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 .
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites for a “frame-like manner” but this recitation is unclear since there are no particular metes and bounds as to what structure would constitute such recitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al (WO 2021/049479) in view of Voeltzel et al (US 2006/0186105).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Nagai discloses the pane arrangement and method claimed including a pane with a heatable sensor window (shown by an area 20 of 18), a mounted enclosure (shown by a bracket 1) having a vehicle sensor/camera (17) as a radiation receiver/source as the camera can be an infrared sensor (para 0012) where a beam path runs through the sensor window (as illustrated in Figures 2 and 12), a first heating element (21) arranged on an outer surface of the enclosure, and a second heating element (23/24/25/26; also, see Figure 11; para 0040-0043) arranged in a region of the pane surrounding the sensor window (through which electromagnetic radiation passes thru as shown in Figures 11 and 12). But, Nagai does not show that the pane is a composite pane having an outer pane, an inner pane, and an intermediate thermoplastic layer wherein the second heating element is at least one heating wire or a heating film arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane with no heating element arranged in the sensor window.
Voeltzel discloses it is known to provide a windshield that is made of a composite pane including an outer pane (18) and an inner pane (12) that are joined by a thermoplastic intermediate layer (24; also, see para 0023), and a heating element comprising a heating film (30) is arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane in a region of the composite pane surrounding the sensor window (shown by an cut-out region of the conductive film 106 in the composite pane through which an electromagnetic energy or radio waves can pass through; para 0005) wherein there is no heating element arranged in the sensor window (i.e. there is no heating film in the sensor window 106).
In view of Voeltzel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai with the second heating element in the form of a heating film or a heating film that can alternatively be provided in the composite pane with the heating film arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane which would predictably protect the second heating element from being exposed wherein no heating element would be arranged in the sensor window so that electromagnetic radiation or radio waves can freely pass through the sensor window without interference.
With respect to claim 2, Nagai discloses it is known to provide a plurality of heating elements that is individually controlled (para 0004 and 0051-0052) wherein it would have been obvious to control the first heating and the second heater individually and independently of one another to individually control the fogging condition of the pane while further controlling power consumption of the individual heating elements.
With respect to claim 3, Nagai as modified by Voeltzel discloses for the second heating element that can be arranged within the composite pane that is outside the region where the enclosure is arranged (i.e., the enclosure is arranged outside of the composite pane while the second heating element is arranged within the composite pane).
With respect to claim 4, Nagai discloses for the radiation receiver/source (17) that includes a camera/infrared sensor for acquiring/receiving the infrared radiation that would include an electromagnetic radiation.
With respect to claim 5, Nagai discloses that the first heating element that is made of a foil (para 0020) which teaches for a heating film.
With respect to claim 8, Nagai as modified by Voeltzel discloses for a heating film (30 as shown by Voeltzel) that is arranged between at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer (24) and the outer pane (18) as illustrated in Figure 2, and Voeltzel also discloses that the heating element ca be copper (para 0028) as well as Nagai showing that the heating element wire that can be copper (para 0020).
With respect to claim 10, Nagai discloses the first heating element that is arranged on an outer surface of the enclosure as illustrated in Figures 1 and 12.
With respect to claim 12, Nagai discloses for the first heating element and the second heating element but does not explicitly disclose for the heating output as claimed, but it would have been obvious to provide the claimed heating output, lacking criticality, as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation to optimize the heating output to prevent any fogging or ice formation on the heatable sensor window to predictably prevent any interference of the radiation/beam that is received or transmitted through the sensor window.
With respect to claim 15, Nagai discloses the heatable sensor window in a vehicle.
With respect to claim 16, Nagai disclose that the heatable sensor window is a windshield of a motor vehicle.
With respect to claim 20, Nagai as modified by Voeltzel discloses the first heating element (21) that is a heating film arranged on the outer surface of the enclosure, outside space enclosed by the enclosure and the composite pane, as modified by Voeltzel, wherein the first heating element is configured to heat the sensor window by thermal radiation, and the second heating element as modified by Voeltzel is configured to heat the sensor window by heat conduction through the composite pane as the second heating element can be disposed in the composite pane as taught by Voeltzel.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Voeltzel as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Gruber (US 2010/0219173).
Nagai in view of Voeltzel discloses the pane arrangement claimed including Voeltzel further showing that the second heating element can be made of silver (para 0028) that is printed or coated on an interior surface of the outer pane (18), but Nagai as modified by Voeltzel does not show that the second heating element extends the senor window in a frame like manner and completely surrounds the sensor window.
