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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 11/21/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “claim 3 of Group I recites one or more angled sections comprising "a first angled section oriented at a first angle relative to the first section; and a second angled section oriented at a second angle relative to the second section, wherein the second angle is larger than the first angle." As such, a search for Group I would encompass Group II. This is not found persuasive because the search of both groups are not overlapping. Group I requires “view panel comprising an outer perimeter, an opening formed in the outer perimeter, a first outer surface, and a second outer surface; a lens positioned at least partially in the opening; and a support structure attaching the lens to the second outer surface of the view panel”. Furthermore, the Group I does not require “An infrared lens”.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111890890 A (SHEN, Jun-long et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
470
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
358
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1 and 9, Shen teaches a vehicle [see description: “The invention relates to the field of vehicle window glass, especially a vehicle window glass with through hole”], comprising: a vehicle body [inherent], a lens assembly [figure 9:3] comprising: a view panel [1] comprising an outer perimeter [the outside perimeter that includes lens 3], an opening formed in the outer perimeter [through hole 10], a first outer surface [11], and a second outer surface [12]; a lens [3, see specification: “the transparent filling piece 3 is a plane optical lens or bending optical lens”] positioned at least partially in the opening [see figure 9]; and a support structure attaching the lens to the second outer surface of the view panel [bonding piece 2].
Per claims 8 and 17, Shen teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, wherein the lens comprises: a first section; a second section; and a middle section extending between the first section and the second section, the middle section having a first thickness that is less than a second thickness of the first section and a third thickness of the second section [see the shape of lens 3’s upper surface 31 in figure 9].
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.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111890890 A (SHEN, Jun-long et al.)
Per claim 10, Shen teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the view panel further comprises a polyvinyl butyral layer positioned between two glass layers [13], wherein the ceramic layer is arranged along the outer perimeter and inwardly of the opening [see the specification: “the shape of the inner glass plate 12 and the shape of the middle layer 13 are corresponding to each other”]. Shen does not teach a ceramic middle layer 13. However, official notice is hereby taken that is would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to substitute a ceramic layer for the polyvinyl butyral layer in order to improve windshield strength/rigidity. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claims 2 and 11, Shen teaches the lens assembly of claims 1 and 9. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the lens comprises: a first section; a second section; and one or more angled sections extending between the first section and the second section, the one or more angled sections at least partially defining a recessed face that is recessed relative to the first outer surface of the view panel, wherein the second section is spaced from the first section across the recessed face.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871