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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicants assert on page 6 that the features of Kasetani fail to disclose “a cell foam attached to the bracket”. The examiner disagrees.
As shown on page 6 of applicants’ arguments, Kasetani discloses that the features 27, 28 and 12 are attached to each other, as such this claimed features is met. Applicants appear to interpret “Attached” to require the features be “directly attached”, however, claim 1 does not require that the features be directly attached, only “attached” and as such, the claimed features are met.
Applicants make the same arguments with respect to claim 15 and those arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Applicants arguments with respect to claim 8 (previous claim 14) are hereby found persuasive, and as such, that claim and its dependent are hereby allowed.
This action is hereby made FINAL.
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, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being rendered obvious by Kasetani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0263305).
Regarding claim 1.
Kasetani discloses:
A bracket, comprising:
a bracket material layer(bracket 12); and
a cell foam(foam plastic film 27, 28 foam [0027]) attached to the bracket material layer for directing heat from a heating element(20) toward glass(foam directing at least a portion of heat toward glass Windshield WG),
wherein the heating element(20) is attached to the cell foam(27 28)
Kasetani does not discloses:
for raising a temperature of the glass disposed on or over the heating element.
However, Kasetani discloses that the heating element 20 is located proximate to the glass WG. It would have been obvious to use the heating element to heat the area around it, for the obvious benefit of heating the windshield and surrounding area to remove moisture from the window. See [0032]. As such, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2.
Kasetani discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Kasetani does not disclose:
The bracket of claim 1, wherein the cell foam comprises at least one of a closed cell foam or an open cell foam.
However, Kasetani discloses that the sheet 27 may be a foamed material, and as a foamed material it may be closed cell foam or open cell foam. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make it one of closed cell or open celled foam for the obvious benefit of providing the foam as taught by Kasetani. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill In the art.
Regarding claim 3.
Kasetani discloses all of the features of claim 1:
Kasetani does not disclose:
The bracket of claim 2, wherein the closed cell foam includes a plurality of isolated pores, and wherein the open cell foam includes a plurality of connected pores.
However, Kasetani discloses that the sheet 27 may be a foamed material, and as a foamed material it may be closed cell foam or open cell foam. The cells would be connected in order to make a film. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make it one of closed cell or open celled foam for the obvious benefit of providing the foam as taught by Kasetani. See MPEP 2144.05. As a closed cell foam the cells would be connected to each other to make the film. Thus, the features of claim 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill In the art.
Regarding claim 4.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 2, wherein the closed cell foam includes one or more pockets to create a non-uniform surface. (Fig. 2, 27 and 28. Having a non uniform surface)
Regarding claim 5.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 1, wherein the cell foam is made of a rubber compound. ([0043], rubber film)
Regarding claim 6.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 1, wherein the glass(WG) is disposed over the heating element(20) to heat the glass by transferring heat from the heating element to the glass by convection. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 1, wherein the glass(WG) is disposed on the heating(20) element to heat the glass by conduction(20 heating WG via conduction through air, and portions that contact each other.).
Regarding claim 15.
Kasetani discloses:
A bracket, comprising: a bracket material layer(12); an adhesive layer (abstract 27 28)attached to the bracket material layer; and
a fiber material layer(13s) attached to the bracket material layer via the adhesive layer(27) for mitigating glare on the bracket material layer([0049]).
Kasetani discloses all of the features of claim 15. Kasetani does not disclose:
That the fiber material layer includes fibers.
However, Kasetani discloses that the sheet 13s may be a light blocking sheet, and as made be made of fibers or not made of fibers. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make it using the fibers for the benefit of easing the manufacture of the device. See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the features of claim 15 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill In the art.
Regarding claim 17.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 15, further comprising: a heating element(20) disposed between the bracket material layer(12) and the adhesive layer(27 28).
Regarding claim 18.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 17, wherein the heating element on the bracket material layer is configured to raise a temperature of the glass disposed on or over the heating element. (20 heating element, for raising the temperature of WG, see [0032])
Regarding claim 19.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 15, wherein the fiber material layer comprises a flock fiber material. (13s being a cloth, see [0030])
Regarding claim 20.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 19, wherein the fiber material layer comprises at least one of a felt fiber material, a microfiber material, or a cloth fiber material. (13s being a cloth, see [0030])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being rendered obvious by Oda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0129404) in view of Bulgajewski (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0031116)
Regarding claim 16.
Kasetani discloses:
The bracket of claim 15, further comprising: a coating layer on the bracket material layer to mitigate the glare.
In related art, Bulgajewski discloses:
The bracket of claim 15, further comprising: a coating layer on the bracket material layer to mitigate the glare. (See [0062]), disclosing that the recited features provides the benefit of allowing the camera to provide better detection in a lighted environment by reducing glare. As such it would have been obvious to provide the glare reducing coating to the device of Kasetani for the benefit of allowing the camera to have better detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-13 are hereby allowed.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
the prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
the bracket material layer comprises a glare shield panel and a side wall attached to the glare shield panel, and wherein the plurality of openings is disposed on at least one of the glare shield panel and the side wall, as recited in claim 8.
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 ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights