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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 remain pending and are examined herein on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have partially overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/22/2026 (hereinafter the OA).
However, some sources remain (specifically, not all references to inclined surfaces are clarified), and new sources of indefiniteness are introduced by this amendment.
See rejections under 35 USC 112(b), renewed and updated for the amended language below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 (hereinafter, Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant begins arguing regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 (Remarks, heading 4.) by characterizing the instant invention (Remarks, heading 4. First 5 ¶; pp.1-2).
Applicant then argues that “Lee fails to disclose each and every recitation of amended claim 1” (Remarks, first full ¶ of p.3) and gives the example that Lee allegedly “fails to disclose a pair of passages (e.g., inclined flow paths) positioned to face each other to facilitate air flow.” (Remarks, first full ¶ of p.3; emphasis added). Along this line of argument Applicant further argues that the alleged deficiencies of Lee are not cured by King since “the purpose of the holes is completely different from that of the flow paths of the present invention” (Remarks, second full ¶ of p.3; emphasis added).
Applicant concludes this line of reasoning by arguing that “the pair of flow paths of the present invention prevents the interior, including the second sensor unit, from being exposed to the outside, while simultaneously allowing the inflow and outflow of air” (Remarks, third full ¶ of p.3; emphasis added). This is allegedly “Because the pair of flow paths facilitates the evaporation of moisture through air flow even if a liquid or the like is introduced into the first and second housings, the claimed pair of flow paths is different than the holes provided in King, which merely aim to facilitate exposure to ambient air temperature and humidity.” (Remarks, third full ¶ of p.3; emphasis added).
There are several relevant responses, as follows:
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that several of the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., inclined flow paths; purpose of the holes; use and functionality of the holes/passages) are not recited in the rejected claim 1 (see also claims 2-7 also not reciting these limitations; see 112(b) section regarding the indefiniteness in some of these limitations -inclination- for claims 8-9). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To the extent applicant may be arguing regarding dependent claims 8-9 (not explicitly in the Remarks) it is highly unclear what specifics are required as there are several interacting sources of indefiniteness in these claims as currently recited.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the use/functionality of the passages is different -see first rebuttal above as this functionality is not recited-, AND a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As currently presented, it is unclear how the functionality of exposure to ambient temperature / humidity as in the prior art results in a different structure than is recited in the claims at present (see at least e.g. King fig. 2 showing air passages / holes 38 which are facing each other).
Third, in response to applicant's argument that King does not show certain structure, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As stated in the OA (see at least p.6) each reference is cited for the limitations each discloses and motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these concepts is also given (OA at p.6 and pp.8-10).
Therefore, the position of the office must remain that upon knowledge of the cited art one of ordinary skill in the art would have had all the information and motivation required to make the invention as claimed at the time it was made.
See rejections under 35 USC 103 updated for the amended language and reiterated below.
Please note that Applicant is invited to both concretely recite and clarify the structure and functionality argued regarding in the Remarks.
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.
Claims 8-9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second inclined surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, is this a newly recited limitation OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “first flow guide” in some manner OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “second flow guide” in some manner (see claims 7-8 reciting first/second passages with first/second flow guides which replace the previously recited first/second inclined surfaces in the amendment).
As best understood, based on the amended claims and specification, this recitation will be considered as referencing the first flow guide’s inclined surface (see further indefiniteness rejection regarding this relative term below) as recited.
However, positive, in claim, recitation of proper antecedent basis as well as a clear relationship amongst the recited portions is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first inclined surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, is this a newly recited limitation OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “first flow guide” in some manner OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “second flow guide” in some manner (see claims 7-8 reciting first/second passages with first/second flow guides which replace the previously recited first/second inclined surfaces in the amendment).
As best understood, based on the amended claims and specification, this recitation will be considered as referencing the second flow guide’s inclined surface (see further indefiniteness rejection regarding this relative term below) as recited.
However, positive, in claim, recitation of proper antecedent basis as well as a clear relationship amongst the recited portions is required.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation "the flow guide" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (please note that the word “second” appears to have been improperly removed without properly lining through).
Specifically, is this a newly recited limitation OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “first flow guide” OR is this limitation meant to reference a/the “second flow guide” OR some other recited flow guide such as the “passages positioned to face each other for air flow” from claim 1.
As best understood, based on the amended claims and specification, this recitation will be considered as referencing the second flow guide from claim 7.
However, positive, in claim, recitation of proper antecedent basis as well as a clear relationship amongst the recited portions is required.
Further, the terms “inclined” and “inclination angle” in claims 8-9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “inclined” and “inclination” are not defined by the claims, the specification (see e.g. instant publication at [0060-62] and figs. 3 and 4) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear to what reference structure the surface(s)/inclination angle must be inclined/angled relative to. As currently recited the claims appear to reference the examples in drawings 3 and 4, reference numerals 310a and 320a. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims absent a concrete definition which is lacking as paragraphs [0060-66] and figs. 3-4 are exemplary and do not recite a definition of the relative term “inclined”.
As best understood, based on the specification and to expedite prosecution these terms “inclined” / “inclination angle” will be considered as at an incline from each other and/or from a major surface of the substrate and/or from the attachment surface of the windshield.
However, positive in claim recitation of clear and definite metes and bounds which applicant intends to limit by this relative term is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220373405; hereinafter Lee) in view of King et al. (US 6422062; hereinafter King).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an automatic defog sensor (abstract; [0001]; see figures; especially figs. 8 and 10), comprising:
a flexible printed circuit board (120 with at least portions 121 and 126; see fig. 7; see also [0037] “flexible substrate 120 may be a flexible printed circuit board” and [0012] “the flexible substrate is a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB).”) having mounted thereon a first sensor portion (130; [0040] “[0012] “temperature sensor 130 is arranged on or in the contact part 126a of the curved substrate part 126 and is configured to measures a temperature of the surface 10”; see figs. 7 and 8; see also fig. 10) configured to measure a surface temperature of a windshield of a vehicle (“surface 10 may include a windshield” [0030]; see fig. 8 showing this configuration; see also [0002]), and a second sensor portion (140a/b; [0065] “the second temperature sensor 140a and the humidity sensor 140b”; see figs. 8 and 10) configured to measure an ambient temperature and humidity of the vehicle ([0067] “second temperature sensor 140a … configured to measure an ambient temperature”; [0068] “humidity sensor 140b may be arranged and configured to measure an ambient humidity”; see figs. 8 and 10 showing such a configuration)
a first housing (110a) configured to accommodate therein the flexible printed circuit board and be adhered (via adhesive 117) to the windshield surface (see fig. 8 showing this configuration; see also figs. 10 and 1); and
a second housing (110b) coupled to the first housing to shield the flexible printed circuit board (see fig. 8 showing this configuration; see also fig. 10), and having a pair of passages (at least passages behind each of air inlets 118; see figs. 9 and 10) for air flow (see at least [0069] “air inlet 118 allows air flowing” and that “air inlet 118 may be formed in the housing cover 110b”).
Lee does not directly state that the ambient temperature and humidity are specifically of the interior of a vehicle (please note that this location is generally implied from the reference to control of the AC of a vehicle – see [0075-76]) or that the pair of passages for air flow are positioned to face each other.
However, King directly teaches and shows that a “glass fog sensor unit” (10; see at least abstract) is specifically located in the interior of a vehicle (see figs. 1 and 2 showing this internal placement in a vehicle); King further teaches “glass temperature sensor 20, an ambient air temperature sensor 22, a relative humidity sensor 24” (col. 2, ¶ at 40) a two-part housing (16 and 26) with air passage(s)/apertures (38) facing each other in the side facing the interior of the vehicle (see fig. 2 showing this configuration is known), adherence to the glass surface via adhesive (36) and a “flex circuit” (18; see abstract and figs. 2 and 3) all of which is “integrated into the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning control system, HVAC, of a vehicle” (col. 1, lines 50-52).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fog sensor for a windshield having passages for air flow of Lee with the specific knowledge of using the fog sensor for a windshield having direct teaching of interior measurements and the concept of air passages facing each other as taught specifically in King. This is because such interior measurements of ambient temperature and humidity allow for determining the presence of fog or conditions leading to fog on a vehicle windshield. This is important to assist in control of an AC/HVAC unit of the vehicle (see King at col. 1, ¶ at 48 and Lee at [0075]).
Please note that Lee meets every limitation except for explicit statement that the ambient measurements are specifically interior to the vehicle and that the passages face each other; further, King also meets each limitation except for explicit statement that the flex circuit is specifically a flexible PCB.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that the flexible printed circuit board comprises: a base substrate portion having the second sensor portion mounted thereon (121; see figs. 2, 8 and 10); and a curved substrate portion extending in a curved shape from the base substrate portion to apply pressure to the windshield surface (126; see fig. 7; see also figs. 10 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that the first housing comprises an opening (111) to expose the curved substrate portion (see figs. 1, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the first sensor portion is mounted on the curved substrate portion (see at least figs. 7 and 8 showing this mounting).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the second sensor portion is mounted on the base substrate portion (see fig. 10 and fig. 2 showing such mounting) and is shielded by the passage (see fig. 10 showing this shielding by the passage behind at least one of 118 including at least the space of the filter 160; see also [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that the second housing comprises: a first passage having a first air flow hole (at least one of 118 with a hole at the top as drawn and a passage below as drawn; see fig. 9) formed in a direction to be coupled to the first housing (at least figs. 9 and 10 show this configuration); and a second passage configured to communicate with the first passage, and having a second air flow hole (at least other of 118 with a hole at the top as drawn and a passage below as drawn; see fig. 9; see fig. 10 showing that these passages communicated via at least space filtered 160) formed in a direction to be coupled to the first housing by being separated from the first air flow hole (see fig. 10 showing this configuration where the separation is via at least sealing tape 150 and filter 160; see [0071]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee lacks direct and specific teaching that the first passage comprises a first flow guide configured to guide air to flow towards the first air flow hole, and the second passage comprises a second flow guide configured to guide air to flow towards the second air flow hole (teaching and showing perpendicular and parallel passage surfaces to the main surface of the windshield, substrate and each other – further please note that the term “flow guide” does not appear in the instant specification and as recited here is considered to generally reference the previously recited inclined surfaces – see e.g. instant [0017] and [0060]).
However, King directly teaches and shows a “glass fog sensor unit” (10; see at least abstract) having passages (38; see fig. 2) which have inclined surfaces / flow guides (inclined to the surface of the windshield 14; inclined to each other and inclined to the major flat surface of the substrate 30; see fig. 2 showing all these relative inclinations with respect to at least the higher and further right as drawn aperture 38) which are configured to allow circulation of the surrounding atmosphere in and out of the enclosed space (see fig. 2; see also col. 2, ¶ at 61 teaches that the apertures allow for the ambient temperature and humidity sensors to be exposed to temperature and humidity within the vicinity of the sensor).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fog sensor with air inlets of Lee with the specific knowledge of using the fog sensor with inclined passages for air movement as taught in King. This is because such inclined passages allow for circulation of the air in the vicinity of the sensor for broader ambient temperature and humidity measurements. This is important in order to assist in control of an AC/HVAC unit of the vehicle (see King at col. 1, ¶ at 48 and Lee at [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) lacks direct and specific teaching that the first flow guide is formed in a direction corresponding to the second inclined surface.
However, King directly teaches and shows a “glass fog sensor unit” (10; see at least abstract) having passages (38; see fig. 2) which have inclined surfaces (inclined to the surface of the windshield 14; inclined to each other and inclined to the major flat surface of the substrate 30; see fig. 2 showing all these relative inclinations with respect to at least the higher and further right as drawn aperture 38) where a first and a second inclined surfaces / flow guides are formed in corresponding manner (see fig. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fog sensor with air inlets of Lee with the specific knowledge of using the fog sensor with inclined passages for air movement with corresponding surfaces as taught in King. This is because such inclined passages allow for circulation of the air in the vicinity of the sensor for broader ambient temperature and humidity measurements. This is important in order to assist in control of an AC/HVAC unit of the vehicle (see King at col. 1, ¶ at 48 and Lee at [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee (as best understood; see 112(b) section above) lacks direct and specific teaching that the flow guide has an inclination angle greater than that of the first inclined surface.
However, King directly teaches and shows a “glass fog sensor unit” (10; see at least abstract) having passages (38; see fig. 2) which have inclined surfaces (inclined to the surface of the windshield 14; inclined to each other and inclined to the major flat surface of the substrate 30; see fig. 2 showing all these relative inclinations with respect to at least the higher and further right as drawn aperture 38) where relative to the windshield surface the angles of inclination are different and as such a second is greater than a first (see fig. 2 showing this).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fog sensor with air inlets of Lee with the specific knowledge of using the fog sensor with inclined passages for air movement with a greater and a lesser inclination angle as taught in King. This is because such inclined passages allow for circulation of the air in the vicinity of the sensor for broader ambient temperature and humidity measurements. This is important in order to assist in control of an AC/HVAC unit of the vehicle (see King at col. 1, ¶ at 48 and Lee at [0075]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights