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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed March 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that the Cao ‘993 reference fails to disclose the “the thermoplastic intermediate layer comprises at least one masking layer comprising one or more thermoplastic films and the at least one masking layer is opaque at least in one region”. However, as set forth below, Cao ‘993 discloses the thermoplastic intermediate layer 2+7 (see e.g. paragraphs [0032], [0045] of English translation and Figure 2) comprises at least one masking layer 2+7 (see e.g. paragraph [004]5 of English translation and Figure 2) comprising one or more thermoplastic films 2, and the at least one masking layer 7 is opaque at least in one region (see e.g. paragraph [0045] where it is noted that element 7 eliminates light transmission). The current claim language requires the masking layer comprising one or more thermoplastic films and is opaque in at least one region. This does not preclude the opaque portion being from a layer other than the thermoplastic film because of the use of the word “comprising”. In this case, the masking layer is considered to include both elements 2 and 7 since the claim does not require the thermoplastic film is opaque in one region.
Further, applicant argues that rearranging the layers based on the disclosure of the cited references would not be within ordinary skill. First, applicant asserts that this would require a change of the material form from an ink to a thermoplastic film. As noted above, the claim language does not currently require the thermoplastic film itself to be opaque. Second, applicant asserts that changing the location would be required, taking it from the glass surface coating to an interlayer film stack. However, these layers are already adjacent, as shown in Figure 2 of Cao ‘993. Third, applicant argues that this would require a change in the manufacturing approach. However, the claim is drawn to a device, not a method, so this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, applicant asserts there is no disclosure in either of the cited references used in the rejection of claim 1 that teaches or suggests the modification. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, providing a heating element to a windshield of a vehicle allows for the windshield to be quickly defrosted/defogged (see e.g. paragraph [0004] of Cao ‘993). Further, by providing a masking layer that is opaque, the conductive electrodes of the heating element may be blocked from view.
Incorporating the heating element, and masking layer of Cao ‘993 into the device of Cao ‘203 would result in the claimed limitation. Further, it is noted that 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 device of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 with wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-20 are rejected as set forth below.
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 1-4, 8, 9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 107045203, of which an English translation is attached), hereinafter Cao ‘203, in view of Cao et al. (CN 110549993, of which an English translation is attached), hereinafter Cao ‘993.
In regard to claim 1, Cao ‘203 discloses a laminated pane 2 (denoted “laminated glass”, see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation, Figure 2), in particular for a projection arrangement (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0009] of English translation for head-up display using a projection light source), comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
an outer pane 21 (denoted “outer glass plate, see e.g. paragraph [0032]of English translation and Figure 2),
an inner pane 22 (denoted “inner glass plate, see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation and Figure 2), and
a thermoplastic intermediate layer 23 (denoted “thermoplastic film”, see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation and Figure 2) arranged between the outer pane 21 and the inner pane 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation and Figure 2),
wherein the outer pane 21 and the inner pane 22 each have an outer side and an inner side (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below for the outer and inner sides of the outer and inner panes), and
the inner side of the outer pane 21 and the outer side of the inner pane 22 face one another (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below for the inner side of the pane and the outer side of the inner pane facing each other), and
a reflective layer 3 (denoted “transparent nanofilm”, see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation for reflectivity of film 3 and Figure 2) suitable for reflecting adapted to reflect visible light (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of English translation where it is noted that it reflects p-polarized light with a reflectivity of greater than or equal to 8% and the examiner takes official notice that in order for the driver/user to see projected images from the window, the light reflected must be at least partly visible light).
Cao ‘203 fails to disclose
the thermoplastic intermediate layer comprises at least one masking layer comprising one or more thermoplastic films and the at least one masking layer is opaque at least in one region,
a heating element which is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, and
wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.
However, Cao ‘993 discloses
the thermoplastic intermediate layer 2+7 (see e.g. paragraphs [0032], [0045] of English translation and Figure 2) comprises at least one masking layer 2+7 (see e.g. paragraph [004]5 of English translation and Figure 2) comprising one or more thermoplastic films 2, and the at least one masking layer 7 is opaque at least in one region (see e.g. paragraph [0045] where it is noted that element 7 eliminates light transmission),
a heating element 4 (denoted “transparent conductive film”, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0034] where conductive electrodes 5 apply a voltage to a transparent conductive film 4, thus providing a heating effect), which is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer 7 (see e.g. Figure 2 where layer 7 overlaps elements 4).
Further, Cao ‘203 discloses the reflective layer 3 is arranged on an inner panel 22 (see e.g. Figure 2 of Cao ‘203).
Cao ‘993 discloses the masking layer 7 is on an outer pane 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 of Cao ‘993).
Therefore, the combination of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 would result in
“wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.” In this case, incorporating the heating element, and masking layer of Cao ‘993 into the device of Cao ‘203 would result in the claimed limitation. Further, it is noted that 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 device of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 with wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Cao ‘993, 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 device of Cao ‘203, with the thermoplastic intermediate layer comprises at least one masking layer comprising one or more thermoplastic films and the at least one masking layer is opaque at least in one region, a heating element which is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, and wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.
Providing a heating element to a windshield of a vehicle allows for the windshield to be quickly defrosted/defogged (see e.g. paragraph [0004] of Cao ‘993). Further, by providing a masking layer that is opaque, the conductive electrodes of the heating element may be blocked from view.
In regard to claim 2, Cao ‘203 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least one masking layer further comprises a transparent region.
However, Cao ‘993 discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein the at least one masking layer 2+7 further comprises a transparent region (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that element 8, denoted “dotted ink region”, may be considered part of masking layer 2+7 and that transparent regions exist between dots, see e.g. paragraph [0046] for dotted ink region made of dark ink).
Given the teachings of Cao ‘993, 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 device of Cao ‘203 with wherein the at least one masking layer further comprises a transparent region.
Providing a transparent region between masking layer regions would allow the laminated panel to operate as the windshield in a vehicle, allowing the driver to see while driving.
In regard to claim 3, Cao ‘203 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer contains the at least one masking layer and a transparent layer and the at least one masking layer is completely opaque.
However, Cao ‘993 discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer 2+7 contains the at least one masking layer 2+7 and a transparent layer (i.e. region outside of element 7 is at least transparent for the device to function as a window) and the at least one masking layer is completely opaque (see e.g. paragraph [0045] where it is noted that element 7 eliminates light transmission).
Given the teachings of Cao ‘993, 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 device of Cao ‘203 with wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer contains the at least one masking layer and a transparent layer and the at least one masking layer is completely opaque.
By providing a masking layer that is opaque, the conductive electrodes of the heating element may be blocked from view.
In regard to claim 4, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least one masking layer is arranged to be at least adjacent to a lower edge of the laminated pane.
However, it is noted that 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 device of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 with wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with
wherein the at least one masking layer is arranged to be at least adjacent to a lower edge of the laminated pane.
Providing the masking layer in any region where blocking light is considered within ordinary skill in the art. Providing the masking layer prevents unwanted stray light in the specific region that may be detrimental or distract the driver of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 8, Cao’203 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflective layer has an average transmission in the visible spectral range of at least 60% and/or the reflective layer reflects at least 15% of the light incident on the reflective layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the reflective layer has an average transmission in the visible spectral range of at least 60% and/or the reflective layer reflects at least 15% of the light incident on the reflective layer, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the reflective layer has an average transmission in the visible spectral range of at least 60% and/or the reflective layer reflects at least 15% of the light incident on the reflective layer.
Providing a transmission and reflection of the reflective layer that is optimized for the display will result in approved visual quality of the display as well as minimized distraction to the driver of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 9, Cao ‘203 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a first busbar and a second busbar, which are provided for connection to a voltage source, wherein the first and the second busbars are connected to an edge region of the heating element in such a way that a current path through the heating element for a heating current is formed between the first and second busbars.
However, Cao ‘993 discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
a first busbar 5 (denoted “conductive electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0032])and a second busbar 5 (denoted “conductive electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0032]), which are provided for connection to a voltage source (see e.g. paragraph [0032] where it is noted that the conductive electrodes 5 are connected to a power supply), wherein the first and the second busbars 5 are connected to an edge region of the heating element 4 in such a way that a current path through the heating element 4 for a heating current is formed between the first and second busbars 5 (see e.g. paragraph [0034] for current transferred to transparent conductive film).
Given the teachings of Cao ‘993, 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 device of Cao ‘203 with a first busbar and a second busbar, which are provided for connection to a voltage source, wherein the first and the second busbars are connected to an edge region of the heating element in such a way that a current path through the heating element for a heating current is formed between the first and second busbars.
Providing busbars that are connected to the heating element allows an external voltage to be applied to operate the heating element.
In regard to claim 15, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993 discloses a laminated pane according to claim 1 (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1).
Cao ‘203 further discloses a method for producing a laminated pane,
wherein the method comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
(a) arranging the outer pane 21, the thermoplastic intermediate layer 23, the reflective layer 3, and the inner pane 22 to form a layer stack (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0032]),
wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer 23 is arranged between the outer pane 21 and the inner pane 22 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0032]), and
(b) laminating the layer stack obtained to form a laminated pane (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0032]).
Cao ‘203 fails to disclose
a heating element is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, and
wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.
However, Cao ‘993 discloses
a heating element 4 (denoted “transparent conductive film”, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0034] where conductive electrodes 5 apply a voltage to a transparent conductive film 4, thus providing a heating effect), is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer 2+7 (see e.g. Figure 2 where layer 7 overlaps elements 4).
Further, Cao ‘203 discloses the reflective layer 3 is arranged on an inner panel 22 (see e.g. Figure 2 of Cao ‘203). Cao ‘993 discloses the masking layer 2+7 is on an outer pane 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 of Cao ‘993).
Therefore, the combination of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 would result in
“wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.” In this case, incorporating the heating element, and masking layer of Cao ‘993 into the device of Cao ‘203 would result in the claimed limitation. Further, it is noted that 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 device of Cao ‘203 in view of Cao ‘993 with wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Cao ‘993, 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 device of Cao ‘203 with a heating element is arranged within the opaque region of the at least one masking layer, and wherein the reflective layer is arranged spatially in front of the at least one masking layer in the viewing direction from the inner pane to the outer pane and overlaps at least partially with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.
Providing a heating element to a windshield of a vehicle allows for the windshield to be quickly defrosted/defogged (see e.g. paragraph [0004] of Cao ‘993). Further, by providing a masking layer that is opaque, the conductive electrodes of the heating element may be blocked from view.
In regard to claim 16, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses a laminated pane according to claim 1 (see e.g. 35 U.S.C. rejection of claim 1).
Cao ‘203 further discloses a method comprising providing a laminated pane in a vehicle for traffic on land, in the air, or on water (see e.g. paragraph [0004] for discussion of head-up displays in cars, i.e. vehicle for traffic on land).
In regard to claim 17, Cao ‘203 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the laminated pane is a laminated pane of a projection arrangement (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0009] of English translation for head-up display using a projection light source).
In regard to claim 18, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
Providing an optimized area of the opaque region would provide shielding of components from the viewer/user, while also maintaining a large portion of the laminated pane transparent to maintain safety of driving the vehicle.
In regard to claim 19, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the opaque region extends over less than 30% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
Providing an optimized area of the opaque region would provide shielding of components from the viewer/user, while also maintaining a large portion of the laminated pane transparent to maintain safety of driving the vehicle.
In regard to claim 20, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least one masking layer extends over at least 5% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the at least one masking layer extends over at least 5% of a total surface of the laminated pane, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the at least one masking layer extends over at least 5% of a total surface of the laminated pane.
Providing an optimized area of the opaque region would provide shielding of components from the viewer/user, while also maintaining a large portion of the laminated pane transparent to maintain safety of driving the vehicle.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao ‘203 (CN 107045203), in view of Cao ‘993 (CN 110549993) and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2009/0257141 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the opaque region of the at least one masking layer is arranged in a frame-like, circumferential manner in an edge region of the laminated pane and, in a section which is in overlap with the reflective layer, has a greater width than in sections different therefrom.
However, Yamada et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
wherein the opaque region 12 (denoted “band-shaped portion”, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0029]) and of the at least one masking layer 1 (denoted “light-shielding film for vehicles”, see e.g. paragraphs [0028]) is arranged in a frame-like, circumferential manner in an edge region of the laminated pane (see e.g. Figure 1 for frame-like shape and paragraph [0011] for laminated pane/glass sheet).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using in a section which is in overlap with the reflective layer, has a greater width than in sections different therefrom, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the opaque region of the at least one masking layer is arranged in a frame-like, circumferential manner in an edge region of the laminated pane and, in a section which is in overlap with the reflective layer, has a greater width than in sections different therefrom.
Providing the opaque region of the masking layer at the periphery allows for distortions from things such as bent glass to be blocked from the passengers of the vehicle. Further, by providing the masking layer oriented in a specific way with respect to the reflective layer, the quality of the heads up display may be optimized.
In regard to claim 11, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the heating element is designed in the form of heating wires which have a diameter of 10 µm to 300 µm.
However, Yamada et al. discloses wherein the heating element is designed in the form of heating wires (see e.g. paragraph [0004]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using heating wires which have a diameter of 10 µm to 300 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Yamada et al., 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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993, with wherein the heating element is designed in the form of heating wires which have a diameter of 10 µm to 300 µm.
Providing wires as a heating element would result in a means for controlling a defrost or defog function of the glass and further selecting the diameter of the wires based on a power and voltage needs would result in an efficient heating element for the application.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao ‘203 (CN 107045203), in view of Cao ‘993 (CN 110549993) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2009/0257141 A1) and further in view of Suenaga et al. (US 2016/0134013 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993 and Yamada et al., disclose the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the heating wires contain or consist of a metal.
However, Suenaga et al. discloses
wherein the heating wire 110 contains or consists of a metal (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 1d).
Given the teachings of Suenaga et al., 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 device of Cao ‘203, in view of Cao ‘993 and Yamada et al., with wherein the heating wires contain or consist of a metal.
Using a metal in the wire would provide a high conductivity material which would have a higher performance in the electrical circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to dependent claim 7, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “a first masking strip which is applied in regions on the inner side of the outer pane, and wherein at least the heating element overlaps completely with the first masking strip.”
In regard to dependent claim 13, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “herein a highly- refractive coating with a refractive index of at least 1.7 is arranged at least in one region of the inner side of the inner pane, which region is in overlap with the reflective layer, and wherein the highly-refractive coating is always arranged spatially in front of the reflective layer when looking onto the inner side of the inner pane.”
Claims 6, 10 and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 6, the closest prior art references fail to disclose at least the limitation, “wherein the reflective layer and the opaque region each have a surface, which are arranged congruently, or the opaque region has a larger surface than the reflective layer, and the reflective layer overlaps completely with the opaque region.”
In regard to independent claim 10, the closest prior art references fail to disclose at least the limitation, “wherein the heating element is completely embedded in the opaque region of the at least one masking layer.”
In regard to independent claim 14, the closest prior art references fail to disclose at least the limitation, “a display device assigned to the reflective layer and having an image display directed onto the reflective layer, the image of which image display is reflectable by the reflective layer, wherein at least the region of the reflective layer which is in overlap with the opaque region of the at least one masking layer can be irradiated by the display device.”
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights