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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 11/25/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boehm et al. (US 2006/0232093).
With respect to claim 1, Boehm discloses a fixed transparent window module, for being fitted on a vehicle body, which has a body frame by means of which a roof opening is defined at least partially and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle for receiving the window module is formed (Boehm et al., paragraph [0049]), comprising:
at least one at least partly transparent window 14, which has an outer surface facing a vehicle environment and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and facing a vehicle interior (Boehm et al., paragraph [0041]; Fig. 1),
wherein at least one plastic structure 30 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Boehm et al.), which is at least configured as a burn protection for at least one vehicle occupant, is disposed on the inner surface (the plastic film 26 inherently has heat insulative properties which can provide burn protection).
With respect to claim 2, Boehm et al. disclose that the at least one plastic structure 30 has a lower thermal conductivity compared with the at least one window 14 (plastic materials such as PC-foil inherently have a lower thermal conductivity than a glass window–Applicant’s attention is invited to the reference to Plastic Sheets Shop which gives the thermal conductivity of polycarbonates relative to glass).
With respect to claim 4, Boehm et al. disclose that at least one frit 24, on which the at least one plastic structure 30 is disposed, is formed on the inner surface of the at least one window (the central region of the window 14 in Fig. 1 of Boehm et al. is first layered with frit 24 and then layered with plastic structure 30 (26).
With respect to claim 6, Boehm et al. disclose that the at least one plastic structure 30 is made of a polyurethane (layer 27 is polyurethane, Boehm et al,., paragraph [0042]).
With respect to claim 7, Boehm et al. disclose that the at least one plastic structure comprises a plastic base body 30 which is at least partially transparent (protective foil may be an optical polyethylene terephthalate foil, Boehm et al., paragraph [0042]).
With respect to claim 8, Boehm et al. disclose that the plastic base body 30 is perforated (Boehm et al., paragraph [0073]).
With respect to claim 9, Boehm et al. disclose that the plastic base body 30 comprises at least one film 30 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Boehm et al.). Since claim 9 is drawn to an apparatus, method steps of how the apparatus are made only differentiate from the prior art if they result in structural differences with respect to the prior art. In this case, there do not appear to be any structural differences. Thus, Boehm et al. is considered to meet all the apparatus limitations of claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Boehm et al. disclose that the at least one film 30 has a pattern or a coloring (Boehm et al., paragraph [0089]).
With respect to claim 11, Boehm et al. disclose that a foam layer 16 is applied to the plastic base body 30 (26) as shown in Fig. 4 of Boehm et al.
With respect to claim 12, since claim 12 is drawn to an apparatus, method steps of how the apparatus are made only differentiate from the prior art if they result in structural differences with respect to the prior art. In this case, there do not appear to be any structural differences. Thus, Boehm et al. is considered to meet all the apparatus limitations of claim 12.
With respect to claim 14, Boehm et al. disclose that the plastic structure 30 (26) has at least one installation component 18 which is glued to the inner surface of the at least one window 14 (via adhesive 12; Boehm et al., paragraph [0041]; Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 7, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thannheimer (US 2020/0122637).
With respect to claim 1, Thannheimer discloses a fixed transparent window module, for being fitted on a vehicle body, which has a body frame by means of which a roof opening is defined at least partially and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle for receiving the window module is formed (Thannheimer, paragraph [0014]), comprising:
at least one at least partly transparent window 4, which has an outer surface facing a vehicle environment and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and facing a vehicle interior (as shown in Fig. 1 of Thannheimer),
wherein at least one plastic structure 6 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Thannheimer), which is at least configured as a burn protection for at least one vehicle occupant, is disposed on the inner surface (the plastic films 37 and 39 of plastic structure 6inherently have heat insulative properties which can provide burn protection, Thannheimer, paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 7, Thannheimer discloses that the at least one plastic structure 6 comprises a plastic base body 26 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Thannheimer) which is at least partially transparent (“clear PET films 37 and 39,” Thannheimer, paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 16, Thannheimer discloses that the installation component 27/25 forms a sleeve-like bearing position to which the plastic base body 26 is connected (as shown in Fig. 1 of Thannheimer).
With respect to claim 19, Thannheimer discloses that the plastic structure 6 comprises at least one light-emitting element (“LEDs,” Thannheimer paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 20, Thannheimer discloses a motor vehicle comprising: a vehicle body which has a body frame 45, which at least partially defines a roof opening (Thannheimer, paragraph [0043]; Fig. 1), and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle (formed by flange 46 as shown in Fig. 1 of Thannheimer) is formed; and at least one window module 3 according to claim 1 (as mentioned above in the rejection of claim 1 in view of Thannheimer) which covers the roof opening at least partially and which is at least partially housed by the peripheral supporting receptacle.
With respect to claim 21, Thannheimer discloses that at least an edge portion of the at least one window 3 is configured to be glued to a portion of the peripheral supporting receptacle (via adhesive bead 47 (Thannheimer, paragraph [0043]; Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clieve (US 2004/0048023).
With respect to claim 1, Clieve discloses a fixed transparent window module, capable of being fitted on a vehicle body, which has a body frame by means of which a roof opening is defined at least partially and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle for receiving the window module is formed, comprising:
at least one at least partly transparent window 12, which has an outer surface facing a vehicle environment and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and facing a vehicle interior (Clieve, paragraph [0032]),
wherein at least one plastic structure 16, which is at least configured as a burn protection for at least one vehicle occupant, is disposed on the inner surface (the plastic film 16 inherently has heat insulative properties which can provide burn protection).
With respect to claim 3, Clieve discloses that the at least one plastic structure 16 is glued to the inner surface of the at least one window 12 (via adhesive layer 14, Clieve, paragraph [0021]).
With respect to claim 5, Clieve discloses that the inner surface of the at least one window 12 comprises at least a partially pretreated portion on which the at least one plastic 16 is disposed (“spraying the glass surface with water and then the film and glass were brought together,” Clieve, paragraph [0024]).
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by You (CN 2886027).
With respect to claim 1, You discloses a fixed transparent window module, capable of being fitted on a vehicle body, which has a body frame by means of which a roof opening is defined at least partially and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle for receiving the window module is formed, comprising:
at least one at least partly transparent window 1, which has an outer surface capable facing a vehicle environment and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and capable of facing a vehicle interior (as shown in Fig. 1 of You),
wherein at least one plastic structure 2, which is at least configured as a burn protection for at least one vehicle occupant, is disposed on the inner surface (the plastic of structure 2 has heat insulative properties which can provide burn protection, see abstract of You).
With respect to claim 7, You discloses that the alt least one plastic structure 2 comprises a plastic base body which is at least partially transparent (see the middle of pg. 3 of the translation of You) as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of You:
[AltContent: textbox (plastic base body)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
299
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, You discloses that the plastic base body 2 is grid-shaped (as shown in Fig. 1 of You).
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, 7, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saucier et al. (US 2013/0205673) in view of Farrar et al. (US 7,254,927).
With respect to claim 1, Saucier et al. disclose the claimed window module except that they are silent on whether the at least one structure is plastic and is configured as a burn protection for at least on vehicle occupant. Saucier et al. disclose a fixed transparent window module, capable of being fitted on a vehicle body, which has a body frame by means of which a roof opening is defined at least partially and on which a peripheral supporting receptacle for receiving the window module is formed (Saucier et al., paragraph [0040), comprising:
at least one at least partly transparent window 71, which has an outer surface facing a vehicle environment and an inner surface opposite the outer surface and facing a vehicle interior (Saucier et al., paragraph [0033]; Fig. 4A),
wherein at least one structure 81 (“sacrificial liner,” Saucier et al., paragraph is disposed on the inner surface
Farrar et al. teach a similar window module including at least one at least partly transparent window 104 and at least one plastic structure 106 (“sacrificial member,” Farrar et al., col. 1, lines 59-67 and col. 4, lines 30-53) which is at least configured as a burn protection of at least one vehicle occupant, is disposed on the inner surface (the plastic member 106 inherently has heat insulative properties which can provide burn protection).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Farrar et al. with the window module disclosed by Saucier et al. for the advantage of the lightweight property and corrosion-resistant and graffiti-resistant afforded by plastic materials.
With respect to claim 7, Farrar et al. disclose that the at least one plastic structure 106 comprises a plastic base body which is at least partially transparent. While Farrar et al. does not explicitly state that the plastic structure 106 is transparent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it must inherently be at least somewhat transparent if the member 106 is applied completely over the window 104 for the window to retain its function as viewing structure or a light admitting structure.
With respect to claim 14, Saucier et al. disclose that the plastic structure 81 has at least one installation component 72 which is glued (via adhesive 74) to the inner surface of the at least one window 71 (as shown in Fig. 4A of Saucier et al.).
With respect to claim 15, in the combination, Saucier et al. disclose that a plastic base body is in captively connected to the at least one installation component 72 via a clip connection 77 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4A of Saucier et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (inner surface of window)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (clip connection)][AltContent: textbox (installation component)][AltContent: textbox (plastic base body)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
216
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Saucier et al. disclose that the plastic base body is disposed at a distance to the inner surface (of the at least one window) because of its connection to the installation component 72, such that an air gap is formed between the inner surface of the window and the plastic base body as shown above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al. (US 2006/0232093) in view of Podkamien et al. (US 2023/0168364).
With respect to claim 22, Boehm et al. disclose the claimed roof module except for the environmental sensor which is configured to send and/or receive electromagnetic signals to detect a vehicle environment. Boehm et al. disclose a roof module (shown in Fig. 1) for forming a vehicle roof on a motor vehicle (Boehm et al., paragraph [0041] comprising: a window module according to claim 1 (as described in the above prior art rejection of claim 1) which a least partially forms a roof skin of the vehicle roof (as shown in Fig. 4 of Boehm et al.) which functions as an outer sealing surface of the roof module (Boehm et al., paragraph [0051]).
Podkamien et al. teach a similar roof module including at least one at least partly transparent window 450 and at least an environment sensor 410 (as shown in Fig. 4A of Podkamien et al.) which is configured to send and/or receive electromagnetic signals to detect a vehicle environment (inherent in a radar sensor as disclosed, Boehm et al., paragraph [0126]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Podkamien et al. with the roof module disclosed by Boehm et al. for the advantage of monitoring the occupants of the vehicle and controlling the vehicles systems based on the monitored results (Podkamien et al., paragraph [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 14 cannot be made based on inherent properties of the plastic disclosed by Boehm et al. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Boehm et al. disclose a window including an outer glass layer 14 and an inner plastic layer. The plastic layer may be “ an optical polyethylene terephthalate[sic] foil (PET-foil) coated with polysiloxanes or acrylate lacquers or a polycarbonate foil (PC-foil).” As cited in the reference to Plastic Sheet Shop.co.uk, it is known that the material polycarbonate has an insulating effect when applied to glass. Therefore, polycarbonate covered glass is going to inherently transmit less heat than glass alone.
Thus, polycarbonate and glass will always have at least some insulative effect compared to glass alone. This insulative effect is going to provide at least some burn protection. That is, a person may burn themselves by touching a window based on the temperature of the window and the amount of time the person touches the window. It follows that there are temperatures at which an arbitrary amount of polycarbonate will provide burn protection for a certain amount of time (based on other additional factors such as thickness of polycarbonate layer). Even if the at least one plastic structure only provides burn protection for less than one second, it is still providing burn protection. Thus, Applicant’s argument that the inherent properties of polycarbonate do not meet the claims limitations is found unpersuasive. It is further noted that almost any material could provide at least a small amount of burn protection immediately after the material is applied to the glass because it would take a concrete amount of time for heat to transfer from the glass, through the material to the skin of the user.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 22, Applicant is inferring the term “vehicle environment” to mean “vehicle environment external to the vehicle.” However, this is not stated in the claims. The examiner is interpreting “vehicle environment” as an internal environment of the vehicle.
Applicant argues that impermissible hindsight has been used to combine Podkamien with Boehm et al. However, it is only because claim 22 recites such disparate limitations with respect to claim 1 that it appears the examiner is using hindsight. That is claim 1 recites a window with at least one plastic structure configured to provide burn protection. Claim 22 recites a vehicle that includes the subject matter of claim 1, a roof module and an environment sensor that is seemingly unrelated to the at least one plastic structure configure to provide burn protection. Since claim 22 recites a vehicle environment sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to solutions regarding vehicle environment sensors regardless of what else is recited in the claims. It is obvious to combine Podkamien with Boehm et al. for the advantages that vehicle environment sensors typically provide for vehicles (i.e. monitoring interior or exterior variables in or around the vehicle for control of the vehicle to provide user comfort or safety).
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612