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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/28/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 4 has/have been amended; claim(s) 2-3 has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 17-21 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 4-21 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, line 1 reads as “The heating control system according to Claim 1w,…” Claim 20, line 1 should be amended to eliminate the “w” attached to the number one. Or, replace the “w” with the appropriate number reflecting the intended dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6, 10, and 17-18 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the first energization processing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the second energization processing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 17-18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner suggests removing the phrase “such as” from claims 17-18 or claiming the predetermined input parameters for claim 17 and the environmental parameters for claim 18. For compact prosecution the terms following “such as” will not be considered as elements of the inputs for machine learning.
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 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ki discloses a heating control system for controlling a heating element provided on a glass that separates inside of a vehicle from outside thereof, the heating control system comprising:
a sensor information acquisition circuit configured to acquire sensor information from one or more sensors ([0018] ---"In this embodiment, as means for detecting the state of the Dr side area and the Pa side area, a glass temperature sensor (not shown) for detecting the temperature of the windshield 1, a humidity sensor (not shown) for detecting the humidity in the passenger compartment…”;
and a control processing circuit configured to control a first heating element provided in a first region of the glass and a second heating element provided in a second region different from the first region of the glass based on the sensor information ([0017] ---"The energization of the Dr-side electric heating film 2L and the Pa-side electric heating film 2R is controlled by energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown).”),
wherein the control processing circuit comprises a temperature difference reduction processing circuit ([0018 ---" A temperature distribution detecting means (for example, a matrix IR sensor or the like: not shown) for detecting a temperature distribution of the windshield 1 (mainly, a temperature distribution in a Dr side region and a Pa side region) is provided.”) configured to execute temperature difference reduction processing for controlling at least one of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) and the second heating element (Fig. 2 2L) so that a temperature difference between a glass temperature of a third region positioned between the first region and the second region of the glass and a glass temperature of the first region or a glass temperature of the second region does not exceed an upper limit value ([0024] ---"Specifically, the temperature of the windshield 1 is detected by a glass temperature sensor (step S1), and the humidity in the vehicle compartment is detected by a humidity sensor (step S2). Next, the dew point temperature (the temperature at which fogging occurs on the windshield 1 due to the condensation of water vapor) is calculated from the relationship between the temperature of the windshield 1 and the humidity in the vehicle interior (step S3). Subsequently, the temperature distribution of the windshield 1 is detected by a temperature distribution detecting means (a matrix IR sensor or the like) (step S4).”; [0025] ---"Next, it is determined whether or not the temperature of the windshield 1 is equal to or lower than the dew point temperature (that is, fogging occurs) (step S5).”);
the temperature difference reduction processing unit is configured to execute the temperature difference reduction processing when a value of a parameter indicating the temperature difference exceeds a threshold ([0019] ---"According to the state of the Dr side area and the Pa side area, the energizing means of this embodiment includes an energization stop pattern, a parallel energization pattern (1 ), a Pa side independent energization pattern (2), a Dr side independent energization pattern (3), One of the five series energization patterns (4) is selected.;
and the sensor information includes temperature information from two or more temperature sensors provided at two or more places on the glass ([0018] ---"In this embodiment, as means for detecting the state of the Dr side area and the Pa side area, a glass temperature sensor (not shown) for detecting the temperature of the windshield 1, a humidity sensor (not shown) for detecting the humidity in the passenger compartment, A temperature distribution detecting means (for example, a matrix IR sensor or the like: not shown) for detecting a temperature distribution of the windshield 1 (mainly, a temperature distribution in a Dr side region and a Pa side region) is provided.),
and the control processing circuit further includes a temperature difference parameter calculation circuit configured to calculate the value of the parameter based on the temperature information ([0027] ---" On the other hand, if the result of the determination in step S5 is NO (fogging does not occur at present), the difference between the glass temperature in the Dr side region and the Pa side region and the dew point temperature is within a predetermined temperature Tth (when fogging occurs in the glass). (Step S11)).
Regarding claim 5, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ki teaches wherein the control processing circuit comprises:
a first energization processing circuit (energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown)) (Shown in the figure below) configured to execute first energization processing for energizing the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) so that dew condensation does not occur in the first region based on the sensor information;
and a second energization processing circuit (energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown)) (Shown in the figure below) configured to execute second energization processing for energizing the second heating element (Fig. 2 2L) so that dew condensation does not occur in the second region based on the sensor information, wherein the temperature difference reduction processing is executed while the second energization processing is being executed ((If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.; The control device of Ki is capable of performing the temperature difference reduction processing while the second energization processing is being executed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
350
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Ki teaches wherein the temperature difference reduction processing includes at least one of starting the energization of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) without executing the first energization processing and continuing the energization of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) regardless of whether or not a condition to end the first energization processing is satisfied (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. The control device of Ki is capable of performing at least one of starting the energization of the first heating element without executing the first energization processing and continuing the energization of the first heating element regardless of whether or not a condition to end the first energization processing is satisfied.)
Regarding claim 7, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Ki teaches wherein the temperature difference reduction processing circuit (energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown)) is configured to start the energization of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) even when the glass temperature of the first region is higher than a first energization start temperature corresponding to a first dew point temperature of the first region when the glass temperature of the first region is lower than the glass temperature of the second region (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. The control device of Ki is capable of performing at least one of starting the energization of the first heating element without executing the first energization processing and continuing the energization of the first heating element regardless of whether or not a condition to end the first energization processing is satisfied.).
Regarding claim 8, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Ki teaches wherein the temperature difference reduction processing circuit (energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown)) is configured to continue the energization of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) even when the glass temperature of the first region becomes higher than or equal to a first energization end threshold corresponding to a first dew point temperature of the first region while the first energization processing is being executed (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. The control device of Ki is capable of continuing the energization of the first heating element even when the glass temperature of the first region becomes higher than or equal to a first energization end threshold corresponding to a first dew point temperature of the first region while the first energization processing is being executed).
Regarding claim 9, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Ki teaches wherein the temperature difference reduction processing circuit (energizing means (for example, a control device for vehicle air conditioning: not shown)) is configured to continue the energization of the first heating element (Fig. 2 2R) even when the glass temperature of the first region reaches a temperature at which the dew condensation does not occur in the first region while the first energization processing is being executed (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. The control device of Ki is capable of continuing the energization of the first heating element even when the glass temperature of the first region reaches a temperature at which the dew condensation does not occur in the first region while the first energization processing is being executed).
Regarding claim 10, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Ki teaches wherein the second energization processing is executed so that the glass temperature of the second region achieved is higher than the glass temperature of the first region achieved by the first energization processing (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114. The control device of Ki is capable of executing the second energization processing so that the glass temperature of the second region achieved is higher than the glass temperature of the first region achieved by the first energization processing.).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Petrenko et al (US 2003/0155467).
Regarding claim 4, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the sensor information includes predetermined information affecting a heat transfer coefficient of the third region, and the control processing circuit is configured to execute processing for correcting the threshold or the value of the parameter according to the predetermined information.
Nonetheless, Petrenko in the same field of endeavor being vehicle windshield heating devices teaches wherein the sensor information includes predetermined information affecting a heat transfer coefficient of the third region ([0245] lines 1-3 ---" FIG. 22 illustrates the dependence of a heat transfer coefficient (watt/m.sup.2 K) on air velocity (m/s) (i.e., plot 240).”),
and the control processing circuit is configured to execute processing for correcting the threshold or the value of the parameter according to the predetermined information ([0245] lines 4-6 ---" FIG. 22 may assist in determining calculations of HF power for de-icing and/or anti-icing on a flat windshield.”).
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 system of Ki by incorporating the predetermined information to include a heat transfer coefficient as taught by Petrenko for the benefit of operating the heater in differing modes, such as a de-icing mode or anti-icing mode. (Petrenko [0245])
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Futatsugi et al (US 2018/0213610).
Regarding claim 11, Ki teaches the control system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the second heating element has a higher heat generation density than that of the first heating element.
Nonetheless, Futatsugi in the same field of endeavor being windshield heating devices teaches wherein the second heating element (Fig. 5 #34A first heating region has a higher heat generation density than that of the first heating element (Fig. 5 #34B second heating region) ([0020] ---" In another aspect of the present disclosure, a dispersion density of the conductive particles in the PTC element in the second heating area is lower than a dispersion density of the conductive particles in the PTC element in the first heating region.” Particle density relates to heat generation density.).
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 system of Ki by incorporating the difference in heat generation density between the first and second regions as taught by Futatsugi for the benefit of reducing a risk that high tensile stresses are generated in the region around the first heating region without reducing a defogging effect at a windshield. (Futatsugi [0009])
Regarding claim 19, Ki in view of Futatsugi teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein the heat generation density of the second heating element is 1.5 to 6 times the heat generation density of the first heating element.
Futatsugi do(es), however, teach that the dispersion density of the conductive particles 38 of the PTC element 40 in the second heating region 34B is lower than the dispersion density of the conductive particles 38 of the PTC element 40 in the first heating region 34A.. Therefore, the heat generation density 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 that the second region has a higher operating temperature than the first region. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that one region has a higher heat generation density than the other, were disclosed in the prior art by Futatsugi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Ishizeki et al (US 2009/0206068).
Regarding claim 12, Ki teaches the control system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the second region is positioned above the first region and is associated with an indoor sensor for acquiring vehicle peripheral information.
Nonetheless, Ishizeki in the same field of endeavor being windshield heating devices teaches wherein the second region (Fig. 2 #20 inside heater) is positioned above the first region (Fig. 2 #30 outside heater) and is associated with an indoor sensor for acquiring vehicle peripheral information ([0073] ---" The inside-outside temperature information is concerned with the temperature of the vehicle exterior (outside temperature) and the temperature of the vehicle interior (inside temperature) which are detected by temperature sensors provided inside and outside the vehicle, respectively.”).
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 second region positioned above the first region and associated with an indoor sensor, 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Mizutani et al (JP H05337610 A).
Regarding claim 13, Ki teaches the control system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a shortest distance between the first region and the second region along a surface of the glass is within a range of 10 mm to 200 mm.
Mizutani do(es), however, teach that the distance between two heating electrodes can be in a range of 5 mm to about 15 mm. Therefore, the distance between two heating regions 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 that the space between the electrodes is indirectly heated by the two electrodes which arrangement creates the space. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is distance between two heating regions, were disclosed in the prior art by Mizutani, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) in view of Heinle et al (US 4,848,444) and Bradford et al (US 5,496,989).
Regarding claim 14, Ki discloses a windshield comprising: a glass (Fig. 1 #1 windshield) for separating inside of a vehicle from outside thereof including a first region, a first heating element (Fig. 1 2R electric heating film) provided in the first region; a second heating element (Fig. 1 2L electric heating film) provided in the second region;
a first temperature sensor provided in association with at least one of the first region and the second region ([0018] ---"In this embodiment, as means for detecting the state of the Dr side area and the Pa side area, a glass temperature sensor (not shown) for detecting the temperature of the windshield 1…”), and a third region (Space between #1 2L and 2R electric heating films) positioned between the first region and the second region.
However, Ki does not disclose a second region positioned above the first region and associated with an indoor sensor for acquiring vehicle peripheral information; and a second temperature sensor provided in the third region and at a predetermined position away from the first region and the second region.
Nonetheless, Heinle which solves the same problem of sensing temperature for a region on a windshield teaches a second region (Shown in the figure below) positioned above the first region (Shown in the figure below) and associated with an indoor sensor (Fig. 1 #2.1 sensor) for acquiring vehicle peripheral information.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
483
media_image2.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 windshield of Ki by incorporating the second region containing a temperature sensor for the benefit of establishing a difference between inside temperature and outside temperature.
Furthermore, Bradford in the same field of endeavor being windshield temperature control teaches a second temperature sensor (Fig. 2 #230 temperature sensor) provided in the third region (The third region is the space where no heating film is present and where Fig. 2 #230 temperature sensor is positioned.) and at a predetermined position away from the first region and the second region (The sensor is place in a space where no heating film is present. The first and second regions are considered the spaces associated with Fig. 2 #s 210-211 temperature sensors.).
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 windshield of Ki by incorporating the second temperature sensor provided in the third region as taught by Bradford for the benefit of providing redundant temperature measurement signals indicative of the internal surface temperature of the windshield.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) in view of Heinle et al (US 4,848,444) and Bradford et al (US 5,496,989) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Lisinski et al (US 2014/0027433).
Regarding claim 15, Ki in view of Heinle and Bradford teaches the windshield as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), but does not teach wherein the predetermined position is positioned in a central part of the third region.
Nonetheless, Lisinski in the same field of endeavor being window heating devices and which solves the same problem of monitoring for “hot spots” teaches wherein the predetermined position is positioned in a central part of the third region ([0051] lines 6-14 ---" For example, a temperature sensor 15 is disposed, in each case, at the four corners of the windshield 2, as well as on the window edge 6 in the center between two corner temperature sensors 15. Moreover, it is advantageous for temperature sensors to be disposed, in each case, in the window regions in which local overheating ("hot spots") can occur. These are, in particular, heating-layer-free zones, for example, communication windows or end sections of separating lines for the structuring of the heating layer 7.”).
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 predetermined position being positioned in a central part of the third region, 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) in view of Lisinski et al (US 2013/0161309) (hereinafter referred to as “Lisinski ‘309”).
Regarding claim 16, Ki discloses a windshield comprising: a glass for separating inside of a vehicle from outside thereof including a first region and a second region positioned above the first region and associated with an indoor sensor for acquiring vehicle peripheral information; a first heating element provided in the first region; a second heating element provided in the second region; and a temperature sensor provided on the glass, wherein a shortest distance between the first region and the second region along a surface of the glass is 10 mm or less.
However, Ki does not disclose, wherein a shortest distance between the first region and the second region along a surface of the glass is 10 mm or less.
Nonetheless, Lisinski ‘309 in the same field of endeavor being window heating devices teaches wherein a shortest distance between the first region and the second region along a surface of the glass is 10 mm or less ([0056] lines 41-45 ---" Advantageously, the distance between the two heating elements 25 and the lower transverse section 16 is a maximum of 1 millimeter such that a particularly effective heating of the surface area containing the lower transverse section 16 can be obtained.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield of Ki by incorporating the distance between the first region and the second region along a surface of the glass as taught by Lisinski ‘309 for the benefit of prevention of thermal stresses.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Schlittenbauer et al (DE 102016006925 B3).
Regarding claim 16, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the temperature difference parameter calculation unit calculates the temperature difference parameter by a machine learning model using predetermined input parameters (Page 4 para. 1 ---" As part of a machine learning method, so-called swarm data, which can be labeled data, can be used to calculate the probability of a frozen slice. For example, these data may specify at which temperature and / or humidity conditions around or in a particular motor vehicle the heater of the respective motor vehicle was driven to heat a disc or whether and how a user has responded to the automatic heating, for example by operating a control element of the heater…”; Page 5 para. 9 ---" The car 1 includes a windshield 5 and a rear window 6 by means of a heating device 7 respectively on the windshield 5 and rear window 6 fastened heating wires (not shown) can be heated. Thereby the heating device becomes 7 from a controller 8th controlled, in turn, a communication device 9 and with a sensor device 10 connected to the detection of sensor data.”) such as glass temperatures in the first region and the second region, vehicle speed, outside air temperature, and inside air temperature as inputs.
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 system of Ki by incorporating calculating the temperature difference parameter using a machine learning model as taught by Schlittenbauer for the benefit of predicting the probability of a frozen disc (frozen precipitation on the windshield).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) , in view of Petrenko et al (US 2003/0155467) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Perl et al (JP 2019525301 A).
Regarding claim 18, Ki in view of Petrenko teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not teach wherein the control information storage unit has map data defining a threshold Th corresponding to each combination of environmental parameters such as vehicle speed, outside air temperature, and inside air temperature, and the threshold setting processing unit sets the threshold Th by referring to the map data.
Nonetheless, Perl which solves the same problem of heater control based on machine learning teaches wherein the control information storage unit has map data defining a threshold Th corresponding to each combination of environmental parameters such as vehicle speed, outside air temperature, and inside air temperature, and the threshold setting processing unit sets the threshold Th by referring to the map data (Page 5 ---" Means that it can include, for example, a searchable (hash) table, including classification trigger parameters for triggering 41, ... , 45 predefined levels of automation….”; Page 18 ---“… (ix) climate control such as windshield defrosting or heating and cooling capabilities,…”; Abstract ---" The autonomous or partially autonomous automobile (41, ... , 45) includes an external sensor (4011) for sensing environmental parameters (40111)…”).
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 system of Ki in view of Petrenko by incorporating the map data defining a threshold as taught by Perl for the benefit of risk assessment and risk prediction.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Nattermann et al (US 6,853,123).
Regarding claim 20, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the plane tensile stress in the portion of the window glass in the third region is 5 MPa or less, and the glass thickness of the portion is 2 mm or less.
Nonetheless, Nattermann which solves the same problem of mechanical stresses in panes teaches the glass thickness of the portion is 2 mm or less (Col. 1 line 67 and Col. 2 lines 1-2 ---"At a pane thickness of 1 mm, a distance between the spacer elements of less than 20 mm would therefore be required.”).
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 system of Ki by incorporating the thickness of the glass as taught by Nattermann for the benefit of reducing the weight of a large-area radiator (heater).
Applied prior art Ki in view of Nattermann fail(s) to explicitly teach that wherein the plane tensile stress in the portion of the window glass in the third region is 5 MPa or less. Nattermann do(es), however, teach that the tensile stress at the exterior surface of the panes below approximately 10 MPa. Therefore, the plane tensile stress 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 that the chance of . Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the tensile stress at the exterior surface of the panes below approximately 10 MPa, were disclosed in the prior art by Nattermann, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A) as applied to claim 5, in view of Sadakane et al (WO 2019230732 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ki teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein a plurality of each of the first heating element and the second heating element extend in the X direction and are arranged at constant pitches d1 and d2 in the Y direction, and the d2 is smaller than the d1.
Sadakane do(es), however, teach that the pitch of the heating wire may be different for each heating zone. Therefore, the pitch between heating zones 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 that one zone will operate at a higher temperature than the other. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the pitch of the heating wire may be different for each heating zone, were disclosed in the prior art by Sadakane, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 03/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under 35 USC 102 and claim 11 35 USC 103 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 Ki et al (JP 2004189155 A).
Ki is now being relied upon to teach the amended limitations to claim 1.
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