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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-22, 25 and 27-29 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04 March 2026, introduce new limitation(s) not previously considered and therefore overcomes the prior objection(s) and rejection(s). However, the amendment gives rise to a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on new analysis of the references previously applied.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 19, 21-22 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete (US20200282922A1) in view of Meylan (US20210199769A1) further in view of Dogimont (US20160304389A1).
Regarding claim 1, Astete teaches a pane substrate (Fig. 4 as further detailed in Fig. 6) comprising:
a curved pane (Figs. 4 & 6B, glass layer 201; ¶¶ 5, 75);
an optical device (Figs. 4 & 6A, cameras 16, disposed on Fig. 6B, mounting bracket 8; ¶¶ 5, 23-24); and
at least one coated glass patch provided locally between the curved plane and the optical device (Fig. 6B, patch 9; ¶¶ 71-73, 80), wherein
the pane substrate comprises an optically transparent area (¶¶ 4-5, 82-85, 94-95, glass layer 201, comprised in glass sheet 2, is optically transmissive to support camera functionality), wherein the optical device is on a surface of the curved pane integrated on the optically transparent area (¶¶ 7, 73, 96; Fig. 6B, bracket 8 hosting camera 16 mounted on glass layer 201), wherein [1: …], [2: …], wherein
the at least one coated glass patch has been cold bent (¶ 80, “cold bending can be used”) to match a curvature of the curved pane (¶ 101, “cold bent to the contour of the glass”);
wherein the at least one coated glass patch has a thickness of from 0.5 mm to < 1 mm (¶ 76, cold bending used for glass sheets ≤ 1 mm; ¶ 101, 0.7 mm), wherein
the at least one coated glass patch is attached to the curved pane by a PVB or EVA interlayer (Fig. 6B, interlayer 4; ¶ 63) during an autoclaving process (¶ 73, autoclave cycle), and
wherein the at least one coated glass patch projects out from the surrounding curved pane (Fig. 6B, patch 9 projects out from glass layer 201).
Astete does not teach:
“wherein the pane substrate and the at least one coated glass patch have an absorption coefficient lower than 5 m-1 in the wavelength range from 750 nm to 1650 nm”; and,
“wherein the optical sensor device comprises an infrared-based remote sensing device in a wavelength range from 750 nm to 1650 nm.”
Meylan teaches limitation (2) in Fig. 1a and ¶¶ 86-87 & 118, specifically, the employment of an optical lidar device within the claimed wavelength range. 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 the optical sensor of Astete and incorporated the infrared lidar of Meylan with a reasonable expectation for success in order to imbue high-resolution environmental ranging functionality, thereby enabling greater situational awareness and navigation and collision avoidance capabilities for the vehicle system (Meylan, ¶¶ 3-5 & 172).
Astete in view of Meylan does not teach limitation (1). However, Dogimont teaches the limitation in Table 1, Sample 1, where maximum absorption coefficient across the wavelength range is 1.4 m-1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Astete in view of Meylan with that of Dogimont in order to provide for a low absorption, high transparency glass, thereby yielding a system with reduced optical loss and less signal distortion (Dogimont, ¶¶ 13, 15 & 25).
Regarding claim 2, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the optical device is an optical sensor device (Astete, ¶ 69, camera & Meylan, ¶ 86, lidar).
Regarding claim 3, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the curved pane comprises glass and/or polymers (Astete, ¶¶ 5, 62, 64, glass).
Regarding claim 4, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least on coated glass patch comprises glass (Astete, ¶ 80, “tempered glass”).
Regarding claim 6, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coated glass patch is provided with at least one coating (Dogimont, ¶ 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the at least one coated glass patch of Astete in view of Meylan/Dogimont with the antireflective coating as taught by Dogimont with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce unwanted back-reflections, thereby yielding reduced noise and improved optical sensitivity for the optical device (Dogimont, ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 7, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coated glass patch is bonded optically and mechanically to the curved pane (Astete, Fig. 6B, bonding layer 4; ¶ 63).
Regarding claim 9, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 6, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coating is provided on the side of the at least one coated glass patch facing the pane and/or on the side of the at least one coated glass patch turned away from the curved pane (Dogimont, ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 10, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the curved pane is an automotive glazing (Astete, ¶¶ 1, 4, 62).
Regarding claim 13, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coated glass patch is provided on an inner face (Astete, Fig. 6B, bottom surface of 201) and a size of the at least one coated glass patch fits with a size of a field of view of the optical device (Astete, ¶¶ 71, 94-95; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the optically transparent area occupies less than 10% of the surface of the pane substrate (Astete, Fig. 6A illustrates the transparent area is less than 10% of the entire pane).
Regarding claim 16, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the glass and/or polymers are selected from the group consisting of flat glass, float glass, quartz glass, borosilicate glass, soda lime glass, aluminosilicate glass, or polymethyl methacrylate, and mixtures thereof (Astete, ¶¶ 64, 68).
Regarding claim 17, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coated glass patch is selected from the group consisting of flat glass, float glass, quartz glass, borosilicate glass, soda lime glass, aluminosilicate glass, and mixtures thereof (Astete, ¶ 101; Dogimont, ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 19, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 6, and further teaches: wherein the at least one coated glass patch is provided with at least one coating selected from the group consisting of an anti-reflective coating, a tinted coating, a heated coating, a bandpass coating, and an antifog coating (Dogimont, ¶ 68, anti-reflective coating).
Regarding claim 21, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 10, and further teaches: wherein the automotive glazing is a windshield (Astete, ¶¶ 20 & 23, windshield).
Regarding claim 22, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the infrared-based remote sensing device is a LIDAR sensor (Meylan, ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 27, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the pane substrate is in an automotive trim element (Astete, ¶¶ 1, 20 & 23).
Regarding claim 28, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the pane substrate is configured for a vehicle (Astete, ¶¶ 1, 20 & 23).
Claims 5, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete in view of Meylan further in view of Dogimont further in view of Arslan (US20120119104A1).
Regarding claim 5, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, but fails to teach: wherein the optically transparent area has an optical transparency for visible light and/or infrared radiation of >60%. Arslan teaches the limitation in [0014] “more than 70%.” 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 the optically transparent area of Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont with the teachings of Arslan with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for the high transmission of optical signals (Arslan, ¶ 14).
Regarding claim 15, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the optical sensor device comprises sensors for […] infrared light of wavelengths from 750 nm to 1650 nm (Meylan, ¶ 7). The combination fail to teach: [sensor for] “visible light of wavelengths from 400 nm to 750 nm.” However, Arslan teaches in the limitation in ¶ 18, specifically, an optical sensor device with sensors for visible light of wavelengths from 400 nm to 750 nm. 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 the optical sensor device of Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont with the visible light sensor of Arslan with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for a multi-modal vehicle camera system which can effectively image the environment across varying weather conditions (Arslan, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 18, Astete in view of Meylan, Dogimont and Arslan teach the pane substrate of claim 5, and further teach: wherein the optically transparent area has an optical transparency for visible light and/or infrared radiation of >70% (Arslan, ¶ 14).
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete in view of Meylan further in view of Dogimont further in view of Timmermann (US20110281095A1).
Regarding claim 20, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 14, however does not teach: wherein the optically transparent sensor area occupies less than 5% of a surface of the pane substrate. Timmermann teaches the limitation in ¶ 61, where the transparent area is <1% as taught by ((L2*B2)/(L1*B1))*100%. 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 the optically transparent area of Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont with dimensions taught by Timmermann, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a variation of transparent area size, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the smaller footprint as taught by Timmermann would confer the advantages of greater overall structural strength of the pane and further enhances driver visibility. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the optically transparent area occupies less than 2% of the surface of the pane substrate. Timmermann teaches the limitation in ¶ 61, where the transparent area is <1% as taught by ((L2*B2)/(L1*B1))*100%. 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 the optically transparent area of Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont with dimensions taught by Timmermann, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a variation of transparent area size, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the smaller footprint as taught by Timmermann would confer the advantages of greater overall structural strength of the pane and further enhances driver visibility. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete in view of Meylan further in view of Dogimont further in view of Di Stefano (EP1059161A2).
Regarding claim 29, Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont teaches the pane substrate of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the pane substrate comprises [1: a glass pane] (Astete, Fig. 6B, glass layer 201) and the at least one coated glass patch (Astete, Fig. 6B, patch 9) and the [1: glass pane] (Astete, Fig. 6B, glass layer 201) are configured such that light transmitted to or from the optical device passes through [2: the glass pane] and the at least one glass patch (Astete, ¶¶ 4-5, 71, 82-85, 94-95).
Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont does not teach:
[the pane substrate comprises] “first and second glass panes”; and,
[light transmitted passes through] “both glass panes.”
However, Di Stefano teaches (1) in Fig. 2 an outside glass layer for an automotive windshield (18) comprising first (12) and second (14) glass panes, in addition to an inside glass layer (22). 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 the pane substrate of Astete in view of Meylan and Dogimont with the first and second glass panes as taught by Di Stefano with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve shock resistance of the pane substrate while avoiding added thickness, weight, and cost (Di Stefano, ¶¶ 8-11 & 34-35). Furthermore, Astete as modified in view of Meylan, Dogimont and Di Stefano additionally teaches (2), as light naturally passes through both first and second glass panes (Fig. 6B, outer glass layer 201 of Astete as modified by Di Stefano) in order to reach the optical device (Fig. 6B, camera hosted on mount 8 of Astete).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights