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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both “the image processing device” and “the resin interlayer”. 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. 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: reference number 3 has been used to designate both “the image processing device” (para. 0044, 0071-0072, 0076-0079), and “the resin interlayer” (para. 0046; 0057; 0061; 0063-0064; 0103).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 4, 27-29 and 33 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 3 recites the limitation "the same metal microparticles" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 27, the limitation “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 electricity supply portion on the glass plate satisfies a formula below: H≥76.8/Dx2” is unclear because the specification discloses that the fracture strength used in the claimed formula is the facture strength of the glass plate and not the fracture strength of the electrical supply portions (as shown in Table 3; para. 0124-0127). For examination purposes, Examiner construes this limitation as “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”.
In claim 29, the limitation “the conductive print has a conductivity of 2 µΩ.cm or more and 10 µΩ.cm or less” is unclear because the unit of conductivity is S/m (siemens per meter) or ℧/m or ℧/cm (mhos per meter or centimeter). The unit of resistivity is Ω.m (ohm-meter). For examination purposes, Examiner construes this limitation as “the conductive print has a resistivity of 2 µΩ.cm or more and 10 µΩ.cm or less”.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 the electricity supply portion is 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.
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.
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 as those contained in the electricity supply portion (para. 0018; 0038).
Regarding claim 4, WEBER teaches the glass plate module according to claim 3,
wherein the conductive print forming 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 that is exposed to the outside from 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 that is exposed to the outside from 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 dispose 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 dispose 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), a formula below 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 a 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2018/0222156, US 2017/0334366, US 2011/0062139 and US 2014/0319116.
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 09/29/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761