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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because *Black shading is not permitted; See Figures 3, 4, and 11, *37CFR1.84(m), *All writing must be in black ink: See Figure 11, *37CFR1.84(l), and *All reference numerals without a reference line must be underlined; Figures 9+, *37CFR1.84(q).
Additionally, 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 coil being a coated conductive layer as set forth in claim 3 and the options listed in claims 2 and 17 are not found in the drawings and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: *Paragraph 46, lines 5 and 7, "of other representation" should be "or other representation" based on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The “AR” acronym needs to be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more portable devices … 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” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In paragraph 68 of the specification, the battery is the species of the power supply not a separate element. As claimed in claim 14 they are separate elements. The limitation “wherein observing the non-clearance of fog by one of the any specific primary defogger coil indicates a localized failure or damage in that defogger associated with that particular primary defogger coil” as recited in claim 15 is new matter since claims 1 and 11 still allow for an embodiment with just a single primary coil "one or more". Therefore, in situations where only a single primary coil exists indicating that all failures must be localized failures and not also possibly a fault of the battery is new matter. This is new matter as the original disclosure did not support both a power supply and a separate battery in the same device. Claim 18, recites “wherein the one or more portable devices are controllable by gestures, movements or voice commands”, however the specification does not disclose an algorithm that indicates applicant had possession of the software necessary to be capable of controlling the system via the one or more portable devices in all of these alternative ways. The specification (paragraph 60) disclose a generic GUI and but not a specific special purpose computer/GUI that allows for all of these options.
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 1-9 and 11-20 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, (1) the limitation “other representation” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of "or other representation is", i.e. what falls within the category of "or other representation" that does not fall into "predetermined pattern" or "design"? There is nothing in the specification that defines what "or other representation" and as such this appears to be a subjective category with indefinite bounds.
(2) The preamble of claim 1 is directed to the defogger and not the combination of the defogger and the automobile glass/glazing. As such it is unclear whether the glass/glaze is necessarily required to meet the limitation "a secondary defogger coil covering the rest of the automobile glazing" or if I just need a second coil.
(3) It is unclear as to the scope of the newly added limitation "is working or not-working". Based on the specification this appears to be entirely dependent on something capable of being melted being on top of the glass which has not been claimed. The primary fogger by itself has no structural component disclosed in the specification (light, noise, etc.) that provides the indication and as such the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the 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” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what these regions belong to. After a review of the instant specification, it appears that these regions belong to the automobile glazing which is not cited as an element of the automobile glazing defogger and claim 1 requires the secondary defogger coil to be “covering the rest of the automobile glazing” which inherently requires the primary to be in the automobile glazing. If the primary must be in the glazing, how can it also be in the camera or wiper blade, etc.? Additionally, "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1.
Claim 3, (1) the limitation "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1; (2) The term "coil" to one of ordinary skill in the are usually implies a structure that is coiled, therefore it is unclear how a "coated conductive layer" as now cited in claim 3 can meet that requirement.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1.
Claim 5, The preamble of claim 1 is directed to the defogger and not the combination of the defogger and the automobile glass/glazing. As such it is unclear whether the “ceramic masking region” is necessarily required to meet the limitation.
Claim 7, "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1.
Claim 8, "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1.
Claim 9, (1) "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to, see issue (2) above for claim 1; (2) the limitation “wherein a specific power, defined as power per unit length, of the primary defogger coil is at least 2 times greater than the specific power of the secondary defogger coil” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what a “specific power” is referring to since instant claim 1 does not cite a power source as being a component of the automobile glazing defogger.
Claim 11, the limitation (1) “A method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, comprising: switching on the power supply of the defogger” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to the power supply since the automobile glazing defogger of claim 1 does not have a power supply; (2) "the power supply" lacks antecedent basis as the device of claim 1 need only be capable of connecting to a power supply, (3) "one or more primary defogger coil" should be "the one or more primary defogger coil" since the structure has been incorporated due to the dependence of claim 1, (4) I am not sure what the scope of "visualizing rapid clearance" does applicant intend for a user to "view rapid clearance" or is this something the device does such as a stereo visualizing bass, treble, etc. via a visual indicator while music is playing?
Claim 12, "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to.
Claim 13, "the primary defogger coil" lacks antecedent basis as we do not know which of the "one or more" is being referred to.
Claim 14, there is a lack of antecedent basis for "battery failure and physical wire breakage.
Claim 18, recites “wherein the one or more portable devices are controllable by gestures, movements or voice commands”, however the specification does not disclose an algorithm that indicates applicant had possession of the software necessary to be capable of controlling the system via the one or more portable devices in all of these alternative ways. The specification (paragraph 60) disclose a generic GUI and but not a specific special purpose computer/GUI that allows for all of these options.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the one or more portable devices have a graphical user interface for the user to trigger switching on or off of the defogger” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if there is more than one portable device, will they share the same graphical user interface which is how the claim is presented now. Probably should be "each of the one or more...has a GUI".
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 12-14 does not add an additional method step, beyond visualizing required in claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 20110297660 A1, cited on IDS dated 15 April 2024) in view of Schall et al. (US 20170339750 A1).
Fitz discloses an automobile glazing defogger (Fig. 3) comprising: one or more primary defogger coil (heating circuit 2) in a predetermined pattern (Fig. 3); and a secondary defogger coil (heating circuit 2’) covering the rest of an automobile glazing (backing plate 1, Fig. 3) and the one or more primary defogger coil (2) and the secondary defogger coil (2’) are configured to connect and receive power from a power supply via contacts (4 and 7, Fig. 3)., ¶0027, 0033-0036, the heating circuits 2 and 2’ are arranged for zone heating wherein one heating circuit can be turned on first before the second heating circuit is turned and the primary defogger coil (2) is arranged to heat faster to a specified temperature to provide faster defogging than the secondary defogger coil (2’) due to the secondary defogger coil (2’) having a time delay to ensure that total defrosting is achieved in the desired time frame (¶0035), the primary defogger coil and the second defogger coil are arranged to where operator observation during a fog condition would indicated whether the defogger is working or not working.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fitz is silent on wherein the primary defogger coil has a higher electrical resistance than the secondary defogger coil due to the predetermined pattern.
Schall et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses a transparent pane with an electrical heating layer and a method of production, wherein the heating layer is configured to be a defogger having heating layer 6 (Fig. 1A) and heating element (15, Fig. 1A, “The line heating element 15 is formed, for example, by a sinusoidally curved linear electrically conductive structure, hereinafter referred to as “heating line””, ¶0077). Schall et al further states “It is understood that different course shapes, periodic intervals, amplitudes, thicknesses, widths, and specific resistances of the heating line or of the heating wire can vary within different sections of the line heating element in order to thus achieve optimum homogeneity in heating power distribution and temperature distribution. This is particularly advantageous when the additional heating region of the heating layer has a wound or curved course and does not have a constant width or when zones must not be covered or crossed by the line heating element, for example, when, in the installation position, the vehicle identification number is to be arranged below the pane.”, ¶0036.
Since the specific resistances of the defogger (heating line) can vary based on configuration of the automobile glazing with varies components such a windshield wiper, rear view mirror and shapes of automobile glazing edges, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the primary defogger coil of Fitz to have a higher resistance than the secondary defogger coil in order to achieve optimum homogeneity in heating power distribution and temperature distribution in this case to control the defrosting of the logo of Fitz first before defrosting the rest of the automobile gazing.
Regarding claim 2, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1. The limitation “wherein the primary defogger coil is disposed in at least one of the following regions: provided on a busbar region, a wiper blade, a camera and a ceramic masking region” is intended used 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.
Regarding claim 3, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, Fitz shown wherein the primary defogger coil is a physical coil (heating wires, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 5, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 2, the limitation “wherein the primary defogger coil is placed behind the ceramic masking region located along a periphery of the automobile glazing” is intended use since the automobile glazing is not positively recited as a component of the defogger, therefore the limitations does not further define the defogger.
Regarding claim 6, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 3, wherein the primary defogger coil (2) is made by thin wire plotting (heating wires, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 7, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the primary and secondary defogger coils are applied on a surface of the automobile glazing” is intended use since the automobile glazing in not positively recited as a component of the defogger.
Regarding claim 8, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the primary and secondary defogger coils are embedded within a laminated automobile glazing” is intended use since the laminated automobile glazing is not positively recited as a component of the defogger.
Regarding claim 9, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1, the limitation “wherein a specific power, defined as power per unit length, of the primary defogger coil is at least 2 times greater than the specific power of the secondary defogger coil” does not further define the defogger since a power supply is not recited, a specific power can be selected by the user when connecting a power supply to the defogger (2, 2’).
Regarding claim 11, Fitz modified the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1 and a method wherein switching on the power supply of the defogger can be done by the operator by hand, Fitz shown wherein the primary and secondary defogger coils (2, 2’) are configured to be connected to a power supply via contacts 4 and 7, ¶0033; visualizing rapid clearance or non-clearance of fog by 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).
Regarding claim 12, Fitz modified the disclose the automobile glazing defogger of claim 1 used to perform the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing the rapid clearance of fog by the primary defogger coil indicates that the defogger is working is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window.
Regarding claim 13, Fitz modified the disclose the automobile glazing defogger of claim 1 used to perform the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing the non-clearance of fog by the primary defogger coil indicates that the defogger is not non-working is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window.
Regarding claim 14, Fitz modified the disclose the automobile glazing defogger of claim 1 used to perform the method to identify failure in the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 11, wherein observing the non-clearance of fog by all the 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 is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window.
Regarding claim 15, Fitz modified the disclose the automobile glazing defogger of claim 1 used to perform 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 primary defogger coil is inherent as this is what must happen when a person attempts to look through the window.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 20110297660 A1, cited on IDS dated 15 April 2024) in view of Schall et al. (US 20170339750 A1) and in view of Deering (US 20160363286 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fitz modified disclose the automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 3 but is silent on “wherein the invisibility of the primary defogger coil is achieved by using transparent conductive ink” is a product by process limitation for one of the choices of claim 3.
Deering disclose a heating system having a heating element comprising a conductive ink circuit that is made up of a transparent ink (66, Fig. 2, ¶0021). Since transparent inks was convention in the making of heating elements, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the primary defogger coil of Fitz to be made of a transparent conductive ink as taught by Deering for the purpose of heating a window while not obstructing the view of the operator when the operation is looking through the window.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 20110297660 A1, cited on IDS dated 15 April 2024) in view of Schall et al. (US 20170339750 A1) and in view of Ishizeki et al. (US 20090206068 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fitz modified the discloses an automobile glazing defogger control system, wherein the system comprises an automobile glazing defogger as claimed in claim 1.
Fitz is silent on wherein the system comprising: one or more portable devices; 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 et al. in the same field of endeavor 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”, ¶0057, “In addition, the window-glass heating device 1 is connected with a traction battery 70, a battery charging port 80, a battery for electrical equipment 90 and the like”, ¶0058, Fig. 1. In Ishizeki et al. the control unit 60 is a controller and the traction battery 70 being a portable device communicated with the defogger and the controller as shown in Fig. 1 and the controller has an installment panel in a vehicle compartment that allows the user to turn the defogger on / off, ¶0074.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fitz detail the automobile glazing defogger being configured to receive power from a power source and control based on a temperature sensor, therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automobile glazing defogger of Fitz to have a controller and at least one portable device for the purpose of controlling power delivered to the defoggers.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 20110297660 A1, cited on IDS dated 15 April 2024) in view of Schall et al. (US 20170339750 A1) in view of Ishizeki et al. (US 20090206068 A1) and in view of Kaminski et al. (US 20180242400 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Fitz modified discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16.
Fitz is silent on wherein the one or more portable devices are a handheld device, keyless entry remote, computer, mobile, laptop, tab, smartwatch or AR glasses.
Kaminski et al in the same field of endeavor discloses a heating system for a motor vehicle wherein a controller (14, Fig. 1) is configured to activate heating elements (12, Fig. 1), the control system also use a handheld device (cell phone, 20, Fig. 1) for remote control (The controller 14 is configured to activate the heating element 12 in response to a wireless activation signal received from a remote communication device 16 such as the key fob 18 or the cell phone 20”, ¶0026). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automobile glazing defogger of Fitz to have a control system as taught by Kaminski et al for the purpose of controlling the heating of the defoggers while in the vehicle as well as the remotely when away from the vehicle, common features that would yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Fitz modified discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16, Fitz is silent on wherein the one or more portable devices have a graphical user interface for the user to trigger switching on or off of the defogger.
Kaminski et al in the same field of endeavor discloses a heating system for a motor vehicle wherein a controller (14, Fig. 1) is configured to activate heating elements (12, Fig. 1) which can receive instructions from a handheld device (cell phone, 20, Fig. 1, with a graphical user interface, see display screen button 54 on the display screen 56 of the cell phone 20, ¶0032). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automobile glazing defogger of Fitz to have a portable device having a graphical user interface for the user to trigger switching on or off of the defogger as taught by Kaminski et al for the purpose of remote control of the defoggers while outside of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, Fitz modified discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 19, Fitz is silent on wherein the graphical user interface provides authentication of the user.
Kaminski et al further detail wherein the graphical user interface provides authentication of the user (“Such a cell phone 20 may run an app providing a similar built-in authentication for the same purpose.”, ¶0028).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automobile glazing defogger of Fitz to have a portable device having a graphical user interface providing authentication of the user as taught by Kaminski et al for the purpose of adding security to ensure that the intended user only has control access.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US 20110297660 A1, cited on IDS dated 15 April 2024) in view of Schall et al. (US 20170339750 A1) in view of Ishizeki et al. (US 20090206068 A1) and in view of Sadwick et al. (US 20150204561 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Fitz modified discloses the automobile glazing defogger control system as claimed in claim 16, Fitz is silent on wherein the one or more portable devices are controllable by gestures, movements or voice commands.
Sadwick et al. discloses a control system (Fig. 10) having a remote-control device such as a smart phone (158, Fig. 10) configured to control heater (140, Fig. 10) using “voice commands, voice recognition, motion detection, proximity detection, pressure detection, RFID, Bluetooth, other signal strength detection, GPS, smart phones etc. on or near the occupants”, ¶01136.
Since voice recognition, motion detection programs were common to smart phones at the filing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automobile glazing defogger of Fitz to have a portable device that use movements or voice commands as taught by Sadwick et al. for the purpose of controlling the heating from the defoggers.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 27 June 2025, with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been fully considered.
As necessitated amendment new grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES F SIMS III whose telephone number is (571)270-7496. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30 EST M-F.
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, Landrum F Edward can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/JAMES F SIMS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights