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.
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: fixing member and connecting member in claim 1.
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. The fixing member is interpreted as a resin or resin based composite material [0047], and the connecting member is interpreted as an adhesive layer [0027].
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (U.S PG Pub 20190061482A1), Schmidt (U.S PG Pub 20210293933A1), and Li (U.S PG Pub 20210308990A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 20, Kikuchi, drawn to the art of vehicle window assembly (vehicle windshield) [0001], discloses an assembly comprising a laminated glass [0024] and a fixing member (resin body (20) [0021-0023]; Figures 1 & 8). Kikuchi discloses that the fixing member is integrally formed by integral molding [0028] and wherein the fixing member has a plurality of information device attachment portions (30 + 42) (interpreted as the fixing grooves) (attachment portion (30) and transparent resin member (42) – [0021-0023 & 0051]; Figure 8) to attach information devices (40) (interpreted as the functional assemblies), such as a camera, radar etc. [0022]. Kikuchi also discloses the information device receiving signals from stereo cameras, infrared lasers (signals being EM waves including visible light, infrared light etc.) [0022].
Kikuchi discloses that the windshield has a primary viewing direction (implicit and necessarily the case as the window of Kikuchi is a car windshield, which will be viewed out of by a passenger/driver), and also discloses the opening direction of the fixing grooves being opposite the viewing direction (Figure 8 – the resin member 42 is attached over the laminated glass such that when detaching the resin member 42 or removing/opening would mean that it is taken out or opened facing into the car i.e. opposite to the primary viewing direction which would be out of the car). Kikuchi discloses that the information devices are fixedly mounted in the plurality of fixing grooves ([0023]; Figure 1). Kikuchi further discloses that the laminated glass is a laminate of a first (11) and second transparent glass plate (15) [0024], with a thermoplastic interlayer (intermediate film 13) sandwiched in between [0027]. Given that each of the plates and the thermoplastic interlayer are three-dimensional layers, it would necessarily mean that the first plate has a first main, top side, a second main surface, and wherein the second plate has a third, second top side, and fourth main surface. Further, given that thermoplastic interlayer is sandwiched between the plates, it would mean it is sandwiched between the second and fourth main surface i.e. between the back surface of first plate and top surface of second plate (see figures 1 & 8; [0024]).
Kikuchi also discloses that the fixing member has an outer and inner surface and that the outer surface of the fixing member is flush with the first main surface of the glass (see figure 7a & 7b wherein the resin body 20 is flush with the outward facing surface of the glass layer 11), and the fixing member is fixedly connected to the first top side surface and the second top side surface (see figure 7a & 7b wherein the resin body (20) is fixedly connected to the top side surfaces of layers 11 & 15). Further, it is implicit that the vehicle window assembly would have to be carried and mounted on a vehicle frame to serve as a vehicle windshield (instant claim 20).
Regarding the limitations of the connecting member, Kikuchi has not explicitly disclosed connecting the fixing member with the laminated glass via a connecting member (adhesive layer), however, it is known in the art for a fixing member to be attached to the laminated glass by adhesive, as disclosed below by Schmidt.
Schmidt, drawn also to the art of a vehicle window with an integrated sensor module for vehicles [0001-0002], discloses the sensor module (module housing 18) i.e. fixing member in this instance, as it carries the sensor, being connected to the laminated glass (pane main body) via a connecting member, wherein the connecting member is glue (32) (adhesive) ([0059]; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the vehicle window assembly of Kikuchi, with the connecting member being glue/adhesive and being used to connect the fixing member and laminated glass, as disclosed by Schmidt, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a fixing member flush with the glass and roof to provide attractive external appearance and reduce air noises due to airflow [0061].
Finally, regarding the limitations of a wavelength of a signal emitted and/or received by each of the plurality of functional assemblies ranges from 380nm to 1650nm, the information devices (40), as disclosed by Kikuchi are infrared sensors and cameras (i.e. IR wavelengths (>700nm) and visible light wavelengths (~400-700nm), which are covered within the instantly claimed range) [0022], and thus signals or wavelengths in the above ranges will be able to be sent and received by the information devices of Kikuchi [0022].
In the event the applicant disagrees with the above explanation, it is known from Li, to have an information device that receives or sends signals/wavelengths in the claimed range, as disclosed below.
Li, drawn also to the art of a glass comprising an optical sensor (information device) in a vehicle [0001-0002], discloses the optical sensor transmitting between 750nm and 2500nm [0023 & 0037 & 0086], and the optical sensor comprising both a camera for visible light (400nm to 750nm) and IR light (750nm to 1650nm) [0024]. Li discloses that the glass sheet with the optical device can have IR transparent coating [0084], which displays at least 70% transmittance in the wavelength range of 750nm to 1650nm [0084], and that such a coating enables hiding of an unaesthetic element of the sensor while ensuring good level of operating performance [0084] and is provided in the area with the optical sensor (faces 1 and/or 4 i.e. analogous to the fixing member) [0085]. Further, Li has disclosed that it is preferable that the rest of the glass (i.e. analogous to the laminated glass) displays less than 50% transmission in the IR range [0071-0072]. Additionally, it is noted that in order for the vehicle glass to function as a windshield it would need to be near to 100% transmittance in the visible light range i.e. 400-750nm, in order for the driver/passenger to be able to see out of the window. Thus, Li discloses receiving or emitting signals in the wavelengths as instantly claimed, and obviates the instantly claimed ranges as Li discloses encompassing and overlapping ranges (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the vehicle window assembly of Kikuchi, with the wavelengths in the claimed ranges of signals received or transmitted, as disclosed by Li, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to hide the unaesthetic element of the sensor while still ensuring good operating performance [0084].
Regarding claim 2, Li has disclosed at least 70% transmittance in the claimed wavelength ranges [0084-0085], further, while Li has not explicitly disclosed the angle of incidence, it is noted that given that the optical sensor is specifically for IR range wavelengths (see claim 1 rejection above), that the fixing member i.e. the optical sensor (2), would need to be close to 100% transmitting in the IR range, as Li also discloses that the optically transparent area (22), where the sensor (2) is present needs to transmit as much as possible in order to maintain optimal performance of the LiDAR sensor [0097]. Thus, regardless of the angle of incidence, it is noted that the fixing member would have close to 100% transmittance of IR wavelengths, as otherwise the LiDAR sensor would not function optimally. The range as disclosed by Li is an overlapping and encompassing range to the instantly claimed range and thus obviates the instantly claimed range. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). It is also noted, that in order for the vehicle window glass to function as a windshield [0097], it would necessarily mean that the glass is
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the vehicle window assembly of Kikuchi and Schmidt, with the laminated glass and fixing member having transmittance in the claimed ranges, as disclosed by Li, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to ensure good operating performance [0084].
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses that the transmittance of the glass in the area other than the optical sensor is less than 30% transmitting to IR wavelengths [0071-0072], in order to prevent maintain appropriate thermal comfort conditions when the vehicle is exposed to sunlight [0071]. The range as disclosed by Li falls within the instantly claimed range and thus anticipates it.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the vehicle window assembly of Kikuchi and Schmidt, with the laminated glass and fixing member having transmittance in the claimed ranges, as disclosed by Li, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to ensure good operating performance [0084].
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi has disclosed the fixing member comprising a body (20 & 27) and an extension extending from the body (24 & 22), wherein the fixing grooves are defined in the body and the extension and laminated glass are at least partially overlapped (see figure 7a). Further, regarding the overlapped ratio, it can be seen that the extension (22) overlaps with the laminated glass, and while Kikuchi has not disclosed the exact ratio, such a limitation amounts to a change in size, and a change in size is obvious and predictable to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Regarding claim 5, the instant limitations are disclosed by the combination of Kikuchi and Schmidt (see claim 1 rejection above). Kikuchi discloses the extension being connected to the second, third or fourth main surfaces (see figure 7a) and discloses the laminated glass and fixing member having overlapped end surfaces (see figure 7a), whereas Schmidt discloses the sensor module (module housing 18 & cover 20) i.e. fixing member in this instance, as it carries the sensor, being connected to the laminated glass (pane main body) via a connecting member, wherein the connecting member is glue (32) (adhesive) ([0059]; Figure 2). Further, as can be seen from figure 2 of Schmidt the adhesive layer (32) overlaps the ends of the fixing member and laminated glass.
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi discloses an extension (22) which protrudes from a side surface of the fixing member close to the glass (see figure 7a).
Regarding claim 8, while Kikuchi has not explicitly disclosed the height difference as claimed, it is noted that such a limitation amounts to a change in size, and a change in size is obvious and predictable to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Regarding claim 9, Kikuchi as modified by Schmidt discloses the instant limitations. Schmidt discloses the adhesive layer (32) having a first and second bonding portion (se figure 2), wherein the first bonding portion (adhesive layer 32 in contact with layers 11 and 28) is disposed on a side surface of the first or second transparent plate (11), and wherein the second bonding portion (layer 32 in contact with layers 17 & 41) is integrally formed with the fixing member and is in fit with the first bonding portion to connect the fixing member and laminated glass (see figure 2 of Schmidt and claim 1 & 5 rejections above).
Regarding claim 10, it can be seen that the fixing member has a different thickness in the primary viewing direction (from figure 7a of Kikuchi). Further, the limitation of differing thicknesses amounts to a change in size, and a change in size is obvious and predictable to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi as modified by Li, discloses a functional layer (reflective layer) on the plurality of fixing grooves on the inside in a primary viewing direction [0079 & 0089 & 0092] of Li.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the window assembly of Kikuchi with the provision of an antireflection layer, as disclosed by Li, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to avoid reflection [0092].
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi as modified by Schmidt discloses a protective layer (cover 20 of Schmidt) (Figure 2), as it is disposed on the outer surface of the fixing member and sensor module.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the window assembly of Kikuchi, with the cover (protective layer) as disclosed by Schmidt, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to provide attractive external appearance and reduce air noises due to airflow [0061].
Regarding claims 13-15, Kikuchi discloses the fixing member being formed by a resin based material through an extrusion process [0037] (instant claim 14). While Kikuchi has not explicitly disclosed the splice strength and the withstanding of an impact as claimed in instant claims 13 & 15, it is noted that the materials as disclosed by Kikuchi are the same or similar to the materials as disclosed in the instant application (see [0047] of the instant application specification), and as such the properties of splice strength and impact resistance as claimed would be present, since the same or similar materials are present. Further, the above can also be reasonably expected, as both window assemblies, of Kikuchi and the instant application, are vehicle window assemblies, which serve as windshields.
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi discloses a first protrusion (22) corresponding to the thermoplastic interlayer (by nature this would be the case since it corresponds to the laminated glass, of which the thermoplastic layer is a part). While Kikuchi does not explicitly disclose the length of the protrusion, it is noted that such a limitation amounts to a change in size, and a change in size is obvious and predictable to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi discloses the second protrusion (24) being flush with an outer surface of the first transparent plate and second transparent plate and an inner surface of the second protrusion being adapted as part of an outer edge of the first and second transparent plate (see figure 7a).
Regarding claims 18-19, while Kikuchi has not explicitly disclosed the height difference as claimed, it is noted that such a limitation amounts to a change in size, and a change in size is obvious and predictable to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (U.S PG Pub 20190061482A1), Schmidt (U.S PG Pub 20210293933A1), Li (U.S PG Pub 20210308990A1), and further in view of Hasegawa (U.S PG Pub 20150174861A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi has not explicitly disclosed a radius of curvature as claimed, however, this is disclosed by Hasegawa, as explained below.
Hasegawa, drawn also to the art of glass-resin laminate (Abstract) which can be used in vehicles [0001], discloses the radius of curvature of the laminate to be 3000mm, which falls within the instantly claimed range and anticipates the range [0053].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the window assembly of Kikuchi, with the radius of curvature as disclosed by Hasegawa, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a glass sheet that is excellent in weather resistance and visibility and lightweight [0001].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-8288746-B2, US-6306510-B1, US-4395622-A, US-3409759-A, US-11639134-B1, US-20150329054-A1, US-20210107256-A1, US-20210229531-A1, US-20210252835-A1, US-20220155589-A1, US-20220373651-A1, US-20190061481-A1 – all drawn to various window assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746