Gruber discloses it is known to provide a windshield having a viewing field/window (11) for an optical sensor wherein a heating element (15) completely surrounds the viewing field/window as illustrated in Figure 4.
In view of Gruber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Voeltzel, with the second heating element, which is made of silver that is known to be highly conductive heating element as taught by Voeltzel, that completely surrounds the sensor/viewing window as taught by Gruber so that the sensor window can be predictably heated more uniformly and completely by the second heating element.
With respect to claim 17, Gruber further discloses it is known to provide a heating element that is a single wire that is arranged around the sensor window in a wave-shaped or meander-shape manner as illustrated in Figure 5, and it would have been obvious to provide the heating element that is provided in the region that is spaced from the sensor window at a maximum distance of 5 cm or any other suitable distance, as a matter of a routine optimization, so that heat conduction transmitted by the heating element can effectively and predictably heat the sensor window.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Voeltzel as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (US 3,601,583).
Nagai in view of Voeltzel discloses the pane arrangement claimed including Voeltzel showing the outer pane and the inner pane that are joined by one or more thermoplastic intermediate layers (see para 0023 of Voeltzel that discloses for one or more interlayers 24), but Nagai as modified by Voeltzel does not explicitly show the second heating element of a copper or tungsten wire or a heating film arranged between at least two thermoplastic intermediate layers.
Fujiwara discloses it is known to provide a pane arrangement having an outer pane (7) and an inner pane (7’) where a heating element (4) is arranged between at least two thermoplastic intermediate layers (8 and 8’) as illustrated in Figure 4.
In view of Fujiwara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Voeltzel, with the second heating element in a coper or tungsten wire or a heating film that is arranged between at least two thermoplastic intermediate layers, as a matter of alternative and routine arrangement, that would further provide an added protection of the second heating element while effectively and predictably providing an adequate and sufficient heating to remove or clear any fog or ice formation on the sensor window.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Voeltzel as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Di Trapani (US 5,624,591).
Nagai in view of Voeltzel discloses the pane arrangement claimed including Nagai further showing a temperature sensor (34) and a control unit (2) for controlling the first heating element (21; also, see Figure 4; para 0022-0024), but Nagai does not show that the temperature sensor determined a temperature of the composite pane.
Di Trapani discloses it is known to provide a composite pane including a temperature sensor (41) that determines a temperature of the composite pane wherein a heating element (18) is further controlled by a control unit (22) to reach or maintain a predetermined temperature. Also, see column 4, lines 43-54.
In view of Di Trapani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Voeltzel, with the temperature sensor that determines a temperature of the composite pane by controlling the heating element such as the first heating element and/or the second heating element so that the temperature of the composite pane is maintained at the predetermined/desired temperature without overheating the composite pane.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Voeltzel as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Yano (US 2022/0338310).
Nagai in view of Voeltzel discloses the pane arrangement claimed except for a masking print in an edge region and around the sensor window.
Yano discloses it is known to provide a masking print or layer in an edge region and around a sensor window (113; also, see para 0069).
In view of Yano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Voeltzel, with a masking layer or film around sensor window to conceal an imaging device/camera from outside of the vehicle and for aesthetic purposes as desired by the user.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Voeltzel as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Alland et al (US 2014/0118179) and Yano (US 2022/0338310).
Nagai in view of Voeltzel discloses the pane arrangement claimed including the enclosure wherein when view through the pane arrangement from the outside, the second heating element is arranged outside the region in which the enclosure is arranged (i.e., the second heating element is arranged in the composite pane that is outside the region wherein the enclosure is arranged which is in the exterior of the composite pane), but Ngai does not show an adhesive that bonds the enclosure to the interior side surface of the inner pane, and a masking print in an edge region that is enlarged around the sensor window as claimed.
Alland discloses it is known to use an adhesive that bonds an enclosure body (100) to an interior side surface of a windshield (12; also, see para 0039).
Yano discloses it is known to provide a masking print or layer in an edge region that is enlarged around a sensor window (113) in the direction of the center of the windshield. Also, see para 0069.
In view of Alland and Yano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Voeltzel, with an adhesive that bonds the enclosure to the interior side of the composite pane that is well known bonding means to attach the enclosure to the windshield wherein a masking layer or film can be further provided around sensor window as taught by Yano to conceal an imaging device/camera from outside of the vehicle and for aesthetic purposes as desired by the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights