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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a heating element in claim 1 wherein heating is a functional language with the recited element being a generic placeholder for means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A heating element is interpreted as a heating film or heating wire as disclosed in the specification or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 7, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al (WO 2021/049479) in view of Gima et al (US 2021/0084720).
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 heater (23/24/25/26; also, see Figure 11; para 0040) arranged in a region of the pane surrounding the sensor window (Figures 11 and 12). But, Ngai does not show that the pane is a composite pane having an outer pane, an inner pane, and an intermediate thermoplastic layer there between.
Gima discloses it is known to provide a windshield that is made of a composite pane including an outer pane (22), an inner pane (21), a thermoplastic intermediate layer (23; also, see par 0127 and Figure 8).
In view of Gima, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai with the pane that is made of a composite pane including an outer pane, an inner pane, and a thermoplastic intermediate layer therebetween that would predictably provide more weather resistance and heat/sound resistance (para 0129 of Gima) for the pane.
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 discloses for the second heating element (shown by 23/24/25/26) that is arranged outside of a region
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. Gima also discloses for a vehicle sensor/camera (300; including an infrared laser; para 0035) that transmits and/or receives radiation including electromagnetic radiation that is known to receive road condition information (para 0003).
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 7, Gima discloses a heating element (252) made of silver wire (para 0044-0045) that is provided on an exterior of the inner pane (21; also, see Figures 2B and 8) wherein it would have been obvious to adapt Nagai, as modified by Gima, with the second heating element that is made of silver which is known to be an excellent electric conductor that can be used as a heating element.
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 11, Nagai discloses for a temperature sensor (thermostat 34) for determining the temperature of the composite pane, as modified by Gima, with a control unit (31/33) that controls and adjusts the heating elements (also, see para 0021-0024).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Gima as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (US 3,601,583).
Nagai in view of Gima discloses the pane arrangement claimed including the outer pane and an inner pane as disclosed by Gima but does not show that the second heating element is arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane.
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 the outer pane and the inner pane for clearing fog or ice formation on the pane (also, column 1, lines 13-24; and Figures 1-7).
In view of Fujiwara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Gima, with the second heating element arranged between the outer pane and the inner pane as a matter of routine and alternative arrangements that can effectively and predictably remove or clear any fog or ice formation on the senso window.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Nagai in view of Gima discloses that the heating element can be made of cooper or tungsten film (also, see para 0044-0045 of Gima), and Fujiwara also discloses for the heating element that can be made of tungsten (column 2, lines 52-56) wherein Fujiwara further discloses that the heating element that is arranged between at least one/two thermoplastic layers (8 or 8’) and/or between at least one of the thermoplastic and the outer and/or inner pane (as illustrated in Figure 4), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai, as modified by Gima, with the second heating element that is arranged as claimed, as a matter of alternative and routine arrangement, to effectively and predictably remove or clear any fog or ice formation on the senso window.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of Gima as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Yano (US 2022/0338310).
Nagai in view of Gima 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 Gima, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato et al (US 2023/0060268) and Oikawa (US 2018/0056942) disclose for a pane arrangement with a vehicle sensor.
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