DETAILED ACTION
2nd Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 2011/0297660 A1) in view of Oikawa (US 2018/0056942 A1).
Claim 1. Fritz discloses an automobile glazing defogger provided on an automobile glazing (heating device for defrosting glass on a vehicle, Fig. 3), the automobile glazing defogger comprising:
one or more primary defogger coil in a predetermined pattern or design (heating cable 3, Fig. 2); and
a secondary defogger coil covering a heating zone of the rest of the automobile glazing (heating cable 3 with reduced cross-section by the logo, par. 31),
wherein the one or more primary defogger coil has a higher electrical resistance than the secondary defogger coil due to the predetermined pattern or design (heating cable 3 with reduced cross-section by the logo to increase the resistance and thus heating output, par. 31) and the one or more primary defogger coil is arranged to heat faster to a
wherein the one or more primary defogger coil and the secondary defogger coil are configured to connect and receive power from a power supply (heating circuit connect to the power supply via 4 and 7, Fig. 3).
Fritz does not disclose that the heating coil is heated to a specified temperature.
Oikawa discloses a defogging system for a vehicle wherein the heater 80 is controlled to maintain a predetermined temperature (par. 119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fritz to incorporate the teachings of Oikawa and provide a controller that heats the coils to a specified temperature. Doing so would have the benefit of controlling the heating coil to defog/defrost the automobile to a desired temperature.
Claim 2. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more primary defogger coil is disposed in at least one of the following regions:
a busbar region, a wiper blade, a camera and a ceramic masking region (this is intended use and does not further limit the automobile glazing defogger since the automobile glazing with the different regions is not positively recited as a component of the automobile glazing defogger).
Claim 3. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more primary defogger coil is a printed or physical coil (heating wires, par. 34).
Claim 5. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 2, wherein the one or more primary defogger coil is placed behind the ceramic masking region located along a periphery of the automobile glazing (intended use since the automobile glazing with the different regions is not positively recited as a component of the automobile glazing defogger, therefore the limitations does not further define the defogger).
Claim 6. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 3, wherein the one or more primary defogger coil is made by thin wire plotting (heating wire, par. 34).
Claim 7. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the primary and secondary defogger coils are applied on a surface of the automobile glazing (intended use since the automobile glazing is not positively recited as a component of the defogger).
Claim 8. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the primary and secondary defogger coils are embedded within a laminated automobile glazing (intended use since the laminated automobile glazing is not positively recited as a component of the defogger).
Claim 9. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, wherein a specific power, defined as power per unit length, of the one or more primary defogger coil is at least 2 times greater than the specific power of the secondary defogger coil (the limitation does not further define the defogger since a power supply is not recited to having supplied the specific power; additionally, the different coils can be selected to have different heating outputs, par. 17).
Claim 11. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, comprising:
switching on a power supply of the defogger (cable 3 are connected to a power supply via contact 4, par. 33);
visualizing rapid clearance or non-clearance of fog by the one or more primary defogger coil on the automobile glazing (this step can be done by visual observation by the operator to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger).
Claim 12. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing, after switching on the power supply, the rapid clearance of fog by the one or more primary defogger coil indicates that the defogger is working (this limitation is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window).
Claim 13. Fritz in view of Oikawa discloses the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing, after switching on the power supply the non- clearance of fog by the one or more primary defogger coil indicates that the defogger is not -working (this limitation is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Deering (US 2016/0363286 A1).
Claim 4. Fritz in view of Oikawa does not disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 3, wherein the one or more primary defogger coil is achieved by using transparent conductive ink.
Deering discloses a heating system having a heating element comprising a conductive ink circuit that is made of transparent ink (66, par. 21, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fritz in view of Oikawa to incorporate the teachings of Deering and provide the first defogger with transparent conductive ink. Doing so would have the benefit of heating the window without obstructing the view of the operator.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Axinte (US 2006/0289421 A1).
Claim 14. Fritz in view of Oikawa does not disclose the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing, after switching on the power supply the non- clearance of fog by all the one or more primary defogger coil indicates at least one of the following: damage in the one or more primary coils, breakage in the power supply, battery failure and physical wire breakage.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to diagnosis through observation that a defogger is not working due to damage to the coils. Axinte discloses that it is known that in heated seats if a wire breaks then heating stops (par. 4).
Claim 15. Fritz in view of Oikawa does not disclose the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing the non-clearance of fog by any specific primary defogger coil indicates a localized failure or damage in that one or more primary defogger coil.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to diagnosis through observation that a defogger is not working due to damage to the coils. Axinte discloses that it is known that in heated seats if a wire breaks then heating stops (par. 4).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishizeki (US 2009/0206068 A1)
Claim 16. Fritz in view of Oikawa does not disclose an automobile glazing defogger control system, wherein the system comprising:
one or more portable devices;
an automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1; and
a controller in communication with the one or more portable devices and the defogger,
wherein the one or more portable devices configured to communicate with the defogger via controller allowing a user to switch on or off the defogger.
Ishizeki discloses a defogging system comprising an inside heater 20 and an outside heater 30 for heating a window glass 10, relays 40 and 50 for supplying electric power into each heater, a control unit 60 for controlling each relay (par. 57). In addition, the window-glass heating device is connected with a traction battery 70, a battery charging port 80, a battery for electrical equipment 90 and the like (par. 58, Fig. 1). The controller and traction battery is a portable device communicating with the defogger and the controller; and the controller has an installment panel in a vehicle compartment that allows the user to turn the defogger on/off (par. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fritz in view of Oikawa to incorporate the teachings of Ishizeki and provide portable device. Doing so would have the benefit of controlling power delivered to the defoggers.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishizeki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kaminski (US 2018/0242400 A1)
Claim 17. Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishizeki does not disclose the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the one or more portable devices are a handheld device, keyless entry remote, computer, mobile, laptop, tab, smartwatch or augmented reality (AR) glasses.
Kaminski discloses a heating system for a vehicle wherein a controller 14 (Fig. 1) is configured to activate heating elements 12 (Fig. 1), the control system also uses a handheld device (cellphone 20, Fig. 1) for remote control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishizeki to incorporate the teachings of Kaminski and allow the control system to be a handheld device. Doing so would have the benefit of remotely controlling the defoggers (par. 26, Kaminski).
Claim 19. Fritz in view of Oikawa, Ishizeki, and Kaminski discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16, wherein each of the one or more portable devices have a graphical user interface for the user to trigger switching on or off of the defogger (cell phone has a GUI, par. 32, Kaminski).
Claim 20. Fritz in view of Oikawa, Ishizeki, and Kaminski discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 19, wherein the graphical user interface provides authentication of the user (cell phone may run an app for built-in authentication, par. 28, Kaminski).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishizeki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sadwick (US 2015/0204561 A1)
Claim 18. Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishiszeki does not disclose the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the one or more portable devices are controllable by gestures, movements or voice commands.
Sadwick discloses a control system (Fig. 10) having a remote-control device such as a smart phone (158, Fig. 10) configured to control a heater (140, Fig. 10) using voice commands, voice recognition, motion detection, and proximity detection (Par. 1136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fritz in view of Oikawa and Ishizeki to incorporate the teachings of Sadwick and allow the control system to controlled using gestures and voice. Sadwick demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would capable of implementing these features based on design specifications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights