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 Species 1 (Fig.1-7), claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12-14 in the reply filed on August 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is done under 37 CFR 1.475(a) a national stage application, search or examination burden is not the reason to restrict, it is the lack of unity of invention under PCT Rule 13.1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, upon further examination, Examiner found that claim 12-13 are dependent on withdrawn claim 11. Since claim 11 is a different species of the elected species 1, therefore, claims 12-13 are also withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 7-8 and 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 14 are examined as follows:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2023 and July 28, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Claim limitation “uniform heating mechanism” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism" coupled with functional language “uniform heating” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “uniform heating mechanism" has been described in Paragraph 0007 – 0010, 0047, 0052 as some kind of structure that distribute heat that may or may not be part of the heater or heating unit.
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gima (US2021/0307123A1) herein set forth as Gima.
Regarding claim 1, Gima discloses a vehicular glass module (refer to fig.8A and B) for supporting, on a vehicle inner side, an information acquisition device (device #300, fig.8B) capable of receiving light from outside a vehicle, the vehicular glass module (windshield #20B, fig.8A and B) comprising: a glass panel (#20B, fig.8B) having an information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A and B) which faces the information acquisition device (device #300, fig.8B) and through which the light passes (refer to Paragraph 0102 cited: “…The device 300 is, for example, a camera or various types of sensors…”); and a heating unit (#30, #31B, #32B, #33Bs fig.8A and B) configured to heat at least the information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A and B) in the glass panel (windshield #20B, fig.8A and B), wherein: the glass panel (windshield #20B, fig.8A and B) includes a first glass plate (#22, fig.8B) on a vehicle outer side, a second glass plate (#21, fig.8B) on the vehicle inner side, the second glass plate (#21, fig.8B) facing the first glass plate (#22, fig.8B), and an interlayer (#23, fig.8B) disposed between the first glass plate (#22, fig.8B) and the second glass plate (#21, fig.8B) and made of thermoplastic resin (refer to Paragraph 63 cited: “…As the interlayer 23, a thermoplastic resin is frequently used, and as thermoplastic resins conventionally used for this type of application…”); the heating unit (#30, #31B, #32B, #33Bs fig.8A and B) includes a power supply section (refer to the two #33Bs in fig.8A) disposed on the glass panel (#20B, fig.8B), and a heater (#30 fig.8A and B) disposed along a plate surface of the glass panel (#20B, fig.8B) in the information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A and B) and configured to generate heat upon receipt of power supply from the power supply section (refer to #33B in fig.8A); and the heater (#30 fig.8A and B) is configured to be able to heat at least the whole information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A and B) and includes a uniform heating mechanism (referring #30 covering the whole surface of #50 in fig.8A) that uniformly heats the information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A and B).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
504
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Gima discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Gima further discloses the heater (heater #30, fig.9A) is disposed between the first glass plate (#22, fig.8B) and the second glass plate (#21, fig.8B) and makes contact with the interlayer (#23, fig.9A).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3,5- 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gima (US2021/0307123A1) herein set forth as Gima, in view of SCHULZ et al (US2017/0019955A1) herein set forth as SCHULZ.
Regarding claim 3, Gima discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Gima further discloses the uniform heating mechanism (referring #30 covering the whole surface of #50 in fig.8A) includes conductive coating (#30, fig.8A) and paired bus bars (#31B and #32B infig.8A) configured to supply electric power to the conductive coating (#30, fig.8A); the conductive coating (#30, fig.8A) has a first region (refer to the region where #50 located in fig. 8A) disposed to cover the whole information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A), and a second region (refer to the region of #30 in fig.8A) continuous with the first region (refer to the region where #50 located in fig. 8A) and disposed outside the information acquisition region (#50, fig.8A);
the paired bus bars (#31B and #32B infig.8A) are disposed to face each other (#31B and #32B infig.8A) with the first region (refer to the region where #50 located in fig. 8A) and the second region (refer to the region of #30 in fig.8A) being sandwiched between the paired bus bars (#31B and #32B infig.8A); and the paired bus bars (#31B and #32B infig.8A) are disposed such that the whole first region (refer to the region where #50 located in fig. 8A) and at least part of the second region (refer to the region of #30 in fig.8A) are contained in a virtual region (refer to “virtual region” annotated in fig. 8A Zoom in) obtained such that respective ends, on each side, of respective contact parts of the paired bus bars (#31B and #32B infig.8A) in contact with the conductive coating (#30, fig.8A) are connected to each other (refer to Fig.8A zoom in).
PNG
media_image4.png
617
837
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gima does not explicitly disclose the conductive coating as transparent.
In the same field of vehicular glass module, SCHULZ discloses the use of transparent conductive coating (refer to Paragraph 0036 cited: “…The electrically conductive coating can, in principle, be any coating that is to be electrically contacted. If the pane according to the invention is intended to enable vision through it, as is the case, for example, with panes in the window area, the electrically conductive coating is preferably transparent. The electrically conductive coating is, preferably, transparent to electromagnetic radiation, particularly preferably to electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength of 300 to 1300 nm, and, in particular, to visible light …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gima’s invention with transparent conductive coating as conductive heating element, as taught by SCHULZ, in order to provide unobstructed window for sensor to detect or read light signals, such that would provide a better and more accurate detection or reading.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Gima and SCHULZ discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Gima further discloses the paired bus bars (first busbar #31B and second busbar #32B in fig. 8A) are disposed on two sides (refer to annotated “one pair side” and “other pair side” in fig. 8A zoom in below) away from each other (first busbar #31B and second busbar #32B in fig. 8A) facing each other (first busbar #31B and second busbar #32B in fig. 8A) among four sides (refer to annotated “one pair side” and “other pair side” in fig. 8A zoom in below) forming the virtual region (refer to “virtual region” annotated in fig. 8A Zoom in) .
PNG
media_image4.png
617
837
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gima does not explicitly disclose the paired bus bars are disposed on two sides away from each other with a shorter distance out of two pairs of sides facing each other among four sides forming the virtual region.
In the same field of vehicular glass module, SCHULZ discloses the paired bus bars (refer to the two #11” in fig.4) are disposed on two sides (refer to the left and right side of #11” in fig.4) away from each other (refer to the two #11” in fig.4) with a shorter distance (refer to the distance of #14’ in fig.4) out of two pairs of sides facing each other (refer to the two #11” in fig.4) among four sides (refer to the four sides of #14 in fig.4) forming the virtual region (#14, fig.4).
PNG
media_image5.png
505
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gima’s invention with the paired bus bars are disposed on two sides away from each other with a shorter distance out of two pairs of sides facing each other among four sides forming the virtual region, as taught by SCHULZ, in order to provide different size or design of the window opening for sensor to detect light or camera, such that would create a certain desired shape for certain number of different possible sensor (refer MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Gima and SCHULZ discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, in light of claim 3 rejection, Gima further disclose the conductive heating element (#30, fig.8A) is formed in a rectangular shape (refer to the shape of #30 in fig.8A) along a plate surface of the glass panel (#24, fig.8A).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Gima and SCHULZ discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, in light of claim 3 rejection, Gima further disclose the conductive heating element (#30, fig.9A) is attached to t#21, fig.9A).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gima (US2021/0307123A1) herein set forth as Gima, in view of Noguchi et al (US2003/0150848A1) herein set forth as Noguchi.
Regarding claim 14, Gima discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Gima does not explicitly disclose a shielding layer disposed in a peripheral edge region of the glass panel and having an opening at a position corresponding to the information acquisition region, wherein: the power supply section is covered with the shielding layer.
In the same field of vehicular glass module, Noguchi discloses a shielding layer (#6, fig.6) disposed in a peripheral edge region (refer to the peripheral edge region of #6 in fig.6) of the glass panel (#3, fig.6) and having an opening (#61, fig.6) at a position corresponding to the information acquisition region (refer to Paragraph 62 cited: “…a transmitter/receiver should be set so as to be in contact with the opening 61 in view of the outer appearance…”).
PNG
media_image6.png
457
500
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gima’s invention with a shielding layer disposed in a peripheral edge region of the glass panel and having an opening at a position corresponding to the information acquisition region, as taught by Noguchi, in order to provide shielding to hide wire and power line, such that would have a more pleasing looks windshield.
Noguchi does not explicitly disclose wherein: the power supply section is covered with the shielding layer.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gima’s invention with the power supply section is covered with the shielding layer, since Noguchi’s shielding is to cover up wire and metal part attached to the windshield, because covering up the power supply section with shielding would also make the windshield look more please and not ugly or exposing wire or power line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carter et al (US5414240) discloses a vehicular glass module with heating element, but it only read on some of the limitations in claim 1.
Ramus et al (US4725710) discloses electrically heatable vision unit, that only read on some of the limitations in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 17, 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights