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 .
Note
Applicant’s response along with the Request for Continued Examination RCE filed on 01/21/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 16 are amended, claim 6 is canceled and claim 1-5 and 7-21 are pending.
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 1-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (US 2015/0351160 A1) in view of Chamberlain et al. (WO 2016/038376 A1).
Claim 1: Phan teaches a pane 100 [0096] (meets the claimed glazing) comprising: a first pane 1 [0096] (meets the claimed glass sheet); an electric heating layer 3 [0096] (meets the claimed resistive coating) extending across a part of the first pane; a first busbar 5.1 and a second busbar 5.2 [0098] (meet the claimed first and second busbars) connected to the electric heating layer 3; an uncoated zone 8 [0101] in the electric heating layer 3; a plurality separating lines 9.1-9.4 ([0103] and [0122]) (meet the claimed deletion lines) in the electric heating layer 3; a plurality of segments 10.1-10.4 ([0103] and [0122]) (meet the claimed channels}, formed by the plurality of separating lines; and at least one low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 [0122] (meet the claimed conductive element) positioned in at least one of the segments 10.1-10.4; wherein the low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 are separated from the first and second busbars 5.1 and 5.2 by the electric heating layer (Fig. 1A and Fig. 5). The uncoated zone 8, the plurality separating lines 9.1-9.4 and the plurality of segments 10.1-10.4 meet the claimed data transmission window. Phan teaches the electric heating layer 3 can have one or a plurality of uncoated regions, (e.g., uncoated zone 8 and separating lines 9.1-9.4); and these regions can have a particularly high transmittance for electromagnetic radiation such as radar waves [0050]. It is well established that a radar wave has a frequency ranging from 5 MHz to over 130 GHz; and this range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 MHz to 20 GHz.
Phan does not teach the width of the separating lines 9.1-9.4/deletion lines. However, Chamberlain teaches a glazing 1 comprising a deletion line 20 with a width of 100 µm or narrower (abstract, Fig. 1, [0033] and [0034]). The claimed width range and the width range of Chamberlain meets at 100 µm (0.1 mm). Phan and Chamberlain are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chamberlain, (i.e., having a narrow deletion width) with the invention of Phan, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chamberlain suggested, to control visibility for a driver when the glazing is installed in a vehicle [0034].
Claim 2: Phan teaches the electric heating layer 3 is deposited on the first pane 1 (Fig. 1B).
Claim 3: Phan teaches the electric heating layer 3 comprises at least one layer of silver [0042].
Claim 4: Phan teaches the electric heating layer 3 has sheet resistance in a range 0.4 Ω/□ to 10 Ω/□ [0048].
Claim 5: Phan teaches there are at least three segments 10.1-10.4 (Fig. 5 and [0122]).
Claims 7 and 8: Phan teaches the low impedance bridge is a line and has a tee tip {instant claim 8} (see elements 15.4-15.6 of Fig. 5 and [0122]).
Claim 9: Phan teaches the low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 can be made from the material of the busbar 5.2 [0122]; and Phan also teaches the materials for the busbars can be silver, copper or tungsten ([0032] and [0042]).
Claim 10: Phan teaches the low impedance bridge is implemented as fired printing paste containing metal particles (claims 13 and 14); and Phan further teaches the printing method includes screen printing process and inkjet printing process ([0033] and [0071]). Phan also teaches the low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 can be made from the material of the busbar 5.2 [0122] in which the material includes silver ([0032] and [0042]).
Claim 11: With respect to the width of the low impedance bridge, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the width of the low impedance bridge, and the motivation would be to control signal integrity and signal path of the bridge. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 12: Phan teaches the low impedance bridges are positioned in each of at least three segments 10.1-10.4 (Fig. 5).
Claims 13-14: Phan teaches all separating lines terminate at line 6 below the uncoated region/zone 8 [0107]. Phan also teaches formation of at least one segment that is arranged in strip form around a part of the uncoated zone, the current path can be guided into the regions having a lower temperature; and this results in a more homogeneous heating power distribution and temperature distribution [0018]. Part of the uncoated region and the termination line correspond to the claimed break line and gap.
Claim 21: Phan teaches the pane 100 is a mother vehicle window [0096].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (US 2015/0351160 A1) and Chamberlain et al. (WO 2016/038376 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 7,880,120 B2).
Phan and Chamberlain teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 15: Phan does not teach having an obscuration band. However, Schmidt teaches a glazing unit comprising an opaque colored layer 3 in the form of a peripheral frame has been deposited along the edges of the glazing unit 1 (col. 8, lines 60-62). The opaque colored layer 3 of Schmidt meets the claimed obscuration band. Phan and Schmidt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the opaque colored layer 3 of Schmidt with the invention of Phan, and the motivation for combining would be, as Schmidt suggested, to provide UV protection and to conceal from view connection elements (col. 9, lines 1-3).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (US 2015/0351160 A1) in view of Chamberlain et al. (WO 2016/038376 A1).
Claim 16: Phan teaches a pane 100 [0096] (meets the claimed glazing) comprising: a first pane 1 [0096] (meets the claimed glass sheet); an electric heating layer 3 [0096] (meets the claimed resistive coating) extending across a part of the first pane; a first busbar 5.1 and a second busbar 5.2 [0098] (meet the claimed first and second busbars) connected to the electric heating layer 3; an uncoated zone 8 [0101] in the electric heating layer 3; a plurality separating lines 9.1-9.4 ([0103] and [0122]) (meet the claimed deletion lines) in the electric heating layer 3; a plurality of segments 10.1-10.4 ([0103] and [0122]) (meet the claimed channels}, formed by the plurality of separating lines; and at least one low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 [0122] (meet the claimed conductive element) positioned in at least one of the segments 10.1-10.4; wherein the low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 are separated from the first and second busbars 5.1 and 5.2 by the electric heating layer (Fig. 1A and Fig. 5). The uncoated zone 8, the plurality separating lines 9.1-9.4 and the plurality of segments 10.1-10.4 meet the claimed data transmission window. Phan teaches a method of making the pane 100 (Fig. 6, [0071], [0124] and [0125]). Phan teaches the electric heating layer 3 can have one or a plurality of uncoated regions, (e.g., uncoated zone 8 and separating lines 9.1-9.4); and these regions can have a particularly high transmittance for electromagnetic radiation such as radar waves [0050]. It is well established that a radar wave has a frequency ranging from 5 MHz to over 130 GHz; and this range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 MHz to 20 GHz.
Phan does not teach the width of the separating lines 9.1-9.4/deletion lines. However, Chamberlain teaches a glazing 1 comprising a deletion line 20 with a width of 100 µm or narrower (abstract, Fig. 1, [0033] and [0034]). The claimed width range and the width range of Chamberlain meet at 100 µm (0.1 mm). Phan and Chamberlain are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glazing art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chamberlain, (i.e., having a narrow deletion width) with the invention of Phan, and the motivation for combining would be, as Chamberlain suggested, to control visibility for a driver when the glazing is installed in a vehicle [0034].
Claim 17: Phan teaches the low impedance bridges 15.4-15.6 can be made from the material of the busbar 5.2 [0122]; and Phan also teaches the materials for the busbars can be silver, copper or tungsten ([0032] and [0042]).
Claims 18-20: Phan teaches the low impedance bridge is implemented as fired printing paste containing metal particles (claims 13 and 14); and Phan further teaches the printing method includes screen printing process and inkjet printing process ([0033] and [0071]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The reference of Chamberlain teaches the claimed width of the deletion lines.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
February 12, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785