Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 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 1 recites "a first glass sheet intended to form an exterior glazing" in line 4, and "a second glass sheet intended to form an interior glazing" in line 10. The claim is not clear because of the phrase "intending" as the laminated glazing's elements are not positively claimed. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting "a first glass sheet forming an exterior glazing" and "a second glass sheet forming an interior glazing."
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the heating electroconductive coating" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher et al (US 2011/0027515) in view of Fedullo et al (US 2019/0225534) and Nagashima et al (US 2022/0289121).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Melcher discloses (See Paragraphs [0025]-[0029], A vehicle glazing (glass pane 1), comprising:
a first glass sheet intended to be the exterior glazing (outer pane 2) with a first external main face and a second internal main face oriented toward a passenger compartment; (the outer pane 2 has a first external facing face and second passenger compartment facing face See Figs 1 and 2),
a lamination interlayer made of polymer material with a first main face oriented toward the second internal main face and a second main face opposite the first main face; (layer 4, has a first external facing face and second passenger compartment facing face See Figs 1 and 2,)
a second glass sheet intended to be the interior glazing (inner pane 3) with a third main face oriented toward the second internal main face and a fourth internal main face oriented toward the passenger compartment (inner pane 3 has a first external facing face and second passenger compartment facing face See Figs 1 and 2,)
a first through-hole, in a thickness of the second glass sheet, the first through-hole being centimetric (hole 7, according to Figure 1, the hole 7 is a through hole in the thickness of the inner glazing 3).
Melcher fails to disclose, the first glass sheet having a total iron oxide content by weight of at most 0.05%, a second through-hole, in the thickness of the second glass sheet, the second through-hole being centimetric, the second through-hole being separated from the first through-hole, under the first through-hole, separated by an interhole distance of at least 8 cm.
Fedullo discloses, a glass for autonomous automobiles and specifically discloses (see Paragraphs [0040] to 0043 of the specification) that the glass sheet preferably has a composition comprising a content, expressed as total weight percent of the glass: total iron (expressed as Fe203) 0.002% to 0.06%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Melcher in view of Fedullo to provide the total iron oxide content as a glass composition combining low levels of iron and chromium shows particularly good performance in infrared reflection and shows high transparency in visible light and a somewhat pronounced tint as well as ensuring transparency of the glass in the visible and infrared regions.
Nagashima discloses glass for vehicles and a camera unit with a first glass sheet 12 and a second glass sheet 14 with an interlayer 16. The glass contains a through hole 19 in the glass. Fig 8 shows camera CA1 is mounted in line with the through hole for transmitting light to the camera. A second camera CA2 would be positioned next to a second through hole for receiving visible light. (See Paragraphs [0070], [0080])
It would have been obvious to adapt Melcher in view of Nagashima to provide the second through hole for adding a second camera which receives a different type of light. It has also been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second through hole is a duplication of the first through hole for the same purpose. It would have been obvious to space the through holes at least 8cm apart (paragraph [0094]) to account for the focal regions of the devices being mounted.
Regarding claim 2, Melcher discloses, when the second sheet has an upper longitudinal edge face, the first through opening is closed on the upper longitudinal edge face. (See Fig 1). Nagashima discloses (See Fig 9) an embodiment where the second camera is below the first camera meaning the first hole would be between the second through hole and an edge. It would have been obvious to adapt Melcher in view of Nagashima to provide the through hole placement as this would depend on the desired application and design of the vehicle and vehicle glazing.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been obvious to size the through holes based on their location on the glazing and the type of camera being used. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11-14, Melcher fails to disclose a functional element bonded to the lamination interlayer, wherein the functional element comprising a sheet of sub-millimetric thickness said functional element comprising: a first zone facing the first through-hole, a second zone facing the second through-hole, said functional element; being transparent to an infrared working wavelength in a range from 800 nm to 1800 nm, and said functional element being present between the first and second through-holes, thus taking up a surface encompassing the first and second through-holes.
Fedullo discloses regarding claims 11 and 13-18 a functional element such as a reflective coating having a transmission range from 750-1050 nm. The interlayer 4 is located between the faces of two glazing elements 1 and 2. (See Paragraphs [0062], [0069]-[0070]). The coating is not the the way of the LiDAR which would be located in a through hole in the glazing so as to not affect the functionality. (See Paragraph [0074]) Regarding claim 12, As the coating is metallic it would function as a heating electroconductive coating. The remainder of claim 12 after the and/or clause is optional and is not given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to adapt Melcher in view of Fedullo to provide a functional element bonded to the lamination interlayer, wherein the functional element comprising a sheet of sub-millimetric thickness said functional element comprising: a first zone facing the first through-hole, a second zone facing the second through-hole, said functional element; being transparent to an infrared working wavelength in a range from 800 nm to 1800 nm, and said functional element being present between the first and second through-holes, thus taking up a surface encompassing the first and second through-holes, in order to improve radiation transmission to the infrared sensor
Regarding claim 19, Melcher discloses the infrared vision system 10 having an emitter and detector disposed in the passenger compartment. (See Paragraphs [0003], [0014], [0026]). Fedullo discloses a infrared based sensing device operating in the 750-1050 nm range. It would have been obvious to use the 800 nm to 1800 nm range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Nagashima discloses glass for vehicles and a camera unit with a first glass sheet 12 and a second glass sheet 14 with an interlayer 16. The glass contains a through hole 19 in the glass. Fig 8 shows camera CA1 is mounted in line with the through hole for transmitting light to the camera. A second camera CA2 would be positioned next to a second through hole for receiving visible light. (See Paragraphs [0070], [0080])
It would have been obvious to adapt Melcher in view of Nagashima to provide the second through hole for adding a second camera which receives a different type of light. It has also been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second through hole is a duplication of the first through hole for the same purpose. It would have been obvious to space the through holes at least 8cm apart (paragraph [0094]) to account for the focal regions of the devices being mounted.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher et al (US 2011/0027515) in view of Fedullo et al (US 2019/0225534), Nagashima et al (US 2022/0289121) and Lynam (US 5,239,406).
Regarding claim 5, Melcher as modified teaches the vehicle glazing and interlayer 4 but fails to disclose the metal wire bonded to the lamination interlayer.
Lynam discloses a vehicle glazing including metal wires on the second main face (column 34, lines 44-52 teaching wires connected to layer 256 and figures 37 and 38 showing layer 256 on the second internal main face) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to include the wires of Lynam in the product of Melcher because wires
allow the user to defrost the windshield in times of inclement weather (column 34, lines 44-52)
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher et al (US 2011/0027515) in view of Fedullo et al (US 2019/0225534), Nagashima et al (US 2022/0289121) and Ogawa et al (US 2021/0001695).
The teachings of Melcher have been discussed above. Melcher fails to disclose a first and second local heating zone in from of the first and second through holes. Ogawa discloses, regarding claims 6-8 a local heating zone over an area where a camera would be mounted. (See Fig 1) The device comprises two busbars 312, 313, and a heating layer 3. It would have been obvious to provide a first and second local heating zone, powered by a busbar, in from of the first and second through holes for preventing fog from accumulating in front of the measurement devices. The two heating zones would have been obvious based on the modification of Nagashima, for adding a second camera which receives a different type of light. It has also been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The second through hole is a duplication of the first through hole for the same purpose. It would have been obvious to space the through holes at least 8cm apart (paragraph [0094]) to account for the focal regions of the devices being mounted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/2/2026
Prosecution Insights