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 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 1, and 3- 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0402854) in view of Gries (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0108117) and King (U.S. Patent 6,422,062).
Regarding claim 1, Noda discloses an automotive glazing for a vehicle (Noda, abstract, the automotive glazing being configured to be placed in front of an optical sensor (intended use does not affect the structure of the invention, but anyway, ¶146, fig. 6, element 270),
wherein the automotive glazing comprises comprising:
an internal face configured to face the optical sensor (Noda, fig. 6, internal face 111b is towards camera 270);
an external face configured to face an outside of the vehicle (111D of element 111 ; and
a heating circuit (130) on the internal face of the automotive glazing (¶0036, heating wire 130 is on the cabin side of the glass) , wherein the heating circuit comprises:
conductive wires printed on the internal face of the automotive glazing (Noda, 130, electric heating wire; bus bars may be printed, ¶0036); and
Noda, 150)] comprising an internal face and an external face, the external face being placed on the internal face of the automotive glazing, the [controller] (Noda, 150C, ¶42, “The control unit 150 may be provided on the vehicle cabin-side surface of the central portion 111A of the glass main body 111. The control unit 150 includes the controller 150C, the temperature sensor 150A, and the temperature-and-humidity sensor 150B. The controller 150C turns ON or OFF the electric heating wire 130 or the electric heating film attached to the window glass 110”) configured to control the heating circuit;
wherein the (160L power supply may be a battery, ¶53)), and
wherein the automotive glazing further comprises at least one at least one
Noda does not disclose specifically a “printed circuit board” comprising on its internal face a “control circuit”, nor the “thermistor” to detect the temperature. However, Gries teaches, in his heating control to have a control circuit on a printed circuit board for controlling heating (Gries, Abstract “control circuit arranged on a printed circuit board), and King teaches the thermistor to detect and control the temperature on a heating unit (King, thermistor 22 on flex circuit 10 on windshield to sense fogging, figs. 1-2). . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the conventional elements of Noda with the PCB and control circuit of Gries and to add the thermistor of King, as all of these are properly on the control unit of Noda, but to substitute in the equivalent hardware, the PCB and control circuit and thermistor because the substitution of one known method of monitoring temperature and controlling heating for another would have yielded predictable results measuring the temperature for frosting/fogging and then controlling the heating circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach, in this arrangement, wherein the at least one thermistor is fixed on the internal face of the automotive glazing through a thermal conductive tape. However, King further teaches “at least one thermistor (20, figs. 1-2) is fixed on the internal face of the automotive glazing through a thermal conductive tape (King, adhesive layer 36).” Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Noda in view of Gries and King with a further teachings of King, to have to thermistor adhered the adhesive tape, in order to have the device mounted in front, as it is in Noda as well, in order to have mount the device in a conventional way and achieve the expected result of having the thermistor ready to take the temperature.
Regarding claim 4, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach, in this arrangement, wherein the at least one thermistor is fixed on the external face of the printed circuit board. However, while it is shown in King that the thermistor (20) would be on the internal surface of the circuit board, it can be seen in Noda, fig. 7, that it is advantageous to have the temperature sensor (150B) as close to the glass surface as possible. And since there are only two possibilities, either on the external or internal surface of the PCB, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to try to put the thermistor on the external surface of the external surface of the PCV (the surface nearest the glass, according to claim 1) in order to most accurately gage the temperature of the glass in order to determine the temperature and detect frosting (see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 5, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach, in this arrangement, wherein the at least one thermistor is in contact with a part of the conductive wires of the heating circuit through a thermal conductive tape. However, the tape is taught King (36), and this would hold the PCB and the thermistor, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the heating wires contact the thermistor, even though the conductive tape, in order for them to be controlled through the thermistor to heat the glass according to its determination of temperature.
Regarding claim 6, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an automotive glazing wherein the automotive glazing is made of glass, plastic or a combination thereof (Noda, abstract, “glass window system).
Regarding claim 7, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an automotive glazing wherein the automotive glazing is a monolithic glazing or a laminated glazing (Noda, ¶27, laminated glass).
Regarding claim 8, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an automotive glazing wherein the automotive glazing is a windshield (Noda, ¶21, “front windshield”), a rearlite, or a sidelite.
Regarding claim 9, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an automotive glazing wherein the automotive glazing is a cover of an optical sensor mounted on or inside the vehicle (Noda, fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach an automotive glazing wherein the optical sensor is a lidar and the automotive glazing is transparent at an operating wavelength range of the lidar. However, Fries teaches such glass for lidar (Fries, ¶14, Fig. 2), and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have this glass transparent to Lidar so it does not interfere, but still takes advantage of the defrosting capability.
Regarding claim 12, Noda in view of Gries and King teach a windshield (Noda¶21), a rearlite, or a sidelite of a vehicle comprising the automotive glazing of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Noda in view of King and Gries teach a cover of an optical sensor mounted on or inside a vehicle comprising the automotive glazing of claim 1 (Noda, fig. 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0402854) in view of Gries (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0108117) and King (U.S. Patent 6,422,062) and further in view of Kaushik (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0298668).
Regarding claim 2, Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but do not further teach an automotive glazing , wherein the active regulation system is a DC/DC converter. However, Noda does teach an electrical connection between a power supply source (160L) and the control unit (150C). And Kaushik teaches a DC/DC converter to convert from its power source to its heating elements (¶¶0037, 0046; “the power controller may include a direct current (DC) to DC converter configured to convert the power supplied by the power supply to an appropriate voltage and frequency to power the heating element “), and since the power may come from the battery (¶0053), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a converter (DC/DC) to adapt power to ensure the device works with the car battery.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0402854) in view of Gries (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0108117) and King (U.S. Patent 6,422,062) and further in view of Door (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0168687).
Regarding claim 10 , Noda in view of Gries and King teach all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach an automotive glazing wherein the automotive glazing is a part of an exterior trim element. However, Door teaches such an exterior trim element (trim elements described in applicant’s specification p. 6, 1st paragraph) having a heater for regulating temperature, such as a mirror body (Door, fig. 1,, ¶0001, “ heaters for automotive mirrors”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have this heating element on an exterior trim element, in order to monitor the temperature and be sure to defrost and deice the essential element (like mirrors and glass) that make driving safe, and this would be a conventional method (as taught in Noda in view of the secondary references.) applied to a conventional element (as taught in Door) to achieve the expected result of deicing a mirror, an exterior trim element.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0402854) in view of Gries (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0108117) and King (U.S. Patent 6,422,062) and further in view of Fries (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/ 0289144).
Regarding claim 14, Noda in view of King and Gries do not teach an exterior trim element of a vehicle comprising the automotive glazing of claim 1. However, Fries has an exterior trim, for the lidar (Fries, ¶14, fig. 2), and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have this glass and trim transparent to have the lidar but still take advantage of the defrosting capability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights