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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 and 12/01/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-10, 12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al (US 2011/0134655).
Regarding claim 1, Ohtani discloses a glass cover for an optical sensor comprising a heating system comprising:
a. a pattern of wires (Fig. 11 #22 conductive thin metal wires) made of a conductive material positioned in a field of view of the optical sensor on the glass cover;
b. at least two electronic pads (Fig. 11 #48b copper tapes) positioned out of the field of view of the optical sensor on the glass cover configured to connect the pattern of wires to a power supply.
However, Ohtani does not explicitly disclose wherein the wires have a width between 14 and 300 µm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a with between the wires of 14 and 300 µm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the conductive material is a conductive ink or a conductive paste ([0127] lines 1-3 ---"In the third method, as shown in FIG. 17A, a paste 74 containing fine metal particles is printed on the transparent film 40 to form the mesh pattern 24.” The mesh pattern 24 is formed by the conductive thin metal wires 22.).
Regarding claim 3, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a pitch of the pattern of wires is between 4 and 20 mm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the wires of 4 and 20 mm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the glass cover is a portion of a windshield, a sidelite or a backlite of a vehicle or a portion of a trim element of a vehicle (Examiner notes that the phrase “wherein the glass cover is a portion…” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Ohtani can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 5, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the wires are deposited on the glass cover by silk screen, digital printing or aerosol printing (Examiner considers the limitation “the wires are deposited…” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the conductive material is composed of particles of a diameter lower than 5 µm (0203] lines 2-6 ---" The amount of the gelatin was 7.5 g per 60 g of Ag (silver) in the aqueous medium, and the silver iodobromide particles had an I content of 2 mol % and an average spherical equivalent diameter of 0.05 .mu.m.”).
Regarding claim 7, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the conductive material is composed of nanoparticles ([0019] ---" [3] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains randomly dispersed metal nanomaterials having a diameter of 2 .mu.m or less, which are crossed and connected to each other.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Ohtani teaches wherein the particles or nanoparticles are made of silver ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the pattern of wires is mainly constituted by horizontal or vertical or oblique wires ([0101] lines 5-8 ---" It is preferred that the mesh pattern 24 contains the thin metal wires 22 extending in the horizontal direction and the thin metal wires 22 extending in the vertical direction perpendicular thereto.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the optical sensor is a lidar ("[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Examiner considers the claimed lidar sensor to be the workpiece and not an element of the claimed invention.).
Regarding claim 12, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Ohtani teaches wherein the glass cover is coated with a magnetron coating (Examiner considers the limitation “the glass cover is coated with a magnetron coating” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 16, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the wires have a width between 25 and 200 µm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a with between the wires of 25 and 200 µm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the wires have a width between 35 and 100 µm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a with between the wires of 35 and 100 µm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the wires have a width between 45 and 55 µm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0011] lines 1-4 ---" Meanwhile, in terms of the car light, the conductive pattern in the structure described in Japanese Laid-Open Patent Publication No. 2007-026989 has a large width of 50 to 500 .mu.m.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a with between the wires of 45 and 55 µm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the pitch of the pattern of wires is between 5 and 15 mm.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the wires of 5 and 15 mm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the pitch of the pattern of wires is between 6 and 10 mm ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches an overlapping range ([0021] ---"[5] A curved-surface body according to the first aspect, wherein the transparent conductor contains a large number of connected thin metal wires formed by exposing and developing a silver salt emulsion layer containing a silver halide, and the thin metal wires have a width of 1 to 40 .mu.m and are arranged at a distance of 0.1 to 50 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the wires of 6 and 10 mm, since it has been held that that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suetsugu et al (US 2017/0223779).
Regarding claim 15, Suetsugu discloses a method to obtain the glass cover according to claim 1 comprising
providing a glass (Fig. 2 #11,12 pair of glass plates);
printing the pattern of wires (Fig. 11 #40 conductive pattern) made of the conductive material on the glass (Fig. 2 #11,12 pair of glass plates), by silk screen ([0013] lines 7-9 ---"Further, there is disclosed that heating wire are formed by printing heating wires on a substrate by means of a screen printing plate.”), digital printing or aerosol printing;
and connecting the pattern of wires (Fig. 11 #40 conductive pattern) to a power supply (Fig. 2 #7 a power source) through at least two electronic pads (Fig. 2 #15 wiring part and #16 connection part) positioned on the glass (Fig. 2 #11,12 pair of glass plates).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al (US 2011/0134655) as applied to claim 1, in view of Mannheim et al (US 2021/0070019).
Regarding claim 11, Ohtani teaches the glass cover as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the wires are coated with a polymeric resin.
Nonetheless, Mannheim in the same field of endeavor being automotive window heating teaches wherein the wires are coated with a polymeric resin ([0073] lines 4-9 ---" These adhesives are formed by partially curing optically clear resins (OCR) at ˜70° C. and forming pliable films that also have some level of adherence. These films may be comprised of acrylics, epoxy resins, silicones, and urethanes disposed in such way that they are compatible with the surfaces to be bonded.”).
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 glass cover of Ohtani by incorporating the polymeric resin as taught by Mannheim for the benefit of fixing the heating element in the windshield. (Mannheim [0073])
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond et al (US 2018/0263082) in view of Ohtani et al (US 2011/0134655).
Regarding claim 13, Richmond discloses a sensor device comprising a housing (Fig. 1 #102 housing) and a sensor (Fig. 11 $104 sensor).
However, Richmond does not disclose a glass cover according to claim 1.
Nonetheless, Ohtani teaches a glass cover according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1)
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 sensor device of Richmond by incorporating the glass cover as taught by Ohtani for the benefit of improving the heat generation uniformity and solving the migration problem inexpensively. (Ohtani [0016])
Regarding claim 14, Richmond in view of Ohtani teaches the sensor device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 13), and Richmond teaches wherein the sensor is a lidar ([0025] lines 1-3 ---" The sensor device 104 may be a visible light camera, RADAR transceiver, LIDAR transceiver, or ultrasonic transceiver.”).
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