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 June 18th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to Claim 1 only partially address the rejections under 112, while the limitation “ensure that any” has been addressed, the claims and specification still fail to convey an algorithm that is used to calculate the duration of time needed for de-icing. As the rejections under 112 have only been partially addressed, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections to claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 of the prior Office Action have been considered but are moot because the amendment to Claim 1 has necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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: window heating device in claim 1.
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.
The “window heating device” in line 10 of Claim 1 is deemed to invoke analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under Prong A, the language of the claimed does not explicitly use the term “means” or “step” as an explicit invocation of 112(f) analysis, but the claim provides the nonce term “device” that triggers analysis under 112(f).
Moving to Prong B, the “window heating device” is linked by the following functional language “providing heat from the window heating device directly onto the front window and/or the rear window”.
Concluding under Prong C, the specification provides in paragraph [0011] that the window heating device has electric heating elements, such as heating wires, and/or a heating fan that aims air outflow directly at the inside of the window. The additional structure provided by the specification provides sufficient modification to the structure such that further analysis under 112(f) is no longer necessary.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim and specification lack any algorithm that specifies or predicts what the measured threshold is for activating the de-icing functions or for calculating the start time for any required de-icing.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the claims add the limitation of using either a timer or calendar link to determine the scheduled departure time. Neither claim provides any further context into how the start time for any required de-icing is calculated.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, the use of machine learning further fails to provide any indication as to what the model will be trained against to calculate the start time of any required de-icing.
Regarding Claims 5-9, the claims fail to state how the required start time for de-icing is calculated. Each of the claims includes taking measurements or readings from sensors or cameras to check the windows for icing. None of the claims specify how the addition of their respective limitations determines how the start time of the required de-icing is calculated. Specifically, as ice accumulates on the windshield, data provided by each of the limitations expressed in the claims will reach a plateau point, wherein the measured data from the claims respective sensors or cameras fail to relate how the date correlates to calculating a start time for the required de-icing.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim incorporates the use of meteorological data that is captured by the vehicle. The specification and claim fail to point out how the measured meteorological data is utilized to calculate the start time for the required de-icing.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim limitation of a heating fan fails to teach how the start time for the required de-icing is calculated.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the claim limitations of providing heat directly onto the window, as well as deactivating before the car is completely pre-climatized fail to teach how the start time for the required de-icing is calculated.
Regarding Claim 15, while the claim addresses calculating the start time for de-icing by obtaining an indication of presence of ice or a temperature indication on either the front or rear window, the claim still fails to relate how the length of time is determined for any required de-icing functions. There is no relation provided in the claims or specification that relates the indication of a temperature or presence of ice on the windows with determining of calculating what quantity of time is required for de-icing functions to be performed before the planned departure time.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 includes the limitation of ending direct de-icing of the front and/or rear window before a complete pre-climatization has been achieved. Claim 1 is limited by calculating the time necessary to de-ice the windows prior to the departure time and Claim 14 is limited by completing the de-icing process as well as deactivating the de-icing function prior to the interior being pre-climatized. Claim 14 fails to further Claim 1, as independent Claim 1 would need to expand in scope to account for the additional limitation required to account for the climatization of the interior of the vehicle when calculating the appropriate time required to start the de-icing function prior to a planned or predicted departure time. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for de-icing a front and/or rear window where a planned departure time is set, the presence of ice is checked or predicted prior to leaving, the appropriate start time for de-icing is calculated based on ice presence, and the de-icing process is started by activating a window heating device which provides heat to the front and/or rear window. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than an automated routine capable of being performed by human, by hand or by merely thinking. Setting a planned departure time, checking the windows for ice presence or predicting ice presence prior to the departure time, and then determining based on the presence or predicted ice presence, the appropriate time for de-icing are all nothing more than simple mental determinations. The final process of activating a window heating device amounts to nothing more than applying an insignificant extra-solution activity of activating a device, the window heater, to perform the intended function of applying heat to a window. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mental process of scheduling a time to leave, determining if ice is present, and calculating how much time is required to de-ice the windows are all generic abstract mental processes, and the further limitation of activating a device to perform it’s intended function amount to nothing more than the equivalent of an idea that is capable of being performed by a human analog.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-114523934-A), in view of Petrenko (US-8921739-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches (Figs 1-4) a defrosting method (Claim 10 and Figure 1) for the front and/or rear windshield (10) of a vehicle, that includes but is not limited to electric, hybrid, and internal combustion vehicles ([0040]). The defrosting method includes obtaining the vehicles scheduled departure time determining whether the windshield requires defrosting by estimating the likelihood and severity of frost formation, then estimating the amount of time required for defrosting relative to the scheduled departure time ([0008] & [0016]). At the determined defrost activation time, the defrosting control device (30) turns on the defrost device to defrost the windshield ([0037]). However, Zhang does not specifically teach activating a window hating device and providing heat from the window heating device directly onto the front window and/or the rear window.
Petrenko teaches (Figs 1-11) a system and method for windshield deicing. Specifically, Petrenko teaches a windshield heater (856) that covers most of the de-iceable area of the windshield (850), with separate heating elements (852) to heat windshield wiper rest areas (854) ([68]). Additionally, Petrenko teaches the windshield deicing system (300) has an alternator (30), battery (32), inverter (35), windshield heater (37), switches (33, 34, 36), and controller (303) to control deicing and anti-icing operations ([32], [40], [41]). This windshield heater allows for rapid and energy-efficient deicing, where only a thin, or boundary, layer of ice is heated to the melting point ([20]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned and further teaches that a trained machine learning model can be used to identify travel over a period of time and then predict the scheduled departure time ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned and further teaches that current external meteorological conditions at the vehicle’s geographical locations as well as weather conditions for the next 12 hours can be used in predicting the icing conditions on the windshield along with the required defrost time prior to the scheduled departure time ([0053]).
Zhang and Petrenko are analogous to the instant application because both inventions teach methods on how to control the defroster/deicing operation in a vehicle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang, to incorporate the method taught by Petrenko, where a defogging device is applied directly to the inner side of windshield to provide defogging and defrosting for the windshield.
Furthermore, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to modify the method taught by Zhang of defrosting a windshield prior to an anticipated drive, to include the method of applying a heating device directly to the interior side of a windshield as taught by Petrenko, to have a method where the defroster is automatically switched on prior to a scheduled or anticipated drive to deice the windows of the vehicle, allowing for efficient use of energy to deice the windows.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Petrenko in view of Limbacher (WO-2021152056-A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the claimed elements as previously stated but fails to specifically claim that the departure time is either set by a departure timer or a user’s existing electronic calendar.
Limbacher teaches a method for planning the departure of a vehicle where the departure date signal can be obtained from a departure timer or calendar data input from the user’s mobile device ([0015]). Additionally, Limbacher teaches that the defrosting device can be turned on prior to the departure if ice has been detected ([0049]). Limbacher’s method is advantageous as it allows for defrosting to be scheduled in time of the planned departure time ([0050]).
Zhang, Petrenko, and Limbacher are analogous to the present invention because all the references teach methods that prepare a vehicle for an upcoming departure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Zhang and Petrenko to incorporate the method taught by Limbacher to provide a vehicle that can utilize a departure timer or a user’s electronic calendar to prepare a vehicle for drive by de-icing the windows in anticipation of the scheduled departure time.
Furthermore, an artisan having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Zhang’s method of checking the windows for ice and deicing the windows in appropriate time before the schedule drive to incorporate the method of Limbacher where the departure time is set by a departure timer or suer’s existing calendar to provide a method where the departure time is set by a user’s calendar or a preset departure timer, and the amount of time required to defrost the windshield is based off this requirement, and the windshield is scheduled to be defrosted in anticipation of this departure time.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Petrenko in view of Sandhu (US-20210094386-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except the use of temperature and humidity sensors to check for icing on the windows.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except the use of a front camera to check for icing on the front window.
Sandhu teaches a (Figure 1) defroster assembly (24) for a vehicle which includes at least one humidity sensor (26), a first and second temperature sensor (28 and 30), and the lens (34) of a camera (32) pointed at the windshield to determine the status of the windshield ([0034-0035]). Sandhu further discloses that the data taken from the sensors and camera can be analyzed by the body controller (36) to determine if predetermined temperature and moisture thresholds have been met in deciding whether to activate the defroster assembly (0035]), the body controller can further be connected to a telecommunications device (34) via a telecommunications system (40) to active or prearrange activation of the defrost assembly ([0038]).
Zhang, Petrenko, and Sandhu are analogous to the instant application because all the inventions teach methods on how to automatically activate the defroster in a vehicle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang and Petrenko to incorporate the method taught by Sandhu to incorporate a camera, along with humidity and temperature sensors, to determine the current status of the windshield in order to determine whether the defroster requires activation prior to the vehicle’s scheduled departure time.
Furthermore, the artisan of ordinary skill would be able to modify the method taught by Zhang and Petrenko of defrosting a windshield prior to an anticipated drive, to include the method of automatic defrosting based on various temperature and humidity sensors, as well as a camera, to develop a method where the decision to defrost a windshield prior to a scheduled drive is determined by the status of the windshield as measured by various sensors and cameras.
Claims 6, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Petrenko in view of Boss (US-20200156593-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except that ice is checked on the front and/or rear window by sensing mechanical resistance during small movements of a window wiper.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except that ice is checked on the front and/or rear window by using a machine learning model that is trained to predict a need for activating de-icing functions from operator inputs of a user with respect to de-icing functions of the front window and/or rear window in past comparable ambient conditions.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except that a start time for de-icing includes obtaining an indication of a temperature experiences by the front window and/or rear window and/or obtaining an indication of a presence of ice on the front window and/or rear window; and determining a length of time of de-icing functions to be performed before the planned departure time based on the obtained indication of the temperature and/or the obtained indication of the presence of ice.
Boss teaches (Figs 1-5) a method for de-icing vehicles (Figure 2) wherein a windshield wiper (160) utilizes a sensor (165) connected to the wiper to measure the deflection of the wiper via movement across the windshield or the difference in spring tension within the wiper to determine the thickness of ice that has accumulated on the windshield ([0078]). The computer (140) utilizes predefined calibration to equate amount of deflection to a thickness of ice on the windshield ([0079]). Additionally, Boss teaches that the system utilizes machine learning to develop a personalized proactive response for the user by analyzing data patterns for the vehicle on factors such as upcoming vehicle usage, current outside air temp, and weather data of the vehicle before and during the upcoming usage of the vehicle ([0021]). Boss further teaches that the invention can be incorporated into the automated activation of the deicing system, where the computer can be configured to start the deicing based on input received from the input of the user’s device (196) or machine learning to turn on the deicing system prior to the predicted time the user will start driving ([0080]). Boss also teaches the includes of at least one sensor that detects the presence of ice on the windshield, as well as determines the thickness of the ice on the windshield based on measurements obtained by the system ([0016], [0046], [0056], [0079]). This collected data allows the computer device to determine the amount of time it takes to melt the ice and then start a deicing system of the vehicle so that the ice is melted when the driver arrives ([0018], [0022]).
Zhang, Petrenko, and Boss are analogous to the present invention because all inventions teach methods on how to deice vehicles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang and Petrenko to incorporate the method taught by Boss in a vehicle defrosting device where the deflection caused by the resistance of a wiper over an icy windshield, along with machine learning on similar weather patterns, temperature readings, and sensors are used to determine the amount of ice on a windshield, the time required to melt the ice, and subsequently deice the windshield prior to a scheduled drive.
Furthermore, it would be well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the scheduled departure method of Zhang and Petrenko, including checking for and subsequently deicing the windshield prior to departure, to further incorporate the method taught by Boss of determining thickness of ice by measuring the mechanical resistance of the wiper either by deflection of by the tension in a spring, or by also incorporating a machine learning system to analyze how a user utilizes the defrosting unit in prior comparable conditions to develop a system the proactively activates the defrosting system in preparation of an anticipated drive to develop a method where the amount of time required to defrost the windshield prior to a scheduled departure is determined by the measured mechanical resistance of the wipers over the ice on the windshield or by incorporating machine learning to compare with how the defroster unit handled prior similar conditions. This allows the system to ensure the vehicle is ice free when the driver arrives at the vehicle.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Petrenko in view of Delorme (US-20120047929-A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except utilizing the change of resistance in the electrical heating elements of the front and rear window to check for icing on the window.
Delorme teaches a method for controlling (Figure 1) the defrost unit of a vehicle where the defrost unit (102) includes an electric grid (105) used to heat the surface (101) of the windshield (106) or rear glass (104) ([0012]). Delorme further teaches that drivers may not realize the need for defrosting and may not activate or deactivate the defrost unit at optimal times, causing increased energy consumption and wear on the unit ([0059]). The method taught by Delorme additionally provides for the automatic activation of the defrost unit once condensation has been predicted to have formed and then automatic deactivation once the condensation has been deemed to have dissipated ([0059]). To do this, electrical resistance across the electric grid is obtained by the sensors and/or receivers (114), where data is then provided to the processor (127) to determine the temperature of the electric grid ([0045-0046]). The electric grid temperature is then used to determine surface temperature, which in turn is then used to predict whether condensation has formed on the windshield ([0042] & [0050]). If condensation has been predicted to form, then the defrost unit can be configured to apply heat to the surface of the vehicle ([0049]).
Zhang, Petrenko, and Delorme are analogous to the present invention because all the inventions teach methods on how to control the defrosting of a front or rear window. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang and Petrenko to incorporate the method taught by Delorme to check the level of icing on a vehicle window by measuring the electrical resistance of the heating elements within the window and automatically activating the defrosting device prior to a planned departure time of the vehicle.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the method provided by Zhang and Petrenko of scheduling a departure time, and checking to see if icing has occurred on the front windshield prior to departure, to incorporate the method of Delorme by also checking the electrical resistance across the front or rear windows into a method where the scheduled departure time is determined by how much resistance is determined by the electrical changes within the windshield elements.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Petrenko in view of Litz (US-20200148037-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except the window heating device comprises a heating fan.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang and Petrenko teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except providing heat from the window heating device directly onto the window further comprises providing heat directly onto an inside of the front window and/or the rear window.
Litz teaches (Figs 1-3) a heating system for a vehicle windshield. Specifically, Litz teaches that the heating system for a windshield includes a fan unit configured to produce a hot air flow at an inner side of the windshield ([0005]-[0006]). Litz further teaches that the windshield (9) is heated/defrosted from the inner side, where an integrated fan unit (21) conveys hot air from a heat source (22) that can be an electric or motor vehicle (1) ([0014]). Additionally, Litz teaches that fan unit produces a hot air flow (W) guided through a first channel (23) of a partition unit (24) to the inner side of the windshield (9) ([0014]-[0015]). Furthermore, Litz teaches that the partition unit concentrates hot air flow into a heating region, delaying the mixture with cooler air from the inner region; this partition provides the benefit of higher temperatures on the inner side of the windshield, more effective and rapid defrosting can be achieved by the same power of the fan unit, and even additional sound insulation ([0027]).
Zhang, Tessuya, and Litz are analogous to the present invention because all the inventions teach methods to provide heat to a windshield. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang and Petrenko to incorporate the device taught by Litz to incorporate a window heating device that includes a fan that generates a hot air flow that is blown directly onto the inner side of the window, thus providing heat directly onto the inside of the window.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the method provided by Zhang and Petrenko of scheduling a departure time, and checking to see if icing has occurred on the front windshield prior to departure, to incorporate the device of Litz by utilizing a heating system that generates a hot air flow by use of fan and partition to blow heated air directly onto the inner side of the window, this provides a more effective and rapid defrosting of the window, as well as providing a quieter ride due to the use of the partition.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Petrenko, and Litz in view of Delorme.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Petrenko, and Litz teach all of the elements of the method as stated above except the ending of direct de-icing of the front window and/or the rear window before achieving a complete pre-climatization of an interior of the electric vehicle.
Delorme teaches the method and system for controlling vehicle defrost units as previously mentioned and further teaches that the defrosting unit (102) can be automatically deactivated to effectively reduce energy consumption ([0055], [0059]). The defrost unit includes a processor (127) that processes the values obtained via the sensors and lookup tables to compute and control the functions of the system ([0023], [0046]-[0047], [0054]-[0056]). Delorme further teaches that the processor is able to compare temperatures inside and outside of the vehicle to predict if condensation has formed, and then selectively activate and deactivate the defrost unit once a determination has been made that the condensation has dissipated ([0056]-[0059]). The automatic activation and deactivation of the defrost unit can effectively reduce energy consumption, vehicle emissions, and wear on the defrost system ([0059].
Zhang, Petrenko, Litz, and Delorme are analogous to the present inventions because all the inventions teach methods to de-ice a windshield. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Zhang, Petrenko, and Litz to incorporate the method taught by Delorme, to provide a method of deicing a vehicle where the controller of the system reads and compares values from sensors and tables to determine when to effectively activate and then deactivate the de-icing system upon complete de-icing of the windshield, thus ensuring that energy is not wasted by other parts of the electric vehicle.
Furthermore, it is well within the ordinary skill of an artisan to modify the method provided by Zhang, Petrenko, and Litz of scheduling a departure time, and checking to see if icing has occurred on the front windshield prior to departure, incorporating a heating system that generates a hot air flow by use of fan and partition to blow heated air directly onto the inner side of the window, and either actives or deactivates the window de-icing system when needed to ensure that energy is not wasted when not required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights