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.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 14-17, no prior art rejection is given, however, no indication of allowable subject matter is made herein due to the rejections under 112.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the color matching grid and the transparent supporting body is provided with a groove must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 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 2, the recitation of “wherein the at least one penetration window comprises a plurality of penetration windows, and the plurality of penetration windows are randomly or regularly distributed between the conductive grid” is unclear if the applicant intends to that one of the at least one penetration windows has a plurality of penetration windows inside it or if the applicant is trying to disclose that there is a plurality of penetration windows that are randomly or regularly distributed between the conductive grid. In light of the disclosure of the specification and the drawings, the examiner is interpreting this to mean that there is a plurality of penetration windows that are randomly or regularly distributed between the conductive grid.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, 14, and 18 the recitation of a “color matching grid” is unclear because one skilled in the art would not be apprised of what specific structure meets the claimed structure/elements to be color matching. That is to what structure is the color “matching.”
Claims 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, and 17 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “and a grid line of the color matching grid is disconnected to form an open circuit” is unclear what the color matching grid is disconnected from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20140216804A1 Yang.
Regarding claim 1,
Yang teaches,
A transparent heating film (conductive film 100 and 100’), comprising:
a transparent supporting body (substrate 101 par. 40 teaches transparency), wherein a side of the transparent supporting body is provided with a plurality of trenches (fig. 1b mesh shaped grooves 103) interconnected to each other in a grid shape (par. 41 teaches grids of various shapes);
a conductive grid (formed by conducive layer 102 fig. 1b), wherein the conductive grid is formed by filling the plurality of trenches with a conductive material (par. 40 teaches conductive layer 102 being formed by filling mesh shaped groove 103 with a conductive material, silver);
and at least one penetration window, located between and partitioned with the conductive grid (par. 40 teaches that conductive film 100’ is similar to conductive film 100 with the distinction that conductive film 100’ includes a substrate 101 vs having a plurality of layers as with conducive film 100, therefore, the rejection herein combines the embodiments of 100’ and 100 for the physical aspects of the trenches and application of the conductive layers from the embodiment of 100 into the embodiment of 100 therefore, mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ are penetration windows).
Regarding claim 2,
Yang teaches,
The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the at least one penetration window comprises a plurality of penetration windows, and the plurality of penetration windows are randomly or regularly distributed between the conductive grid (figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4c).
Regarding claim 3,
Yang teaches,
The transparent heating film according to claim 2 (as discussed above),
wherein the plurality of penetration windows are in one or more shapes of a triangle, a polygon, an S shape, and a circle (figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4c).
Regarding claim 6,
Yang teaches,
The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the penetration window is configured to be blank inside (substrate 101 par. 40 teaches transparency therefore, the transparent material of mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ which are penetration windows are anticipated to be blank inside).
Regarding claim 11,
Yang teaches,
The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein a width of the trench ranges from 500 nm to 10 μm, and a depth of the trench ranges from 1 μm to 20 μm (par. 38).
Regarding claim 13,
Yang teaches,
The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the transparent supporting body is a substrate layer (second embodiment of fig. 1b and par. 40);
or the transparent heating film further comprises the substrate layer, and the transparent supporting body is stacked on the substrate layer (first embodiment of fig. 1A).
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) 4, 5, 10, 12, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140216804A1 Yang in view of US20180070411A1 Wei.
Regarding claim 4,
Yang teaches, The transparent heating film according to claim 3 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein a minimum side length and/or a minimum width of the penetration window is greater than or equal to 1 mm.
Wei teaches a photocurable layer 145 with channels 125 filled with microwires 115 and is analogous art, Wei further teaches wherein a minimum side length and/or a minimum width of the penetration window (spacing s between microwires 115) is greater than or equal to 1 mm (par. 42 teaches at least 100um which encompasses the range of equal to or greater than 1mm and is maintained by Wei to ensure transparency of photo layer 145).
Therefore, 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 sizes of mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ of Yang per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to ensure transparency of photo layer 145 (Wei par. 42).
Regarding claim 5,
Yang teaches, The transparent heating film according to claim 3 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein a width of the penetration window ranges from 1 mm to 10 cm.
Wei teaches a photocurable layer 145 with channels 125 filled with microwires 115 and is analogous art, Wei further teaches wherein a width of the penetration window (spacing s between microwires 115) ranges from 1 mm to 10 cm (par. 42 teaches at least 100um which encompasses the range of equal to or greater than 1mm and is maintained by Wei to ensure transparency of photo layer 145).
Therefore, 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 sizes of mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ of Yang per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to ensure transparency of photo layer 145 (Wei par. 42).
Regarding claim 10,
Yang teaches, The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein a depth-to-width ratio of the trench is greater than or equal to 2.
Wei teaches a photocurable layer 145 with channels 125 filled with microwires 115 and is analogous art, Wei further teaches wherein a depth-to-width ratio of the trench is greater than or equal to 2 (par. 42 teaches the width W of the micro-wires should be less than about 10 μm, and preferably are in the range 4 μm≦W≦9 μm…and… the thickness of the micro-wires is in the range 6 μm≦H≦30 μm, with the thickness of the micro-wires being at least 1.5 times their width, which encompasses the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, 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 grooves 130 of Yang per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to maintain aspect ratios and proper cross sectional areas for proper wire design for signal carrying capacity (Wei par. 42).
Regarding claim 12,
Yang teaches, The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein a part of the conductive grid is configured as an electrode;
or the transparent supporting body further comprises a line-shaped trench, and the line-shaped trench is filled with the conductive material to form the electrode electrically connected to the conductive grid;
or the transparent heating film further comprises the electrode stacked on the transparent supporting body and electrically connected to the conductive grid.
Wei teaches a photocurable layer 145 with channels 125 filled with microwires 115 and is analogous art, Wei further teaches wherein a part of the conductive grid (heater region 105) is configured as an electrode (electrodes 120);
or the transparent supporting body further comprises a line-shaped trench, and the line-shaped trench is filled with the conductive material to form the electrode electrically connected to the conductive grid;
or the transparent heating film further comprises the electrode stacked on the transparent supporting body and electrically connected to the conductive grid.
Therefore, 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 conductive layer 102 of Yang for use as an electrode or power source connection per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to connect to a power source to provide current to the apparatus (Wei par. 40).
Regarding claim 18,
Yang teaches, except where struck through, A transparent heating film (conductive film 100 and 100’), comprising a transparent supporting body (substrate 101 par. 40 teaches transparency), wherein a side of the transparent supporting body is provided with a trench in a grid shape (fig. 1b mesh shaped grooves 103 par. 41 teaches grids of various shapes);
a conductive grid (formed by conducive layer 102 fig. 1b), wherein the trench is filled with a conductive material to form the conductive grid (par. 40 teaches conductive layer 102 being formed by filling mesh shaped groove 103 with a conductive material, silver);
and a penetration window, wherein at least one of the penetration window is distributed between the conductive grid (par. 40 teaches that conductive film 100’ is similar to conductive film 100 with the distinction that conductive film 100’ includes a substrate 101 vs having a plurality of layers as with conducive film 100, therefore, the rejection herein combines the embodiments of 100’ and 100 for the physical aspects of the trenches and application of the conductive layers from the embodiment of 100 into the embodiment of 100 therefore, mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ are penetration windows), the penetration window is configured to be blank inside or configured with a color matching grid disconnected to the conductive grid (substrate 101 par. 40 teaches transparency therefore, the transparent material of mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ which are penetration windows are anticipated to be blank inside), and a minimum side length/a minimum width of the penetration window is greater than or equal to 1 mm.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: an electrode, electrically connected to the conductive grid…nor… and a minimum side length/a minimum width of the penetration window is greater than or equal to 1 mm
Wei teaches a photocurable layer 145 with channels 125 filled with microwires 115 and is analogous art, Wei further teaches an electrode (electrodes 120), electrically connected to the conductive grid (par. 40 teaches heater region 105 and electrodes 120 connected)…and… and a minimum side length/a minimum width of the penetration window (spacing s between microwires 115) is greater than or equal to 1 mm (par. 42 teaches at least 100um which encompasses the range of equal to or greater than 1mm and is maintained by Wei to ensure transparency of photo layer 145).
Therefore, 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 conductive layer 102 of Yang for use as an electrode or power source connection per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to connect to a power source to provide current to the apparatus (Wei par. 40) and to modify the sizes of mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ of Yang per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to ensure transparency of photo layer 145 (Wei par. 42)
Regarding claim 19,
Yang teaches, a configuration of an embodiment where adhesive layer 130 stacked with substrate 110 where substrate 110 is taught to be PET or transparent plastic per par. 36.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: A heating glass, comprising a glass and the transparent heating film according to claim 1 stacked with the glass.
Wei teaches a configurating where photocurable layer 145 is stacked with substrate 140 where par. 78 of Wei teaches substrate 140 being made of any appropriate material such as glass or polymer including glass, PET, Kapton, PC, PE, PVC, PP, PS and PMMA. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that glass and polymer such as PET are interchangeable as substrate bases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange the substrate 110 of Yang with the glass substrate 140 of Wei for the purpose to provide a transparent substrate material to be heated.
Regarding claim 20,
Yang in combination with Wei teaches, The heating glass according to claim 19 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein the glass is configured to be a layer of glass and the transparent heating film is disposed on either side of the glass, or the glass is configured to be two layers of glass and the transparent heating film is disposed between the two layers of the glass.
Wei teaches wherein the glass is configured to be a layer of glass and the transparent heating film is disposed on either side of the glass, or the glass is configured to be two layers of glass and the transparent heating film is disposed between the two layers of the glass (par. 77 to 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a the adhesive layer 130 of Yang on a piece of glass per the teachings of Wei for the purpose to provide a transparent substrate material to be heated.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140216804A1 Yang in view of US5724176A Nishikitani
Regarding claim 7,
Yang teaches, The transparent heating film according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Yang does not teach: wherein the penetration window is provided with a color matching grid, and the color matching grid is not connected to the conductive grid.
Nishikitani teaches a glass which is transparent substrates 10a, 20a, 30a, 40a, 50a, and 60a with conductive traces 10b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 50b, and 60b laid out in a grid shape per figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and teaches the penetration window (areas of transparent substrates 10a, 20a, 30a, 40a, 50a, and 60a not covered by conductive traces 10b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 50b, and 60b) is provided with a color matching grid (electrochromic material 82), and the color matching grid is not connected to the conductive grid (fig.8, conductive traces 10b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 50b, and 60b are not connected via insulating layers 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electrochromic material to the mesh cells 21, 21’, 31, 31’, 41, and 41’ of Yang per the teachings of Nishikitani for the purpose to create a device which changes a color of the transparent window (Nishikitani column 1 lines 16 to 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights