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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/15/2022 and 07/02/2024 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716).
Regarding claim 1, Tadokoro discloses a back door including an opening, the back door comprising:
a resinous outer panel (Fig. 2 #1C outer panel);
a resinous inner panel (Fig. 2 #1B inner panel);
a metallic reinforce (Fig. 2 #s 8A-8B metal reinforcements) disposed between the outer panel (Fig. 2 #1C outer panel) and the inner panel (Fig. 2 #1B inner panel);
and a rear window glass (Fig. 2 #2 rear glass) covering the opening, wherein the rear window glass comprises: a defogger (Fig. 11 #51 upper defogger circuit and #52 lower defogger circuit) comprising a first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) that extends in an upper-lower direction, a second bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 right bus bar) that is disposed apart from the first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) in a horizontal direction and extends in the upper-lower direction, and a plurality of heating wires (Fig. 11 #5A heating wires) that connect the first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) to the second bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 right bus bar),
an auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) connected to the defogger (Fig. 11 #51 upper defogger circuit and #52 lower defogger circuit);
and an antenna (Fig. 11 #10 main element) disposed so as to be surrounded by the defogger (Fig. 11 #51 upper defogger circuit and #52 lower defogger circuit) and the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) (At least a portion of the antenna is surrounded by the defogger and the auxiliary element.).
Regarding claim 2, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) comprises a conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) extending along the reinforce.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Tadokoro in view of Paulus teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the reinforce (Fig. 2 #s 8A-8B metal reinforcements) comprises a vertical reinforce portion extending in the upper-lower direction (Shown in Fig. 2),
and the conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) comprises a vertical conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) extending along the vertical reinforce portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the reinforce comprises a horizontal reinforce portion (Fig. 2 shows portions of the #8A and 8B reinforcements being horizontal) connected to the vertical reinforce portion and extending in the horizontal direction,
and the conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) comprises a horizontal conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) extending along the horizontal reinforce portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
438
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) overlies the reinforce (Fig. 2 #s 8A-8B metal reinforcements) in a plan view of the rear window glass.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Tadokoro in view of Paulus teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) is adjacent to the reinforce (Fig. 2 #s 8A-8B metal reinforcements).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the defogger comprises a short- circuiting wire (Fig. 11 #5B line) that short-circuits the plurality of heating wires in the upper-lower direction.
Regarding claim 11, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) is connected to at least one of the first bus bar or the second bus bar (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
438
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) is symmetric with respect to a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger, the center line extending in the upper-lower direction.
Regarding claim 17, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Tadokoro teaches wherein: the antenna (Fig. 11 #10 main element) comprises a feeding portion (Fig. 11 #11 upper filament) and an antenna element (Fig. 11 #16 auxiliary filament) connected to the feeding portion (Fig. 11 #11 upper filament); and the antenna element (Fig. 11 #10 main element) comprises an element portion (Fig. 11 #13 lower filament) which achieves capacitive coupling with the defogger.
Regarding claim 20, Tadokoro discloses a rear window glass comprising:
a defogger comprising a first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) that extends in an upper-lower direction, a second bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 right bus bar) that is disposed apart from the first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) in second direction perpendicular to the first direction and extends in the first direction, and a plurality of heating wires (Fig. 11 #51 upper defogger circuit and #52 lower defogger circuit) that connect the first bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 left bus bar) to the second bus bar (Fig. 11 #6 right bus bar);
an auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) connected to the defogger;
and an antenna (Fig. 11 #10 main element) disposed so as to be surrounded by the defogger (Fig. 11 #51 upper defogger circuit and #52 lower defogger circuit) and the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) (At least a portion of the antenna is surrounded by the defogger and the auxiliary element.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716) as applied to claim 2, in view of Inaba et al (US 4,608,570).
Regarding claim 6, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) comprises an intermediate portion (Shown in the figure below) which intersects a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger, the center line extending in the upper-lower direction; and an end of the first bus bar or of the plurality of heating wires which is most apart from the conductor portion is referred to as a first end, a route from the intermediate portion to the first end via the conductor portion and the first bus bar includes a first conducting route, wherein the first conducting route includes at least the conductor portion (These limitations appear to be definitions of existing structures but add no further limitations.).
PNG
media_image5.png
438
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Tadokoro does not teach when a wavelength in air of radio waves in a given frequency band that are to be received by the antenna is λ, a wavelength shortening ratio of the rear window glass is k, the first conducting route has a length of 0.90 x λ/2 x k or longer and 1.10 x λ /2 x k or shorter.
Nonetheless, Inaba in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating, teaches that wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio are results effective variables which effect the length of an antenna based on a frequency range of the radio signal being received. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the length of an antenna can be adjusted based on the desired frequency range by varying wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that antenna length is determined by wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Inaba, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a length of 0.90 x λ/2 x k or longer and 1.10 x λ /2 x k or shorter for the benefit of receiving commercial radio signals.
Regarding claim 7, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Tadokoro teaches wherein:
the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) includes an intermediate portion (Shown in the figure below) which intersects a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger, the center line extending in the upper-lower direction; the conductor portion includes a first conductor portion (Shown in the figure below), which is nearer to the first bus bar than to the second bus bar, and a second conductor portion (Shown in the figure below), which is nearer to the second bus bar than to the first bus bar;
an end of the first bus bar or of the plurality of heating wires which is most apart from the first conductor portion is referred to as a first end, and an end of the second bus bar or of the plurality of heating wires which is most apart from the second conductor portion is referred to as a second end, a first route from the intermediate portion to the first end via the first conductor portion and the first bus bar includes a first conducting route, the first conducting route at least including the first conductor portion, a second route from the intermediate portion to the second end via the second conductor portion and the second bus bar includes a second conducting route, the second conducting route at least including the second conductor portion (These limitations appear to be definitions of existing structures but add no further limitations.).
PNG
media_image6.png
438
708
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Tadokoro does not teach when a wavelength in air of radio waves in a given frequency band which are to be received by the antenna is λ, a wavelength shortening ratio of the rear window glass is k, and at least one of the first conducing route or the second conducting route has a length of 0.90x/2xk or longer and 1.10x/2xk or shorter.
Nonetheless, Inaba in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating, teaches that wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio are results effective variables which effect the length of an antenna based on a frequency range of the radio signal being received. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the length of an antenna can be adjusted based on the desired frequency range by varying wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that antenna length is determined by wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Inaba, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a length of 0.90 x λ/2 x k or longer and 1.10 x λ /2 x k or shorter for the benefit of receiving commercial radio signals.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Inaba et al (US 4,608,570).
Regarding claim 10, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), and Tadokoro teaches wherein:
the auxiliary element (Fig. 11 #35 noise countermeasure auxiliary element) comprises a conductor portion (Shown in the figure below) extending along the reinforce and an intermediate portion (Shown in the figure below) which intersects a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger.
PNG
media_image5.png
438
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Tadokoro does not teach when a wavelength in air of radio waves in a given frequency band which are to be received by the antenna is λ, a wavelength shortening ratio of the rear window glass is k, and a wire end of the short-circuiting wire which, among the wire ends of the short circuiting wire, is most apart from the conductor portion or a point on the plurality of heating wires which, among any points on the heating wires, is most apart from the conductor portion is referred to as a route end, a route from the intermediate portion to the route end via the conductor portion and the short-circuiting wire has a length of 0.90 x λ/2 x k or longer and 1.10 x λ /2 x k or shorter.
Nonetheless, Inaba in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating, teaches that wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio are results effective variables which effect the length of an antenna based on a frequency range of the radio signal being received. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the length of an antenna can be adjusted based on the desired frequency range by varying wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that antenna length is determined by wavelength and wavelength shortening ratio, were disclosed in the prior art by Inaba, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a length of 0.90 x λ/2 x k or longer and 1.10 x λ /2 x k or shorter for the benefit of receiving commercial radio signals.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716) as applied to claim 1, in view of Lindenmeier et al (US 6,130,645).
Regarding claim 12, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the antenna is surrounded by a closed loop formed by the defogger and the auxiliary element.
Nonetheless, Lindenmeier in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating teaches wherein the antenna (Fig. 8 #4 HF-connection) is surrounded by a closed loop formed by the defogger (Fig. 8 #29 electrode) and the auxiliary element (Fig. 8 #2 ground element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the antenna being surrounded by a closed loop formed by the defogger and the auxiliary element, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716) as applied to claim 1, in view of Tachihara et al (US 6,208,303).
Regarding claim 13, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the auxiliary element includes a first auxiliary element and a second auxiliary element, which face each other with a gap between the first auxiliary element and the second auxiliary element.
Nonetheless, Tachihara in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating, teaches wherein the auxiliary element includes a first auxiliary element (Fig. 1 #14a short stub adjusting conductor) and a second auxiliary element (Fig. 1 #14b short stub adjusting conductor), which face each other with a gap (Shown in the figure below) between the first auxiliary element (Fig. 1 #14a short stub adjusting conductor) and the second auxiliary element (Fig. 1 #14b short stub adjusting conductor).
PNG
media_image7.png
547
740
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 back door of Tadokoro by incorporating the first and second auxiliary elements as taught by Tachihara for the benefit of transmission/reception away from the vertical center wire so as to cross the horizontal wires of the defogger. (Tachihara Col. 2 second para)
Regarding claim 14, Tadokoro in view of Tachihara teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Tachihara teaches wherein the gap (Shown in the figure above) intersects a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger (Fig. 1 #11 vertical center wire of #101 defogger), the center line extending in the upper-lower direction.
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 back door of Tadokoro by incorporating the gap between first and second auxiliary elements as taught by Tachihara for the benefit of adjusting short stub functions of the short stub conductors. (Tachihara Col 3 eight para)
Regarding claim 16, Tadokoro in view of Tachihara teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 13), but does not teach wherein the gap does not intersect a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger, the center line extending in the upper-lower direction.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap not intersect a center line of the rear window glass or of the defogger, the center line extending in the upper-lower direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro et al (JP 2015056716) as applied to claim 1, in view of Taniguchi et al (US 5,952,977).
Regarding claim 18, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein when a horizontal-direction width of the defogger is W, a portion where the auxiliary element is connected to the defogger lies in a range of from each horizontal-direction end of the defogger to a point being 0.3 x W away in the horizontal direction from the each horizontal-direction end.
Nonetheless, Taniguchi in the same field of endeavor being windshield electric heating, teaches that the width of the defogger can be varied to change coupling capacitance. (Col. 9 lines 39-47 ---" The feature of the loop antenna conductor wire is that it has a width W in the widthwise direction of the vehicle. When such a loop conductor wire is used, the coupling capacitance can be easily set by changing W. FIG. 10 summarizes a change in coupling capacitance when the width W of the loop conductor wire 45 is varied, and when the distance, d, between the loop conductor wire 45 and the defogger hot wire 6 is varied.”)
Therefore, the width of the defogger is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is change in coupling capacitance. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that width of the defogger, were disclosed in the prior art by Taniguchi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Tadokoro teaches the back door as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a minimum distance between the antenna and the auxiliary element is 10 mm or longer.
Nonetheless, Taniguchi teaches that the distance between the antenna and the auxiliary element may be varied to change coupling capacitance. (Col. 9 lines 43-47 ---" FIG. 10 summarizes a change in coupling capacitance when the width W of the loop conductor wire 45 is varied, and when the distance, d, between the loop conductor wire 45 and the defogger hot wire 6 is varied.”)
Therefore, the distance between the antenna and the auxiliary element is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is change in coupling capacitance. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that distance between the antenna and the auxiliary element, were disclosed in the prior art by Taniguchi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights