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
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 9, 2026.
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 3 and 4 are 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.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected because it is unclear what “third printed portion is arranged in a projection onto the second main surface” means. Note that claim 3 requires the third printed portion to be on the fourth surface so it is unclear how the third printed portion can be arranged onto the second main surface at the same time. The scope of the language is just not clear and the Examiner urges Applicants to clarify the claim scope.
For examination, given the lack of clarity, as long at the prior art teaches a third print on the fourth surface and said print overlapping with the electroconductive print portion as claimed, the claim will be considered to be met.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether black is being required or is black merely being cited as an example of the opaque limitation.
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches opaque, the claim will be considered to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-2, 4, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as
anticipated by (USPub20060081581) as evidenced by either one of (USPub20200170079) or (USPub20030146199) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over (USPub20060081581) in view of either one of (USPub20200170079) or (USPub20030146199).
Regarding claim 1: ‘581 teaches the following laminated pane for a vehicle wherein ‘581.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Initially note that the “first, “second”, “third” and “fourth” main surfaces limitations claimed are broadly interpreted as merely labels for the main surfaces of each substrate and all that is presently required by the claim language is that the numbered surfaces be in a stacking direction (i.e. vertical direction; i.e. numbered from bottom to the top or numbered from top to bottom).
In the instant case, as shown above, ‘581’s laminated pane is considered to have surfaces numbered from bottom to top (stacking vertical direction) wherein the first pane has a first surface (bottom interior surface) opposed to a second surface in a stacking direction and the second pane has a third surface (bottom surface) and fourth opposing surface in a stacking direction and the coating and printed portion are on the second surface as claimed.
‘581 does teach that the conductive printed portion can be connected to a power supply for providing/supplying electrical current to the electroconductive coating (0025, 0032) but just does not explicitly mention said power supply being that of a wiring system of a vehicle. However, note the power supply being that of a wiring system of a vehicle would be implicit as evidenced by ‘079 or ‘199 or at the very least, rendered obvious in view of ‘079 and ‘199’s teachings of the art regarding how heatable vehicle glazings function.
For instance, note that ‘581’s laminated pane is a heatable vehicle glazing wherein their conductive printed portion is a bus bar connected to a power supply for providing/supplying electrical current to the electroconductive coating.
‘079, who similarly discusses heatable vehicle glazings wherein bus bars are connected to a power supply for supplying current to an electroconductive coating, teaches (0005 and see discussion of Figures illustrating electrical connection via wiring system of a vehicle),
“At its simplest, an electrically heated window may comprise a heating element and a pair of spaced opposed busbars, normally one on each of two opposed sides of a face of the window, with the heating element extending between them over the vision area. Electrical connection to an external power source, for example the power supply from the vehicle, may be made by plug and socket connectors of known type, the plug part of which is generally soldered or otherwise adhered to the busbar.”
‘199, who similarly discusses heatable vehicle glazings wherein bus bars are connected to a power supply for supplying current to an electroconductive coating, teaches (0002, 0030 and see 8 in Figures illustrating electrical connection of wiring system of a vehicle),
“Heatable vehicle windows are known in the art, and typically include top and bottom conductive bus bars in electrical contact with a transparent conductive coating including an electro conductive layer. The electro conductive layer generates heat when electric current is passed therethrough via the bus bars. In such a manner, snow and ice may be melted from vehicle windows such as windshields, backlites, and/or the like. Windows may also be defogged in such a manner. Moreover, since terminal connections (e.g., via jumper wires) for both bus bars are typically provided at the bottom of the window, this means that bus bar portions have to be provided along a side(s) of the window in order to supply electric current to/from the top bus bar.”
“Still referring to FIGS. 1-4, first and second elongated bus bars 7 and 9 are provided between the substrates 2, 4 so as to be in electrical contact with at least one electro conductive layer of the beatable coating 3. Bus bar 9 is considered a bottom bus bar since it is provided at a bottom portion of the window, while bus bar 7 is considered a top bus bar since it is at least partially provided at a top portion of the window. Bus bar 7 includes both a top portion 7a and an extension portion 7b provided along a side of the window. When electric current is passed through the electro conductive layer(s) of coating 3 via bus bars 7 and 9 (using electrical connectors/leads/terminals 8), heat is generated by the coating 3 (i.e., heat is generated by one of more layers of the coating 3) in order to defog, defrost and/or melt ice or snow from the window. Electrical connection terminals 8 supply power to the coating 3 via the bus bars 7, 9 from an external power source. An example external power source may be a DC battery of a vehicle, and is represented by "+" and "-" in the figures.”
Regarding claim 2: While ‘581’s above Figure may not show a second printed portion arranged laterally adjacent to the electroconductive printed portion 104, not only does ‘581 teach that an additional printed portion 104 is arranged on the same surface, laterally and adjacent the electroconductive print 104 (see 0032-0033, 0034, Figures 6 and 6) but additionally, ‘581 suggests that their electroconductive print 104 in the Figure above can include an opaque print 106 covering and having a portion that extend laterally adjacent to 104 (see 0035 which suggests that the coated first pane can have an arrangement as laid out in Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 3(c) illustrates an opaque print 106 covering and having a portion that extends laterally adjacent to 104).
Regarding claim 4: ‘581’s electroconductive print 104 is a bus bar that is opaque black (see also par 0011).
Regarding claim 6 and 11: As discussed above, ‘581 teaches vehicle laminated panes wherein the electroconductive printed portion is electrically connected to a wiring system to supply current to the conductive coating. The vehicle panes can be windshields, rear panes, etc. (see Figures and entire disclosure).
While ‘581 may be teaching vehicle panes and not specifically the vehicles themselves that carry the panes, note that a vehicle with such a pane would be considered implicit or at the very least, obvious in view of the teachings of ‘581.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
(USPub20060081581) as evidenced by, or alternatively, obvious over either one of (USPub20200170079) or (USPub20030146199) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of either one of (USPN10,923795) or (USPub20150222006) in further view of (WO2022009180, rejection using corresponding English document USPub2023249439).
Regarding claim 3: The manner in which ‘581 was interpreted to meet claim 1 fails to meet the requirements of claim 3, however, note 581’ can also be interpreted in the following manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
1046
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above interpretation, ‘581’s laminated pane has surfaces numbered from top to bottom (stacking vertical direction) wherein the first pane has a first surface (outside exterior surface) opposed to a second surface in a stacking direction and the second pane has a third surface (top surface) and fourth opposing surface in a stacking direction.
While the coating and printed portion are on the third surface in the above interpretation instead on the second, note initially that this appears to be nothing more than rearrangement of parts and layers in the laminate which has been held by the courts to not hold patentable weight (MPEP 2144.04).
Additionally note that ‘581 does not appear to place limits on the placement of the electroconductive coating and electroconductive print 104 (bus bar) to the third surface as shown above and given that ‘795 and ‘006, from the same field of endeavor of laminated panes for vehicles, suggest it being well known and desirable in the art to place the electroconductive coating, electroconductive bus bars and opaque layer on the second surface of the exterior first pane (see Fig 2, Col. 4 in ‘795 and Fig and par 0019-0022 in ‘006), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘581 to include their electroconductive coating and electroconductive print 104 (bus bar) with their opaque coating on the second surface of the first exterior pane in order to obtain a desirable vehicle laminate.
Regarding a third printed portion on the fourth surface in the manner claimed, note that ‘581 does not exclude such an additional material but instead only generally teaches a laminated pane for vehicles wherein there is an opaque layer (i.e. obscuration band) on the second surface.
As ‘439, from the same field of endeavor of laminated panes for vehicles having an opaque layer (i.e. obscuration band) on the second surface, suggests it being desirable in the art to place an additional obscuration band (black print) on the fourth surface of the interior pane (see Fig 1A and par 0070), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘581 to include an additional obscuration band (third print) on the fourth surface of the interior pane as desired for additional obscuration.
Regarding the limitation of the third print overlapping with the electroconductive printed portion of the third surface, note that this again appears to be nothing more than rearrangement of the layer on the surface (MPEP 2144.04) and in the instant case, given that the additional print layer is used for obscuring, it would have been obvious to rearrange the placement of the layer on the surface depending on location of obscuration desired. Even further, given that the electroconductive print portion in ‘581 is bus bar 104, it would have been well within the skill in the art to make the additional third print on the fourth surface overlap with the print portion in order to obscure the bus bar from view.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
(USPub20060081581) as evidenced by, or alternatively, obvious over either one of (USPub20200170079) or (USPub20030146199) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN109392205 cited by Applicants.
Regarding claim 5: As discussed above, ‘581’s pane comprises electroconductive print portion 104 on the electroconductive coating.
While ‘581 fails to teach a bus bar material being arranged on the contact side of the electroconductive print portion 104 and being electrically conductively connected thereto in the manner claimed, ‘581 does not exclude such a material and instead, only generally teach a laminated pane for vehicles wherein the electroconductive print portion 104 is a Ag material on the electroconductive coating.
As ‘205, who similarly teaches laminated panes for vehicles wherein a Ag material (9) is on a electroconductive coating (4), suggests it being desirable to form bus bars with a metal foil (10) directly fixed, and which will be electrically conductively connected, to the upper surface of a Ag material bus bar material (see entire disclosure and Fig 3), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘581 to include a metal foil directly fixed, and which will be electrically conductively connected, to the upper surface of their electroconductive print portion 104 is a Ag bus bar material in order to obtain a desirable two layer bus bar for such laminates.
Note similar to that already discussed, it would be implicit or at the very least obvious, bus bars being electrically connected to wiring system of vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights