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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEBER (US 2017/0041987).
Regarding claim 1, WEBER teaches a glass plate module (101) to which a wire (17 and 18) for supplying electric power is capable of being joined (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), comprising: a glass plate (100); a heating wire (4; para. 0017) disposed on the glass plate; and an electricity supply portion (5.1, 5.2) disposed on the glass plate (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), the wire being connected directly or via a connection terminal to the electricity supply portion (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), and the electricity supply portion supplying electric power to the heating wire (abstract; para. 0016), wherein an external force applied to the wire can be transmitted directly or via the connection terminal to the electricity supply portion (since the wire (17 and 18) is physically connected to the electrical supply portion (5.1, 5.2), any external force applied to the wire will necessarily be transmitted through the connection to the electricity supply portion, thus, the transmission of an external force is an inherent result of the recited structure; as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), the heating wire and the electricity supply portion are formed using conductive print that contains, as a main component, metal microparticles (para. 0030), and the electricity supply portion is thinner than the heating wire (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A).
Even though WEBER fails to explicitly disclose that the thermal expansion coefficient of the metal particles is larger than that of the glass plate, WEBER teaches that the glass pane 100 comprises a substrate 1, a cover pane 2 and an intermediate layer 13, wherein the substrate 1 and cover pane 2 are made of soda-lime glass which has a thermal expansion coefficient of 8.6 to 9.5 X 10-6 /°C (para. 0126); the substrate 1 has a thickness of 1.6mm, the cover pane 2 has a thickness of 2.1mm, and the intermediate layer 13 is made of PVB and has a thickness of 0.76mm much smaller than the thickness of the soda lime glass layers combined 3.7mm. It can be concluded that the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass pane 100 should be closer to the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass itself, as the glass is the dominant, rigid component. The conductive print of the bus bars 5.1, 5.2, contain silver particles which have a thermal expansion coefficient of 18.9 X 10-6 /°C.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass pane of WEBER, to have a thermal expansion coefficient lower than that of the metal particles of the conductive print of the bus bars, to increase glass pane durability and stability, by reducing thermal stresses. POSITA would have known that providing a glass pane with a lower thermal expansion coefficient would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as increase glass pane durability and stability.
WEBER fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating wire and the electricity supply portion are integrally formed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the heating wire and the electric supply portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1,
wherein the electricity supply portion has a width of 5 mm or more (para. 0031).
Regarding claim 3, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1,
wherein the heating wire is formed using a conductive print that contains, as a main component, the same metal microparticles contained, as the main component, in the conductive print forming the electricity supply portion (para. 0018; 0038).
Regarding claim 4, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 3,
wherein the conductive print that forms the heating wire has a thickness of 3 um or more (para. 0017).
Regarding claim 23, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, further comprising: solder disposed on the electricity supply portion (para. 0034; 0079; 0129); and a terminal (17) fixed to the electricity supply portion via the solder (para. 0034; 0079; 0129).
Regarding claim 24, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, further comprising: solder disposed on the electricity supply portion (para. 0034; 0079; 0129); and the wire fixed to the electricity supply portion via the solder (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 26, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, wherein the glass plate is made of clear glass, heat-ray absorbing glass, or soda-lime based glass (para. 0011; 0014; 0118; 0126).
Regarding claim 31, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, wherein the glass plate is not made of tempered glass (para. 0011; 0014; 0118; 0126).
Regarding claim 32, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, wherein the glass plate is constituted by laminated glass that includes an outer glass plate (2), an inner glass plate (1), and an interlayer (13) disposed between the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate (para. 0013; 0126; as shown in Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 34, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 32, wherein the electricity supply portion is disposed on the inner glass plate (as shown in Fig. 1D, the heating zone 4/electrically conductive layer 10 is disposed on the inner glass plate (1) and para. 0029 discloses that the busbars (5.1, 5.2) are arranged on the electrically conductive layer, and therefore the electricity supply portion (busbars 5.1, 5.2) is disposed on the inner glass plate).
Claims 5-7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEBER in view of OGAWA (JP 2017-216193).
Regarding claim 5, WEBER teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the heating wire has a width of 0.2 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less.
OGAWA teaches a glass plate module (Fig. 3-22) comprising a heating wire (52, 62), wherein the heating wire has a width of 0.2 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less (0.5mm; para. 0073; 0082).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating wire of WEBER, with OGAWA, by providing a heating wire width of 0.2 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less, to reduce the visibility of the heating wire, and therefore maintaining a clearer field of vision. POSITA would have known that providing a heating wire width of 0.2 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as reducing the visibility of the heating wire.
Regarding claim 6, WEBER and OGAWA combined teach the glass plate module according to claim 5, wherein the electricity supply portion is wider than the heating wire (WEBER, electricity supply portions width is between 2mm to 30mm, 4mm to 20mm or 10mm to 20mm, para. 0031; OGAWA, heating wire width is 0.5mm, para. 0073, 0082), and when a thickness of the electricity supply portion is defined as D1 and a thickness of the heating wire is defined as D2, a relationship 0.4 ≤ D1/D2 ≤ 0.9 is satisfied (WEBER, thickness of the electricity supply portion is 0.010mm (para. 0130); the thickness of the heating wire is 0.024mm-0.029mm (para. 0017); 0.010/0.024=0.42).
Regarding claim 7, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 1, wherein the heating wire is a heating wire for a deicer (heating the windshield of a vehicle; para. 0105; 0125-0126).
WEBER fails to disclose wherein the heating wire is disposed in a region of the glass plate through which a camera takes images.
OGAWA teaches a glass plate module (Fig. 3-22) comprising a heating wire (52, 62), wherein the heating wire is a heating wire for a deicer (para. 0023; 0025; 0030-0031) that is disposed in a region of the glass plate through which a camera (8; para. 0193) takes images (para. 0038; 0050-0051; 0084; 0191).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating wire of WEBER, with OGAWA, by disposing the heating wire also in a region of the glass plate through which a camera takes images, to improve safety and image quality. POSITA would have known that disposing the heating wire also in a region of the glass plate through which a camera takes images would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as improving safety by recognizing the situation outside the vehicle (vehicles ahead, oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, traffic signs, lane lines, etc.) and improving image quality (by removing frost from the region).
Regarding claim 33, WEBER teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 32, except for, wherein the inner glass plate is provided with a cutout, and the electricity supply portion is disposed on an exposed surface of the outer glass plate, and the exposed surface being exposed outside the glass plate module through the cutout.
OGAWA teaches a glass plate module (Fig. 3 and 6) wherein the inner glass plate (22) is provided with a cutout (225, 225), and the electricity supply portion (73, 61) is disposed on an exposed surface of the outer glass plate, and the exposed surface being exposed outside the glass plate module through the cutout (as shown in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner glass and electricity supply portion of WEBER, with OGAWA, by providing a cutout in the inner glass plate and disposing the electricity supply portion in the cutout, for easier access to the electrical supply portion for troubleshooting and/or maintenance. POSITA would have known that providing a cutout in the inner glass plate and disposing the electricity supply portion in the cutout would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as easier access to the electrical supply portion for troubleshooting and/or maintenance.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEBER in view of TOKIWA (US 2018/0200997).
Regarding claim 25, WEBER teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 23, except for, wherein the solder is lead-free solder.
TOKIWA teaches a glass plate module (10) comprising a solder (4) disposed on the electricity supply portion (21, 22) (para. 0053), wherein the solder is lead-free solder (para. 0053).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solder of WEBER, with TOKIWA, by providing lead-free solder, for health and environmental safety. POSITA would have known that providing a lead-free solder would have reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as health and environmental safety.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEBER in view of MANNHEIM ASTETE (US 2020/0290319).
Regarding claim 27, WEBER teaches the glass plate module as set forth above in claim 26, wherein, when a thickness of the glass plate on which the electricity supply portion is formed is defined as Dx, fracture strength H of the glass plate satisfies a formula below: H>76.8/Dx2.
MANNHEIM ASTETE teaches a glass plate module (Fig. 1-15B) wherein, when a thickness of the glass plate on which the electricity supply portion is formed is defined as Dx, fracture strength H of the glass plate satisfies a formula below: H>76.8/Dx2 (Table 2 (para. 0144) discloses a fracture strength of 60MPa for a glass plate laminated with black frit and 115MPa for a glass plate laminated with obscuration printed on film; para. 0148-0152 discloses different embodiments with different glass plate thickness Dx= 5.36mm (embodiments 1-3), Dx=5.32mm (embodiment 4) and Dx=3.92mm (embodiment 5); H≥76.8/(5.36)2 = 2.67 MPa or H≥76.8/(5.32)2 = 2.71 MPa or H≥76.8/(3.92)2 = 4.99 MPa).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the glass plate of WEBER, with MANNHEIM ASTETE, by providing a glass plate thickness that satisfies the claimed fracture strength formula, to assure glass plate module quality. POSITA would have known that providing a glass plate thickness that satisfies the claimed fracture strength formula would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as assuring glass plate quality.
Regarding claim 28, WEBER and MANNHEIM ASTETE combined teach the glass plate module according to claim 27, wherein, when a thickness of the electricity supply portion is defined as D1 (WEBER; para. 0130; D1=0.01 mm), the following formula is satisfied: D1<(81.4-(76.8/Dx2))/3.0 (WEBER; para. 0126; Dx=1.6 mm; D1<(81.4-(76.8/(1.6)2))/3.0 = 17.13 mm; para. 0012; Dx=1 mm to 5mm; D1<(81.4-(76.8/(1)2))/3.0 = 1.53 mm; D1<(81.4-(76.8/(5)2))/3.0 = 26.11 mm).
Regarding claim 29, WEBER and MANNHEIM ASTETE combined teach the glass plate module according to claim 28, wherein the electricity supply portion is formed using conductive print containing silver microparticles (para. 0030), and the conductive print has an electrical resistivity of 2 µΩ.cm or more and 10 µΩ.cm or less (WEBER; 2.3 µΩ.cm; para. 0130).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEBER in view of SAGAWA (US 2014/0008347).
Regarding claim 30, WEBER teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, further comprising a mask layer layered on the glass plate, wherein the electricity supply portion is disposed on the mask layer.
SAGAWA teaches a glass plate module (Fig. 1 and 2) comprising a mask layer (12) layered on the glass plate (10), wherein the electricity supply portion (24, 40) is disposed on the mask layer (as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass plate module of WEBER, with FISCHER, by providing a mask layer layered on the glass plate and the electrical supply portion disposed on the mask layer, to hide/mask the electrical supply portion from visibility from the outside of the glass plate. POSITA would have known that providing a mask layer layered on the glass plate and the electrical supply portion disposed on the mask layer would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as hide/mask the electrical supply portion from visibility from the outside of the glass plate, for aesthetic reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “The present invention, as recited in amended claim 1, is not directed merely to a structure in which a heating function is provided on a glass plate. Rather, amended claim 1 requires a specific connection structure in which a wire for supplying electric power is connected to the electricity supply portion either directly or via a connection terminal, and an external force applied to the wire can be transmitted to the electricity supply portion. Further, the heating wire and the electricity supply portion are integrally formed using the same conductive print, and the electricity supply portion is thinner than the heating wire. This particular configuration provides a technical advantage in that it suppresses crack generation in the electricity supply portion and/or the glass plate under conditions in which an external force is applied to the connection portion. Thus, the invention is directed to improving durability and reliability of the electrical connection structure, rather than merely providing a heating function…However, Weber does not disclose or suggest a structure in which an external force applied to a wire is transmitted to an electricity supply portion. Weber also fails to disclose or suggest integral formation of the heating wire and electricity supply portion using the same conductive print, or a configuration in which the electricity supply portion is thinner than the heating wire in the claimed context. Accordingly, Weber does not disclose the amended configuration of claim 1… Thus, Ogawa does not disclose or suggest transmitting an external force from a wire to an electricity supply portion, integrally forming a heating wire and electricity supply portion using the same conductive print, or the claimed thickness relationship directed to crack suppression. Moreover, because Ogawa addresses a different technical problem-namely, thermal control rather than suppression of cracking caused by external force-there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weber in view of Ogawa to arrive at the claimed invention.” on remarks page 12, lines 10-20 and 26-28, and page 13, lines 1-3 and 7-13. In response to Applicant’s arguments, WEBER teaches the wire (17 and 18) being connected directly or via a connection terminal to the electricity supply portion (5.1, 5.2) (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), and the electricity supply portion supplying electric power to the heating wire (abstract; para. 0016), wherein an external force applied to the wire can be transmitted directly or via the connection terminal to the electricity supply portion (since the wire (17 and 18) is physically connected to the electrical supply portion (5.1, 5.2), any external force applied to the wire will necessarily be transmitted through the connection to the electricity supply portion, thus, the transmission of an external force is an inherent result of the recited structure; as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A), the heating wire and the electricity supply portion are formed using conductive print that contains, as a main component, metal microparticles (para. 0030), and the electricity supply portion is thinner than the heating wire (as shown in Fig. 1A, 3A). WEBER fails to explicitly disclose wherein the heating wire and the electricity supply portion are integrally formed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally form the heating wire and the electric supply portion, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art.
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 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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/14/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights