DETAILED ACTION
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, see pages 8-9, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 6 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pu et al. CN 113175653 A in view of Salter et al. US 10023110 B1, Michalowski et al. WO 2021042002 A1, and Adachi et al. US 20220046760 A1.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
The term “importance of light” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “importance of light” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification discusses the regions be operated based on the importance of providing safety (Para. 27), but does not discuss how to determine importance.
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.
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, 5-6, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. CN 113175653 A in view of Salter et al. US 10023110 B1, Michalowski et al. WO 2021042002 A1, and Adachi et al. US 20220046760 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Pu discloses a lamp de-icing system comprising: one or more heating layers configured to heat one or more regions of a lens of a vehicle (Para. 5 wherein the outer surface is heated); one or more temperature sensors that detect an ambient temperature around the vehicle (Para. 7); one or more humidity sensors that detect an ambient relative humidity around the vehicle (Para. 32); and one or more proximity sensors that detect if precipitation is present on the lens of the vehicle (Para. 32 “raindrop sensor”).
Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the lamp de-icing system comprises four or more discrete regions of the lens of the vehicle wherein the lamp de-icing system is in communication with a controller that is in communication with and controls the one or more heating layers, the one or more temperature sensors, the one or more humidity sensors, and the one or more proximity sensors, and wherein the lamp de-icing system prevents precipitation from forming while the vehicle is off.
However in the same field of endeavor, Salter teaches wherein the lamp de-icing system comprises four or more discrete regions of the lens (Fig. 7, Refs. 64) of the vehicle, the one or more humidity sensors (Col. 1 Lines 34-36), and the one or more proximity sensors (Col. 1, Lines 30-36)
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the individually controllable regions of Salter for the system to expedite the deicing and/or defogging by activating the heating devices independently (Col. 12, Lines 38-44)
However in the same field of endeavor, Michalowski teaches wherein the lamp de-icing system is in communication with a controller that is in communication with and controls the one or more heating layers (Para. 10) and the one or more temperature sensors (Para. 10).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the headlamp controls of Michalowski to reduce energy waste (Michalowski Para. 32) by controlling when the heating elements turned on based on sensor input based on more information (Michalowski Para. 9).
However in the same field of endeavor, Adachi teaches wherein the lamp de-icing system prevents precipitation from forming while the vehicle is off (Para. 93 wherein the voltage is supplied to the heaters independent of the vehicle being off or on).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with Adachi to prevent excessive power usage at specific times and reduce manufacturing cost for sensors (Adachi Para. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the lamp de-icing system determines if the vehicle is on.
However in the same field of endeavor, Michalowski teaches wherein the lamp de-icing system determines if the vehicle is on (Para. 30).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the headlamp controls of Michalowski to reduce energy waste (Michalowski Para. 32) by controlling when the heating elements turned on based on sensor input based on more information (Michalowski Para. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Pu does not specifically disclose a speed sensor that detects a speed of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Michalowski teaches a speed sensor that detects a speed of the vehicle (Fig. 2, Ref. 18).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the headlamp controls of Michalowski to reduce energy waste (Michalowski Para. 32) by controlling when the heating elements turned on based on sensor input based on more information (Michalowski Para. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Pu does not specifically disclose a processor that monitors the one or more heating layers, the one or more temperature sensors, the one or more humidity sensors, the one or more proximity sensors, or a combination thereof and controls the lamp de-icing system.
However in the same field of endeavor, Michalowski teaches a processor that monitors the one or more heating layers (Para. 10), the one or more temperature sensors, the one or more humidity sensors, the one or more proximity sensors, or a combination thereof and controls the lamp de-icing system (Para. 10, “control module”) .
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the headlamp controls of Michalowski to reduce energy waste (Michalowski Para. 32) by controlling when the heating elements turned on based on sensor input based on more information (Michalowski Para. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Pu discloses wherein the lamp de-icing system prevents precipitation from forming on the lens by heating the lens (Para. 5) when the one or more humidity sensors detect the ambient relative humidity being above a predetermined threshold (Para. 32) and the one or more temperature sensors detect the ambient temperature being below a predetermined temperature threshold (Para. 32).
Regarding claim 21, Pu does not specifically disclose a GPS sensor in communication with the lamp de-icing system.
However in the same field of endeavor, Adachi teaches a GPS sensor in communication with the lamp de-icing system (Para. 21).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with Adachi to prevent excessive power usage at specific times and reduce manufacturing cost for sensors (Adachi Para. 9).
Regarding claim 22, Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the four or more discrete regions are operated individually and the four or more discrete regions are heated based upon a voltage of a battery of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Salter teaches wherein the four or more discrete regions are operated individually and the four or more discrete regions are heated based upon a voltage of a battery of the vehicle (Col. 13, Lines 43-52).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the individually controllable regions of Salter for the system to expedite the deicing and/or defogging by activating the heating devices independently (Col. 12, Lines 38-44).
Regarding claim 23, Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the lamp de-icing system is operated based upon an importance of light through the four or more discrete regions.
However in the same field of endeavor, Salter teaches wherein the lamp de-icing system is operated based upon an importance of light through the four or more discrete regions (Col. 13, Lines 43-52 wherein the sensor determines which region is heated. Any and all can be operated at a given time making the order of operation unnecessary).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the individually controllable regions of Salter for the system to expedite the deicing and/or defogging by activating the heating devices independently (Col. 12, Lines 38-44).
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. CN 113175653 A in view of Salter et al. US 10023110 B1, Michalowski et al. WO 2021042002 A1, and Adachi et al. US 20220046760 A1, and Dudar US 20180072230 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Pu does not specifically disclose a voltage sensor to detect a voltage of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Dudar teaches a voltage sensor to detect a voltage of the vehicle (Para. 23).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the voltage sensor of Dudar to assist in autonomous operation of the system (Dudar Para 25) and monitor the electrical and logical health of the vehicle (Dudar Para. 23).
Regarding claim 24, Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the lamp de-icing system is in communication with a battery of the vehicle and the lamp de-icing system monitors a health of the battery of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Dudar teaches The lamp de-icing system of claim 1, wherein the lamp de-icing system is in communication with a battery of the vehicle and the lamp de-icing system monitors a health of the battery of the vehicle (Para. 23 wherein the vehicle power level data is collected and fed to the controller).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with the voltage sensor of Dudar to assist in autonomous operation of the system (Dudar Para 25) and monitor the electrical and logical health of the vehicle (Dudar Para. 23).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. CN 113175653 A in view of Salter et al. US 10023110 B1, Michalowski et al. WO 2021042002 A1, and Adachi et al. US 20220046760 A1, and Salter et al. US20180320854A1 (hereinafter known as Salter854).
Regarding claim 8, Pu does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more proximity sensors detect precipitation around a region of the lens.
However in the same field of endeavor, Salter854 teaches wherein the one or more proximity sensors detect precipitation around a region of the lens (Para. 43).
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 modify the headlight of Pu with Salter854 for sensing and removing moisture by performing multiple functions with less components.
Regarding claim 9, Pu discloses wherein the region of the lens is a region that light extends through (Para. 20), a sensor detects through, or both.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761