarding Claim 26, Nakano et al. discloses
the first and second electrical conductors are insulated electrical conductors ([0202]-[0203], Fig. 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record shows an electric heater as claimed (Claims 22-24).
Claims 27-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. It is noted that allowability is also based upon correction of the drawing and specification objections in accordance with how Claim 27 is best understood, as including seven layers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakano et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0206418) discloses electrodes 50 and apertures 51.
Hein et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0254675) discloses an insulator 2, electrodes 3 and 4 having apertures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 September 15, 2026
