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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of newly amended claim 1 (including language from claim 3), a new ground of rejection is made in view of US 20140151355 A1 - Lisinski. Lisinski does teach wherein a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□. (See updated rejection below).
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 10-12, 14-15 and 17-19 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.
In claim 10, the phasing “at least four multiple electrodes, consisting of a first pair of multiple electrodes and a second pair of multiple electrodes” makes the claim unclear. The term “at least four” is open ended, it can be interpreted as a unlimited amount of electrodes, whereas the term “consisting of” is closed ended, it is restricting the claim to a first pair and a second pair and no more. The examiner recommends changing “at least four” to “four” or “consisting of” to “comprising of”. Please see MPEP 2111.03 for further guidance.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112601305 A – Wu in view of US 20140151355 A1 - Lisinski.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112601305 A - Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu is directed towards a circular electric heating glass. Wu does teach a transparent conductive film, arranged on a transparent substrate ([0002] Electric heating glass is achieved by setting an electric heating film layer on the glass. Due to its good conductivity and high transmittance, ITO film can be used as the first choice for electric heating film of transparent parts. Currently, ITO film is used as electric heating film for transparent glass in aviation and other fields.)
and at least two main electrodes, arranged at two symmetrical positions on the transparent conductive film along an edge of the transparent conductive film but not arranged at a center region of the transparent conductive film (figure 2 shows two electrodes that are not arranged at the center of the film.) and shortest linear distances between the two main electrodes are equal (figure 2, shows that all distances are equal between the electrodes).
Wu does not expressly teach a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□.
Lisinski is directed toward a heat able composite pane. Lisinski does teach a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□ ([Claim 7] The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the transparent, electrically conductive first coating has a sheet resistance of 1 ohm/square to 10 ohm/square, and/or the transparent, electrically conductive second coating has a sheet resistance of 0.4 ohm/square to 10 ohm/square.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to have a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□, since it has been held that Prior Art ranges that include claimed ranges, provide prima facie case of obviousness.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□ of Lisinski could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Wu in a manner which would have predictably allow for the heating function to be done safely when a human come in contact with the sheet (see ¶0055). Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using a sheet resistance value of the transparent conductive film ranges from 1 Ω/□ to 1000 Ω/□ of Lisinski with the well-known system of Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest without the use of hindsight at least four multiple electrodes disposed on the transparent conductive film, wherein a first spacing region and a second spacing region are respectively located between adjacent end points of the two main electrodes along the edge of the transparent conductive film, a pair of the multiple electrodes are arranged in the first spacing region, and another pair of the multiple electrodes are arranged in the second spacing region. Furthermore claims 6-9 depend on claim 2 and therefore are allowable if rewritten.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 W 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights