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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 September 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome every Specification objection. The Specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every Claim objection. The Claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 18 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 26 September 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 7, 10-11, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 12-13, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1,5-11, 14-18, and 20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “remote service” in claims 6, 11, and 18. The generic placeholder is “service” and the functional limitations attributed to the generic placeholder is performing the “establishing, determining, and comparing steps” (claim 6), performing “determining” and “comparing” steps (claim 11), being used to “determine the one or more factors” (claim 18), and being used to “establish a location of the vehicle” (claim 20). The modifier “remote” in “remote service” is deemed not to connote specific structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations includes “cell towers,” “satellites,” and “computers/server sites” as well as equivalents thereof (referencing paragraph 0023 of the Specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pertsel et al. (US-10609341-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Pertsel teaches a method (fig. 9) for controlling (“classifying a type of obstruction based on a temperature check,” column 13, lines 65-66) for a vehicle (vehicle 50, fig. 3) upon start-up (column 18, line 65- column 19, line 3), comprising:
detecting a commanded start of the vehicle (“approaching the vehicle 50 (where the vehicle detects the key fob), inserting ignition key, using external app,” column 18, line 67 to column 19, line 2; these actions to turn on the vehicle are construed as “detecting a commanded start;” para 0035 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that a commanded start can be using a key fob),
in response to the commanded start (“Detection and/or corrective measures may start to be applied as soon as the driver turns on the vehicle 50,” column 18, lines 65-68; construed such that the steps of fig. 9 can proceed to be applied after the vehicle is turned on), determining (step 456, fig. 9) one or more factors selected from a temperature of an environment immediately outside the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 462 uses the outside temperature of the windshield, fig. 9; the outer environment of the windshield is constructed as being ”immediately outside the vehicle”), a humidity of the environment (“relative humidity measurements,” column 13, line 40; step 458 uses the dew point, which is based on the relative humidity, fig. 9), a dew point of the environment (column 13, lines 48-49; step 458 uses the dew point, fig. 9), a barometric pressure of the environment (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of a rear glass of the vehicle (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of an internal cabin of the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 458 uses the temperature inside of the windshield, fig. 9) and a sun load on the vehicle (not explicitly disclosed);
comparing (steps 458 and 462, fig. 9) the one or more factors (outside temperature, relative humidity measurements, dew point, and inside temperature) to one or more corresponding predetermined thresholds or ranges (in step 458, the outside temperature is compared with the temperature for freezing, which is construed as a predetermined threshold) that are indicative of conditions suitable for frost formation on the rear glass of the vehicle (column 13, lines 47-63 describe how these measurements contribute toward identifying conditions for a “frost point”); and
if the comparison indicates that the one or more factors meet the frost formation conditions (“YES” after step 468, fig. 9), then activating the rear glass defroster (step 470, fig. 9; “corrective measures 152a-152n,” column 14, lines 41-43).
Pertsel, fig. 9
PNG
media_image1.png
712
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment (fig. 9), Pertsel does not explicitly disclose a rear glass defroster; a rear glass of the vehicle (fig. 9 is a method associated with the front windshield 160; Pertsel does not explicitly disclose using fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170).
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 4), Pertsel teaches a rear glass defroster (corrective measure 152i, fig. 4); a rear glass of the vehicle (rear windshield 170, fig. 4).
Pertsel, fig. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
450
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 9, to include, a rear glass defroster; a rear glass of the vehicle, in view of the teachings of the embodiment from fig. 4, by using the method of fig. 9 on the rear windshield 170 (fig. 4) instead of the front windshield 160 (fig. 3), because this amounts to a simple substitution of one windshield for another with predictable results (using the method of fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170 would not change the steps of fig. 9 and would facilitate removal of the frost 156i from the rear windshield 170 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Pertsel teaches further comprising: establishing a location of the vehicle (“GPS location,” column 13, line 43).
Regarding claim 6, Pertsel teaches wherein at least one of the establishing (“GPS” communicates with satellites, column 13, line 43), determining (dew point is calculated by communication device 110, column 13, lines 61-63) and comparing steps (not explicitly disclosed) is performed by a remote service (communication device 110, fig. 1; “satellite,” column 8, line 53) that is in communication with the vehicle (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13).
Regarding claim 7, Pertsel teaches wherein at least one of location-related information (GPS information is communicated to sensors 114, column 13, lines 41-43, which are on the vehicle, column 6, lines 15-16), factor-related information (dew point is calculated by communication device 110, column 13, lines 61-63) and comparison-related information (not explicitly disclosed) is communicated between the vehicle and the remote service (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13).
Regarding claim 8, Pertsel teaches wherein at least one of the establishing (not explicitly disclosed), determining and comparing steps (column 14, lines 5-8) is performed by a controller (processor 106 and memory 108, fig. 1) on-board the vehicle (located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13).
Regarding claim 9, Pertsel teaches further comprising: if the comparison indicates that the one or more factors meet the frost formation conditions, then setting a flag in a memory (“The dew point and/or frost point may be stored in the lookup table 116 of the memory 108,” column 13, lines 55-56; the frost point is construed as a “flag”); detecting a commanded start of the vehicle (column 18, line 67 to column 19, line 2); and if the flag is set (dew point is used in step 458, fig. 9) and a commanded start of the vehicle is detected (fig. 9 can begin after the vehicle is started, column 18, line 67- column 19, line 1), then activating the rear glass defroster (step 470, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Pertsel teaches wherein the remote service (communication device 110, fig. 2) and the vehicle communicate with each other (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13) via one or more of a cellular signal, a satellite signal, a wireless local area network signal, a wireless personal area network signal (column 8, lines 48-60), a radio signal (“Wi-Fi,,” column 8, line 59; construed as a radio signal) and an internet signal (“website,” column 6, line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Pertsel teaches a method (fig. 9) for controlling (“classifying a type of obstruction based on a temperature check,” column 13, lines 65-66) for a vehicle (vehicle 50, fig. 3) upon start-up (column 18, line 65- column 19, line 3), wherein the system (figs. 1 and 3) includes one or more sensors (sensors 114, fig. 1), and a controller (processor 106 and memory 108, fig. 1) operatively connected with the defroster (column 7, lines 12-17) and the one or more sensors (column 6, lines 20-21), the method comprising:
detecting a commanded start of the vehicle (“approaching the vehicle 50 (where the vehicle detects the key fob), inserting ignition key, using external app,” column 18, line 67 to column 19, line 2; these actions to turn on the vehicle are construed as “detecting a commanded start;” para 0035 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that a commanded start can be using a key fob),
in response to detecting the commanded start (“Detection and/or corrective measures may start to be applied as soon as the driver turns on the vehicle 50,” column 18, lines 65-68; construed such that the steps of fig. 9 can proceed to be applied after the vehicle is turned on by key fob detection),
determining (step 456, fig. 9), using the one or more sensors (sensors calculate the temperatures and humidity, column 9, lines 9-24; “calculate the dew point and/or frost point (based on information received from the sensors 114),” column 13, lines 53-55) and/or a remote service (communication device 110, fig. 1; “satellite,” column 8, line 53; “the dew point and/or frost point may be received from an external service (e.g., a weather provider) using the communication device 110,” column 13, lines 61-63) that is in communication with the vehicle (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13), one or more factors selected from a temperature of an environment immediately outside the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 462 uses the outside temperature of the windshield, fig. 9; the outer environment of the windshield is constructed as being ”immediately outside the vehicle”), a humidity of the environment (“relative humidity measurements,” column 13, line 40; step 458 uses the dew point, which is based on the relative humidity, fig. 9), a dew point of the environment (column 13, lines 48-49; step 458 uses the dew point, fig. 9), a barometric pressure of the environment (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of the rear glass (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of an internal cabin of the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 458 uses the temperature inside of the windshield, fig. 9) and a sun load on the vehicle (not explicitly disclosed);
comparing (steps 458 and 462, fig. 9), using the controller (column 14, lines 5-8) and/or the remote service (not explicitly disclosed), the one or more factors (outside temperature, relative humidity measurements, dew point, and inside temperature) to one or more corresponding predetermined thresholds or ranges (in step 458, the outside temperature is compared with the temperature for freezing, which is construed as a predetermined threshold) that are indicative of conditions suitable for frost formation on the rear glass (column 13, lines 47-63 describe how these measurements contribute toward identifying conditions for a “frost point”); and
if the comparison indicates that the one or more factors meet the frost formation conditions (“YES” after step 468, fig. 9) and a commanded start of the vehicle is detected (“Detection and/or corrective measures may start to be applied as soon as the driver turns on the vehicle 50,” column 18, lines 65-68; construed such that the steps of fig. 9 can be applied after the vehicle is turned on), then activating the rear glass defroster (step 470, fig. 9; “corrective measures 152a-152n,” column 14, lines 41-43).
In this embodiment (fig. 9), Pertsel does not explicitly disclose a rear glass defroster system; wherein the system includes a rear glass, a rear glass defroster (fig. 9 is a method associated with the front windshield 160; Pertsel does not explicitly disclose using fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170).
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 4), Pertsel teaches a rear glass defroster system (figs. 1 and 4); wherein the system includes a rear glass (rear windshield 170, fig. 4), a rear glass defroster (corrective measure 152i, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 9, to include, a rear glass defroster system; wherein the system includes a rear glass, a rear glass defroster, in view of the teachings of the embodiment from fig. 4, by using the method of fig. 9 on the rear windshield 170 (fig. 4) instead of the front windshield 160 (fig. 3), because this amounts to a simple substitution of one windshield for another with predictable results (using the method of fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170 would not change the steps of fig. 9 and would facilitate removal of the frost 156i from the rear windshield 170 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Pertsel teaches further comprising: establishing a location of the vehicle (“GPS location,” column 13, line 43).
Regarding claim 15, Pertsel teaches wherein at least one of location-related information (GPS information is communicated to sensors 114, column 13, lines 41-43, which are on the vehicle, column 6, lines 15-16), factor-related information (dew point is calculated by communication device 110, column 13, lines 61-63) and comparison-related information (not explicitly disclosed) is communicated between the vehicle and the remote service (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13).
Regarding claim 16, Pertsel teaches further comprising: if the comparison indicates that the one or more factors meet the frost formation conditions, then setting a flag in a memory (“The dew point and/or frost point may be stored in the lookup table 116 of the memory 108,” column 13, lines 55-56; the frost point is construed as a “flag”); detecting a commanded start of the vehicle (column 18, line 67 to column 19, line 2); and if the flag is set (dew point is used in step 458, fig. 9) and a commanded start of the vehicle is detected (fig. 9 can begin after the vehicle is started, column 18, line 67- column 19, line 1), then activating the rear glass defroster (step 470, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Pertsel teaches wherein the remote service (communication device 110, fig. 2) and the vehicle communicate with each other (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13) via one or more of a cellular signal, a satellite signal, a wireless local area network signal, a wireless personal area network signal (column 8, lines 48-60), a radio signal (“Wi-Fi,,” column 8, line 59; construed as a radio signal) and an internet signal (“website,” column 6, line 3).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pertsel et al. (US-10609341-B1) in view of Gage et al. (US-20180148008-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Pertsel teaches a glass defrost system (figs. 1 and 3; “the obstruction 156a may be ice (e.g., frost on the windshield 160),” column 3, line 57) for a vehicle (vehicle 50, fig. 3), comprising:
one or more sensors (sensors 114, fig. 1) configured to sense one or more factors (sensors calculate the temperatures and humidity, column 9, lines 9-24; “calculate the dew point and/or frost point (based on information received from the sensors 114),” column 13, lines 53-55) selected from a temperature of an environment immediately outside the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 462 uses the outside temperature of the windshield, fig. 9; the outer environment of the windshield is constructed as being ”immediately outside the vehicle”), a humidity of the environment (“relative humidity measurements,” column 13, line 40; step 458 uses the dew point, which is based on the relative humidity, fig. 9), a dew point of the environment (column 13, lines 48-49; step 458 uses the dew point, fig. 9), a barometric pressure of the environment (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of the rear glass (not explicitly disclosed), a temperature of an internal cabin of the vehicle (“temperature reading,” column 14, lines 11-12; step 458 uses the temperature inside of the windshield, fig. 9) and a sun load on the vehicle (not explicitly disclosed); and
a controller (processor 106 and memory 108, fig. 1) operatively connected with the defroster (column 7, lines 12-17) and the one or more sensors (column 6, lines 20-21), the controller being configured to (column 15, lines 59-62):
in response to detecting the commanded start (fig. 9 can begin after the vehicle is started, column 18, line 67- column 19, line 1), determine (step 456, fig. 9) the one or more factors (outside temperature, relative humidity measurements, dew point, and inside temperature) using the one or more sensors (column 9, lines 9-24 and column 13, lines 53-55) and/or a remote service (communication device 110, fig. 1; “satellite,” column 8, line 53; “the dew point and/or frost point may be received from an external service (e.g., a weather provider) using the communication device 110,” column 13, lines 61-63) that is in communication with the vehicle (communication device 110 communicates with interface 104, which is located in system 100, which is “installed in a vehicle,” column 6, line 13);
compare (steps 458 and 462, fig. 9) the one or more factors (outside temperature, relative humidity measurements, dew point, and inside temperature) to one or more corresponding predetermined thresholds or ranges (in step 458, the outside temperature is compared with the temperature for freezing, which is construed as a predetermined threshold) that are indicative of conditions suitable for frost formation on a rear glass of the vehicle (column 13, lines 47-63 describe how these measurements contribute toward identifying conditions for a “frost point”); and
if the comparison indicates that the one or more factors meet the frost formation conditions (“YES” after step 468, fig. 9), then activate the rear glass defroster (step 470, fig. 9; “corrective measures 152a-152n,” column 14, lines 41-43).
In this embodiment (fig. 9), Pertsel does not explicitly disclose a rear glass defrost system comprising a rear glass; a rear glass defroster for defrosting the rear glass (fig. 9 is a method associated with the front windshield 160; Pertsel does not explicitly disclose using fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170).
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 4), Pertsel teaches a rear glass defrost system (figs. 1 and 4) comprising a rear glass (rear windshield 170, fig. 4); a rear glass defroster (corrective measure 152i, fig. 4) for defrosting the rear glass (column 10, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 9, to include, a rear glass defrost system comprising a rear glass; a rear glass defroster for defrosting the rear glass, in view of the teachings of the embodiment from fig. 4, by using the method of fig. 9 on the rear windshield 170 (fig. 4) instead of the front windshield 160 (fig. 3), because this amounts to a simple substitution of one windshield for another with predictable results (using the method of fig. 9 with the rear windshield 170 would not change the steps of fig. 9 and would facilitate removal of the frost 156i from the rear windshield 170 in fig. 4).
Pertsel does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: detect a commanded start of the vehicle (although Pertsel teaches using a key fob, using a key, or an using an external application to start the vehicle, Pertsel does not explicitly disclose that the processor or memory is able to detect any of these steps).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of defrosting windshields, Gage teaches wherein the controller (control unit 24, fig. 1) is further configured to: detect a commanded start of the vehicle (“The remote start request is received by the transceiver 26 of the onboard computing device 14 and is implemented by the electronic control unit 24 to start the drive system 40,” para 0030).
Gage, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
1166
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Pertsel to include, wherein the controller is further configured to: detect a commanded start of the vehicle, in view of the teachings of Gage, by using the processor 106 and memory 108, as taught by Pertsel, to detect a remote start request, as taught by Gage, in order to anticipate whether the passenger compartment temperature is within a predetermined temperature range, for the advantage of notifying a user at the time of the remote start request whether the planned amount of time for the remote start is sufficient to warm the passenger compartment, because a user may fail to realize that the planned time is not enough and may need to extend the time prior to operating the vehicle (Gage, paras 0003-0007).
Regarding claim 20, Pertsel teaches wherein the controller (processor 106 and memory 108, fig. 1) is further configured to: establish a location of the vehicle using the remote service (GPS information provided by satellites is communicated to sensors 114, column 13, lines 41-43; sensors connect with processor 106, column 6, lines 20-21 and fig. 1).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
V. Response to Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Pages 10-11 state that the claimed invention is predictive and proactive in comparison to the invention taught by Pertsel (US10609341), which is reactive to the environment.
However, the examiner was unable to find this difference in the claim language. For example, the claims do not require a “proactive” or “predictive” system.
The examiner also was unable to find a description of this capability in the Specification of the Instant Application. Instead, the Specification describes identifying “potential frost conditions.” Pertsel teaches this same purpose in column 3, lines 53-65. Specifically, Pertsel describes determining whether a window obstruction is potentially due to frost, fog, dirt or water so that an appropriate corrective countermeasure can be applied.
Page 11 of the arguments state that a proactive system is now being claimed as a result of the limitation: “in response to the command start, determining….” However, respectfully submit that this would be a reactive limitation (in response to a command start) and not a proactive limitation (predicting a command start). The Pertsel reference teaches this reactive limitation in the section from column 18, line 67 to column 19, line 2.
In response to the Applicant's argument on page 11 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The motivation for combining Pertsel with Gage (US20180148008A1) came from Gage’s disclosure (paragraphs 0003-0007 of the Gage reference; please see page 18 of the Office action filed 26 June 2025) and was not based on the Applicant’s disclosure.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/2/2025
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights