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 claims 1-10 and 21 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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroumbos (US 2007/0188843), and further in view Klein (CA 3002307) and Kingman (US 10314116).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Stroumbos teaches an electrically heatable panel, comprising (Abstract): a first glass sheet (Paragraph 0021 first glass sheet 12); first and second spaced apart bus bars (Paragraph 0023 bus bars 16); and an electrically conductive coating (Paragraph 0030) adjacent the first glass sheet disposed between the first and second spaced apart bus bars (Fig. 1 first glass 12 bus bars 16), the electrically conductive coating having a conductive profile with at least one locally narrow region (Fig. 1 see annotated figure above).
Except wherein, Stroumbous does not teach the applicant’s submitted amended portion of the claim wherein the at least one locally narrow region includes a first locally narrow region of the conductive profile that is narrower along a first dimension than at least one region of the conductive profile adjacent to the first locally narrow region of the electrically conductive profile, and wherein the first dimension is a length from a first curved circumferential edge of the electrically conductive profile to a second circumferential edge of the electrically conductive profile.
Klein teaches an electrically heatable panel wherein at least one locally narrow region includes a first locally narrow region of the conductive profile (Page 5 lines 22-26, Fig. 1C narrow region of the carrier film 5, this region is narrower than the conductive area of the pane) that is narrower along a first dimension than at least one region of the conductive profile adjacent to the first locally narrow region of the electrically conductive profile (Page 5 lines 22-26, Fig. 1C narrow region of the carrier film 5, this region is narrower than the conductive area of the pane).
Stroumbos and Klein are analogous since both inventions teach heatable panes or panels. Applicant amended the claim to explicitly state that the locally narrow region of the heatable panel of the conductive profile is curved and based on the structure of the circumferential edges of the panel. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add Klein’s embodiment of to address the shape of the narrow region relative to the conductive area since this would improve the ability to heat panel in an effective manner.
Kingman teaches an electrically heatable panel wherein a first dimension is a length from a first curved circumferential edge of the electrically conductive profile (Fig. 1A and 1B, shows a heated panel that has a curved edge) to a second circumferential edge of the electrically conductive profile (Fig. 1A and 1B, shows a heated panel that has a curved edge).
Stroumbos and Kingman are analogous since both inventions teaches heatable panels. Applicant amended to claim to state that the heatable panel has curved edges and the locally narrow region is curved instead of the straight edges and regions shown in the prior art. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the narrow regions be curved based on the structure of the panel since this would help the panel heat in a way that is even across the panel. Therefore, having curved narrow regions is obvious for a curve edged panel to evenly heat the panel compared to the straight edged panel in Stroumbos since that would need straight narrow regions to evenly heat the panel.
Regarding claim 2, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, further comprising a second glass sheet (Paragraph 0021 second glass sheet 30) wherein the electrically conductive coating is intermediate the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet (Fig. 1 electro-conductive film 14).
Regarding claim 3, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive coating comprises a single thin film conductive layer (Fig. 3 electro-conductive film 14).
Regarding claim 8, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 2, wherein the electrically conductive coating is disposed upon at least one of the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet (Paragraph 0021, Figs. 1-3 and may comprise a first glass sheet 12 having an electro-conductive film 14 provided thereon.”).
Regarding claim 21, Stroumbos, Klein and Kingman teach the electrically heatable panel of claim 1.
Except wherein, Stroumbos and Klein does not teach the heatable panel wherein the first dimension is from an apex of the first curved circumferential edge portion of the electrically conductive coating to the second edge portion of the electrically conductive coating.
Kingman teaches an electrically heatable panel wherein the first dimension is from an apex of the first curved circumferential edge portion (Fig. 1A and 1B, shows a heated panel that has a curved edge) of the electrically conductive coating to the second edge portion of the electrically conductive coating (Fig. 1 A, conductive layer 100).
Stroumbos, Klein and Kingman are analogous since all three inventions teach heatable panes or panels. Applicant amended to claim to state that the heatable panel and locally narrow regions have curved edges instead of the straight edges and regions shown in the prior art. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the narrow regions be curved based on the structure of the panel since this would help the panel heat in a way that is even across the panel.
Claims 4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroumbos (US 2007/0188843), Klein (CA 3002307) and Kingman (US 10314116), and further in view of Li (US 2008/0028697).
Regarding claim 4, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive coating (Paragraph 0030 electro-conductive film) comprises multiple thin film conductive layers wherein adjacent ones of the multiple thin film conductive layers are separated by a respective thin film intermediate layer.
Except wherein, Stroumbos does not teach the coating comprises multiple thin film conductive layers wherein adjacent ones of the multiple thin film conductive layers are separated by a respective thin film intermediate layer.
Li teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive coating comprises multiple thin film conductive layers wherein adjacent ones of the multiple thin film conductive layers are separated by a respective thin film intermediate layer (Fig. 3A plasma layers 48).
Stroumbos and Li’s inventions are analogous since both inventions teach heated glass panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the embodiment of having a conductive layer with film separating the glass from the conductive layers to ensure that the panels are heated properly without warping the panels. It is also well known in the art that plasma is conductive and would be a suitable material to use for a conductive layer. Additionally, having multiple layers would strengthen the conductivity which would be an improvement to the single layer in Stroumbos’s invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically heatable panel (Abstract) comprises an automobile windshield and the at least one locally narrow region is on at least one of a passenger side of the windshield and a driver side of the windshield (see image above).
Except wherein, Stroumbos does not explicitly teach that the electrically heatable panel comprises an automobile windshield.
Li teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically heatable panel comprises an automobile windshield (Li Paragraphs 0019-0020) and the at least one locally narrow region is on at least one of a passenger side of the windshield and a driver side of the windshield.
Stroumbos and Li’s inventions are analogous since both inventions teach heated glass panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the embodiment of explicitly stating the use of those heated panels are for automobile windshields, since this application would need to melt ice or snow off the windshield so that the driver can see and drive safely.
Regarding claim 9, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically heatable panel (Abstract) comprises an automobile windshield and the conductive profile comprises a respective locally narrow region on a passenger side of the windshield and a respective locally narrow region on a driver side of the windshield (see image above).
Except wherein Stroumbos does not explicitly teach that the electrically heatable panel comprises an automobile windshield.
Li teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 1, wherein the electrically heatable panel comprises an automobile windshield (Paragraph 0020) and the conductive profile comprises a respective locally narrow region on a passenger side of the windshield and a respective locally narrow region on a driver side of the windshield.
Stroumbos and Li’s inventions are analogous since both inventions teach heated glass panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the embodiment of explicitly stating the use of those heated panels are for automobile windshields, since this application would need to melt ice or snow off the windshield so that the driver can see and drive safely.
Regarding claim 10, the electrically heatable panel of claim 9. Additionally, Stroumbus teaches wherein the respective locally narrow region on the passenger side of the windshield corresponds to a passenger side central region of the windshield and the respective locally narrow region on the driver side of the windshield corresponds to a driver side central region of the windshield (see image above).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroumbos (US 2007/0188843), Klein (CA 3002307) and Kingman (US 10314116), and further in view of Weiss (US 2006/0096967).
Regarding claim 5, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 2.
Except wherein, Stroumbos does not teach further comprising a thermoplastic sheet intermediate the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet.
Weiss teaches further comprising a thermoplastic sheet intermediate the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet (Fig. 3C, opposed surfaces or glasses 48,50 and panel or thermoplastic sheet 34).
Stroumbos and Weiss are analogous since both inventions teach heated panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a thermoplastic sheet in between the conductive layers and glass to ensure that the windshield does not fall apart due to the heat and that all the materials in the panel are suitable to warming without distorting the panels.
Regarding claim 7, Stroumbos teaches the electrically heatable panel of claim 5.
Except wherein, Stroumbos does not teach the electrically conductive coating is disposed upon the thermoplastic sheet.
Weiss teaches the electrically conductive coating is disposed upon the thermoplastic sheet (Paragraph 0049 made of polymeric resin, polycarbonate resin, acrylic resins, polyarylate resin, polyester resign or poylsulfone resin).
Stroumbos and Weiss are analogous since both inventions teach heated panels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a thermoplastic sheet in between the conductive layers and glass to ensure that the windshield does not fall apart due to the heat and that all the materials in the panel are suitable to warming without distorting the panels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MAURISA DOREEN MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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, Edward Landrum 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.
/MAURISA D MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights