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 .
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 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Imeson US 2024/0014617.
11. Kim teaches vehicle window, comprising: a clear substrate (transparent substrate 23 and 44, paragraph 0077) having a surface for lamination (surface of substrate on which conductive lines/ink can be disposed, paragraph 0077) of a transparent circuit thereupon; a transparent conductive ink (paragraph 0069, 0071, 0073, transparent conductive material which can be a conductive ink) deposited upon the clear substrate (23, 44) for forming customizable and controllable arrangements (can be used to incorporate electrical components such as LEDs and/or sensors, paragraph 0077; paragraph 0079 suggest customizing; 0093-94 teaches control circuitry and related control signals) to thereby form the transparent circuit; a polymer encasement (72 Fig 16) for embedding the clear substrate and transparent circuit therein (upper and lower layers of 72 are laminated to substrate 44 and embed the circuit, substrate, and LEDs, see Fig 16 and paragraph 0086); an electrical connection to a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (see electrical connections discussed in paragraphs 0091-0094; components 24 may be LEDs or micro-LEDs, paragraph 0080); electrical connection of circuit with conductors embedded in the polymer encasement (upper and lower layers of 72 are laminated to substrate 44 and embed the circuit, substrate, and LEDs, see Fig 16 and paragraph 0086) and arranged in a pattern (see pattern of LEDs in Fig 16); and at least one capacitive switch operating as a capacitive button for controlling the plurality of LEDs (teaches the use of capacitive touch sensors as a means to control the device in paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0063 and 0094).
Regarding the device being a vehicle window, Kim teaches that the device can be in equipment that is integrated into a vehicle and also teaches it can be built into a window (see paragraph 0056) but is silent to specifically teaching wherein the clear substrate is a vehicle window. Imeson teaches the concept of incorporating transparent substrate with electronic components (22, which can be LEDs) therein within a vehicle window (see Fig 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Imeson and utilize the device in a vehicle window to provide additional utility for the device of Kim.
13. Kim in view of Imeson teach the vehicle window of claim 11, further comprising a microcontroller (control circuitry considered equivalent to microcontroller, see abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0063) actuated by the at least one capacitive switch for directing certain ones of the plurality of LEDs to illuminate (see paragraph 0063 Kim).
14. Kim in view of Imeson teach the vehicle window of claim 13, wherein the microcontroller comprises programming to direct certain of the plurality of LEDs to illuminate to convey at least one message (Kim teaches that light may form a label such as an alphanumeric character, logo, etc, paragraph 0098, which is interpreted as a message).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Imeson US 2024/0014617 and further in view of Lefevre WO 2007085599.
12. Kim in view of Imeson teach the vehicle window of claim 11, but fail to further teach the vehicle window comprises an automobile sunroof. Lefevre teaches the vehicle window comprises an automobile sunroof (see abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Lefevre and utilize the device in a vehicle sunroof for applications where utilizing the device in a sunroof is desired.
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in response to the amendments to the claims. Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/27/26 with respect to prior art of failing to teach or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 are persuasive. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. The arguments regarding claim 11 are not persuasive. The use of capacitive touch sensors as a means to control the device in paragraphs 0053, 0054, 0063 and 0094 is the equivalent to a capacitive switch, particularly since Kim teaches actuator components incorporated into the display (paragraph 0054). The combination with Imeson was for a teaching of utilizing a transparent substrate with electronic components (22, which can be LEDs) therein within a vehicle window (see Fig 1), the motivation therein to be to provide additional utility for the device of Kim. Claims 1-10 are in condition for allowance. Claims 11-14 remain rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As for claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a circuit system, comprising:
a clear substrate having a surface for application of a translucent conductive circuit thereupon
a translucent conductive ink deposited upon the clear substrate for forming customizable and controllable arrangements to thereby form the translucent conductive circuit
a polymer encasement for embedding the clear substrate and circuit translucent conductive circuit therein
an electrical connection from the circuit system to at least one electronic component.
As for claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a circuit system, comprising:
a clear substrate having a surface for forming a translucent circuit thereupon
a translucent conductive ink deposited upon the clear substrate for forming customizable and controllable arrangements to thereby form the translucent circuit
a polymer encasement for embedding the clear substrate and translucent circuit therein; and an electrical connection from the circuit system to a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in a pattern.
The closest prior art found was Kim US 2017/0040306. Kim teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 except that Kim teaches transparent materials for the conductive ink and circuit rather than using translucent materials. Upon further consideration, given the context of Kim’s teachings it would not be appropriate to substitute translucent materials in for the transparent materials since Kim teaches that other diffuse elements are to be attached/mounted to the device and shows this being added outside of the transparent ink/circuit material layers (paragraph 0112, and 106 Fig 17).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haynes US ‘578 teaches a transparent circuit with a transparent or translucent ink (paragraph 0040).
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 Evan P Dzierzynski whose telephone number is (571)272-2336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm PST.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875