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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 3/28/2024. Claims 1-3, 10, and 14 are amended. Claims 6-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a machine and independent claim 14 is directed to a method. Therefore, each of the independent claim(s) 1 and 14 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-13 and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim(s) 14 is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claim(s), under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s) cover(s) certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 14 is used for illustration:
A method for monitoring a driver of a vehicle:
a) emitting infrared radiation onto a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation of a windshield, such that infrared radiation reflected from the functional layer impinges on the face of the driver as first reflection radiation, wherein the first reflection radiation from the face of the driver impinges on the functional layer as second reflection radiation and is reflected from the functional layer as third reflection radiation;
b) receiving the third reflection radiation;
c) processing the received third reflection radiation by an electronic control device that is configured to determine information about the driver and to output an electrical signal to at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and/or to at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information (A human could determine information about a driver, e.g. visually observing the driver and estimating their alertness.);
d) performing and mechanical action and/or outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information about the driver.
As explained above, independent claim 14 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application"; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claim 14 recites additional elements. These/this limitation(s) amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a) emitting infrared radiation onto a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation of a windshield… found in independent claim(s) 14. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
b) receiving the third reflection radiation… found in independent claim(s) 14. This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
d) performing said mechanical action … found in independent claim(s) 14. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically the visual or acoustic output. The mechanical action is not necessarily performed.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim(s) 14 is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the remaining limitation(s) as recited above, is/are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The remaining element(s) has/have been deemed insignificant extra-solution activity by one or more courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
d) performing said mechanical action … is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display). This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically the visual or acoustic output. The mechanical action is not necessarily performed.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim(s) 14 is/are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-5, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20150124068 A1, hereinafter “Madau”, US 20180111355 A1, hereinafter “Manz”, and US 20200143184 A1, hereinafter “Naradikian”.
Regarding claim 1, Madau, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses An arrangement for a driver assistance system of a vehicle (See Fig. 1 and [0006], the system is installed in a vehicle. See [0012]-[0013], the system monitors the driver. See [0014], the camera system can be used as an input devices that causes an action or command to occur. Examiner asserts that a system causing an action to occur in response to monitoring is assisting the driver, i.e. the system is a driver assistance system.), comprising:
a radiation source for emitting infrared radiation (See Fig. 1 and [0023], the system comprises an infrared flash, which is a radiation source for emitting infrared radiation. See [0021], the infrared flash beams, i.e. emits, infrared light, i.e. radiation.),
a radiation receiver for receiving infrared radiation (See Fig. 1 and [0023], the system comprises an infrared camera, i.e. a radiation receiver for receiving infrared radiation. See [0021], the infrared camera captures reflection caused by the light emitted by the infrared flash, i.e. receives infrared radiation.),
a windshield formed of an outer pane and an inner pane which are connected to one another, wherein the windshield has at least one functional layer reflecting infrared radiation (See Fig. 2 and [0027], the windshield has an infrared reflective layer, i.e. pane. The existence of a layer indicates the existence of another connected layer, i.e. pane. See [0028], the infrared reflective layer reflects the infrared beam, i.e. radiation, from the infrared flash and is therefore a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation.),
wherein the radiation source is arranged such that infrared radiation is reflectable from the functional layer as first reflection radiation onto a face of a driver, the first reflection radiation is reflectable from the face of the driver as second reflection radiation onto the functional layer, and wherein the radiation receiver is arranged such that the second reflection radiation reflected from the functional layer as third reflection radiation is reflectable to the radiation receiver and received by the radiation receiver (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the infrared radiation is emitted from the infrared flash and reflected off the infrared reflective layer of the windshield, i.e. the functional layer, onto the driver’s face. This is the first reflection radiation. The infrared radiation is reflected from the driver’s face back to the windshield’s infrared reflective layer, i.e. the functional layer. This is the second reflection radiation. The same radiation is reflected from the windshield’s infrared reflective layer into the IR camera, i.e. the radiation receiver. This is the third reflection radiation. Radiation reflected to the infrared camera is received by the camera. ).
Madau does not explicitly disclose an outer pane and an inner pane which are connected to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer or and wherein (a) the functional layer is arranged on a side of the inner pane facing the interior of the vehicle and the functional layer is a low-emissivity functional layer, or (b) the functional layer is arranged on a surface of the inner pane or outer pane facing the respective other pane and the functional layer is a functional layer with sun protection effect.
Manz, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses an outer pane and an inner pane which are connected to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer (See [0013], the method is directed toward the creation of a pane with a thermal-radiation-reflection coating. See [0031], an outer and inner pane are bonded to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer. The composite pane is usable as a windshield.) and
wherein (a) a low-E layer is arranged on a side of the inner pane facing the interior of the vehicle and the low-E layer is a low-emissivity functional layer, or (b) a low-E layer is arranged on a surface of the inner pane or outer pane facing the respective other pane and the low-E is a functional layer with sun protection effect (See [0070], the interior-side surface is provided over its entire surface with a thermal-radiation-reflecting low-E coating. This is at least 50% of the surface area.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau to include the creating the infrared radiation reflecting windshield of Manz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the use of a transparent conductive oxide based thermal radiation reflective coating, e.g. reflection of infrared radiation, transparency, and corrosion resistance, while allowing for fastening and sealing elements to be attached so that cover layers providing improved optical quality can be used, as suggested by Manz at [0003]-[0009].
Madau combined with Manz does not explicitly disclose wherein (a) the functional layer is arranged on a side of the inner pane facing the interior of the vehicle and the functional layer is a low-emissivity functional layer, or (b) the functional layer is arranged on a surface of the inner pane or outer pane facing the respective other pane and the functional layer is a functional layer with sun protection effect.
Naradikian renders obvious and wherein (a) the functional layer is arranged on a side of the inner pane facing the interior of the vehicle and the functional layer is a low-emissivity functional layer, or (b) the functional layer is arranged on a surface of the inner pane or outer pane facing the respective other pane and the functional layer is a functional layer with sun protection effect (See Fig. 1. [0013], and [0007], the invention comprises a LowE, i.e. low-emissivity, coating used to reflect infrared energy from the face of the driver into an IR camera.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau and Manz to include use of a low-emissivity coating that also reflects infrared energy into an IR camera of Naradikian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reflect infrared light for use in monitoring the driver’s face and to control heat of the vehicle, as suggested by Naradikian at Fig. 1, [0013], and [0005].
Regarding claim 2, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses wherein the radiation source is arranged such that the first reflection radiation has a radiation component along the horizontal direction when the vehicle stands on a flat surface (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the first reflection radiation, i.e. the reflection from the windshield after emission from the IR flash, is in the horizontal directin when the vehicle stands on a flat surface.).
Regarding claim 3, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses wherein the radiation receiver is arranged such that third reflection radiation is receivable as reflected second reflection radiation, wherein the second reflection radiation has a radiation component which was reflected along the horizontal direction when the vehicle stands on a flat surface (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the third reflection radiation received by the radiation receiver, i.e. the IR radiation received by the IR camera, results from reflection of the second reflection radiation from the driver’s face. The IR radiation from the driver’s face is along the horizontal direction when the vehicle stands on a flat surface.).
Regarding claim 4, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses wherein the radiation source is arranged such that the first reflection radiation is reflected from a first sub-region of the windshield which results at least partially from a horizontal projection of the face of the driver onto the windshield (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the first reflection radiation, i.e. the reflection from the windshield after emission from the IR flash, is reflected by the windshield at a sub-region that corresponds to the horizontal projection of the driver’s face.).
Regarding claim 5, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses wherein the radiation receiver is arranged such that the third reflection radiation is reflected from a second sub-region of the windshield which results at least partially from a horizontal projection of the face of the driver onto the windshield (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the third reflection radiation, i.e. the reflection from the windshield after reflection from the driver’s face, is reflected by the windshield at a sub-region that corresponds to the horizontal projection of the driver’s face).
Regarding claim 10, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Manz renders obvious wherein the functional layer is arranged over at least 50% of a surface area on the outer pane or inner pane (See [0070], the interior-side surface is provided over its entire surface with a thermal-radiation-reflecting low-E coating. This is at least 50% of the surface area.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau and Naradikian to a low-emissivity layer covering the entire surface area of Manz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow reflection of infrared radiation while allowing better heat control for the vehicle’s interior, as suggested by Manz at [0003].
Regarding claim 11, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses wherein the functional layer is arranged only on a first sub-region which serves to reflect the first reflection radiation, and/or in wherein the functional layer is arranged only on a second sub-region which serves to reflect the third reflection radiation (See [0018], the system employs a reflective layer placed on a windshield. This indicates that the single reflective layer is contiguous and therefore covers only a second sub-region of the windshield, namely the area it covers. See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the reflective layer reflects the first and third reflection radiation, i.e. radiation reflected off the windshield from the IR flash and radiation reflected off the windshield into the IR camera, respectively, from the same area.).
Regarding claim 12, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Manz renders obvious wherein the functional layer has one, two, three, four or more silver functional layers which are separated from one another by dielectric layers (See [0003], low-E, i.e. low-emissivity, coatings reflect infrared radiation. See [0007], the functional layer combined with the low-E coating can be silver. See [0014], dialetric layers are used to serve as antireflection or barrier layers in windshields with low-E coating.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau combined with Naradikian to include a low-emissivity coating, silver functional layer with dielectric separation layer of Manz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow implementing of low-E coating on the region of the pane on which the fastening or sealing element is to be attached without coating, and to provide an antireflection layer, as suggested by Manz at [0006]-[0007] and [0014].
Regarding claim 15, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau further discloses in a driver assistance system with infrared-based monitoring of a driver of a vehicle for transport on land, water or in the air (See Fig. 1 and [0006], the system is installed in a vehicle. Examiner asserts that this is necessarily a land, water, or air vehicle. Vehicles are inherently for transport. See [0012]-[0013], the system monitors the driver. See [0014], the camera system can be used as an input devices that causes an action or command to occur. Examiner asserts that a system causing an action to occur in response to monitoring is assisting the driver, i.e. the system is a driver assistance system.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madau, Manz, and Naradikian in view of US 5729619 A, hereinafter “Puma”.
Regarding claim 13, Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Madau renders obvious A driver assistance system with an infrared-based monitoring function for drivers of a vehicle (See [0013]-[0014], the system monitors the driver. See [0018], the monitoring system is based on an infrared detector/camera), comprising:
an arrangement according to claim 1 (See the paragraph regarding claim 1 in this document),
at least one actuator and/or at least one signal output device (See [0002], a stereo, which is a signal output device, outputs an alarm).,
an electronic control device that is configured to determine information about the driver on the basis of an output signal of the radiation receiver (See Figs. 1-4, [0006]-[0009], and [0012]-[0021], the driver’s alertness is determined based on the output of an infrared camera, i.e. the radiation receiver), and to output an electrical signal (See [0013], the camera alerts a system that the driver is asleep or not alert, i.e. information about the driver. Alerting a system requires outputting an electrical signal.).
Madau does not explicitly disclose output an electrical signal to the at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and/or to the at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information.
Puma, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses output an electrical signal to the at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and/or to the at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information (See paragraph 21, when the system determines that the operator is about to fall asleep, the system sounds an audible alarm. This is an acoustic signal outputted based on determined information about the driver.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau combined with Manz and Naradikian to include alerting a driver who is about to fall asleep of Puma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driver and road safety by preventing drivers from falling asleep, as suggested by Puma at paragraphs 5-7.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madau and Puma.
Regarding claim 14, Madau discloses A method for monitoring a driver of a vehicle (See [0013]-[0014], the system monitors the driver of the vehicle.), comprising:
a) emitting infrared radiation onto a functional layer reflecting infrared radiation of a windshield, such that infrared radiation reflected from the functional layer impinges on the face of the driver as first reflection radiation, wherein the first reflection radiation from the face of the driver impinges on the functional layer as second reflection radiation and is reflected from the functional layer as third reflection radiation (See Fig. 1 and [0023], the system comprises an infrared flash, which is a radiation source for emitting infrared radiation. See [0021], the infrared flash beams, i.e. emits, infrared light, i.e. radiation. See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the infrared radiation is emitted from the infrared flash and reflected off the infrared reflective layer of the windshield, i.e. the functional layer, onto the driver’s face. This is the first reflection radiation. The infrared radiation is reflected from the driver’s face back to the windshield’s infrared reflective layer, i.e. the functional layer. This is the second reflection radiation. The same radiation is reflected from the windshield’s infrared reflective layer into the IR camera, i.e. the radiation receiver. This is the third reflection radiation. Radiation reflected to the infrared camera is received by the camera.).,
b) receiving the third reflection radiation (See Fig. 4 and [0032]-[0034], the infrared radiation is emitted from the infrared flash and reflected off the infrared reflective layer of the windshield, i.e. the functional layer, onto the driver’s face. This is the first reflection radiation. The infrared radiation is reflected from the driver’s face back to the windshield’s infrared reflective layer, i.e. the functional layer. This is the second reflection radiation. The same radiation is reflected from the windshield’s infrared reflective layer into the IR camera, i.e. the radiation receiver. This is the third reflection radiation. Radiation reflected to the infrared camera is received by the camera),
c) processing the received third reflection radiation by an electronic control device that is configured to determine information about the driver and to output an electrical signal (See Figs. 1-4, [0006]-[0009], and [0012]-[0021], the driver’s alertness is determined based on the output of an infrared camera, i.e. the radiation receiver. ),
d) performing an action and/or outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information about the driver (See [0013], the camera alerts a system that the driver is asleep or not alert, i.e. information about the driver based on the determined information about the driver. This is performing an action.).
Madau does not explicitly disclose output an electrical signal to at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and/or to at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information or performing said mechanical action and/or outputting said visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information about the driver.
Puma renders obvious output an electrical signal to at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and/or to at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information (See paragraph 21, when the system determines that the operator is about to fall asleep, the system sounds an audible alarm. This is an acoustic signal outputted based on determined information about the driver); and
performing said mechanical action and/or outputting said visual and/or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information about the driver (See paragraph 21, when the system determines that the operator is about to fall asleep, the system sounds an audible alarm. This is an acoustic signal outputted based on determined information about the driver).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver assistance system with an infrared radiation reflecting windshield disclosed by Madau to include alerting a driver who is about to fall asleep of Puma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve driver and road safety by preventing drivers from falling asleep, as suggested by Puma at paragraphs 5-7.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “In the Office Action, claims 2-3 and 10 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. The rejection is respectfully traversed.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the present application affirmatively defines what the application means by "perpendicularly" in this context, explaining that the "first reflection radiation ... has a radiation component that impinges on the face of the driver perpendicularly, i.e., in the horizontal direction, if the vehicle is standing on a flat surface," and likewise that the "second reflection radiation ... has a radiation component that is reflected perpendicularly from the face ... i.e., in the horizontal direction, if the vehicle is standing on a flat surface."
Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] and discussion accompanying Figure 4b and paragraphs describing first/second/third reflection radiation 14/15/16.)
The figures and accompanying text thus anchor "perpendicularly" to an objective vehicle-fixed reference frame (horizontal when the vehicle is on a flat surface), not to a local surface normal at every point of an irregular human face. The amendments to claims 2 and 3 merely import that express definition, converting any potentially relative phrasing into a clear, testable directional requirement.
With that objective frame of reference in the claims, the Examiner's concern that "an angle ... perpendicularly impinging on one part of the face ... will not necessarily ... with another part of the face" is no longer pertinent. The claims do not require perpendicularity to5
every local facial surface; they require that the irradiance/reflectance include a radiation component aligned with the horizontal direction when the vehicle rests on a flat surface. The amendments also do not introduce new matter or alter the invention's substance. They track the specification verbatim-"horizontal direction when the vehicle stands on a flat surface"-for both the incident first-reflection component and the reflected second-reflection component. A skilled artisan would therefore ascribe the same meaning to the amended claims that the specification ascribes to "perpendicularly," and the scope is the same as originally intended.
Under MPEP §2173.02, definiteness is assessed in view of (A) the disclosure, (B) the prior art, and (C) the understanding of one of ordinary skill. Here, (A) the disclosure explicitly defines the directional frame tied to "horizontal when the vehicle stands on a flat surface" and repeatedly uses "radiation component" in that sense; (B) the prior art recognizes the same types of functional layers and vehicle-fixed coordinate considerations in optical windshield systems; and (C) a skilled artisan would therefore reasonably and consistently apply the amended limitations during design and testing. On this record, and especially in view of the clarifying amendments, the claims "circumscribe the subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity," satisfying §112(b).
With respect to claim 10, the Office takes the position that the term "large" in claim 10 is indefinite. However, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. See MPEP 2111. "Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999)." See MPEP 2111.01 IV, emphasis added. Here, the term "large" is defined in the application at paragraph [0022]:"The term "over a large area" means that at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75% or preferably at least 90% of the surface of the pane is covered (for example coated) by the functional layer." Merely to affirm what was already claimed, claim 10 has been amended to recite that "the functional layer is arranged over at least 50% of asurface area on the outer pane or inner pane."6
It is respectfully submitted that the amendments to claims 2-3 and 10 overcome the rejection and that all pending claims are clear and definite.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are respectfully requested.”
As to (A), Examiner agrees that the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome by the amendment.
(B) Applicant argues “In the Office Action, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rejection is respectfully traversed.
Without agreeing or acceding to the propriety or the merits of this rejection, claim 14 has been amended to delete the previous step c) and to recite, instead, "processing the received third radiation by an electronic control device that is configured to determine information about the driver and to output an electrical signal to at least one actuator for performing a mechanical action and or to at least one signal output device for outputting a visual and or acoustic signal on the basis of the determined information."
This amendment overcomes the rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 14 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are respectfully requested.”
As to (B), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The mechanical action is not necessarily performed. Therefore it cannot be used to show integration into a practical application. Outputting of visual or acoustic information is insignificant extra-solution activity.
(C) Applicant argues “In the Office Action, claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20150124068 Al, hereinafter "Madau", and US 20180111355 Al, hereinafter "Manz". The rejection is respectfully traversed.
Claims 6-9 have been cancelled, thus rendering moot the rejection of these claims.
The combination of Madau and Manz does not disclose, teach or suggest "[a]n arrangement for a driver assistance system of a vehicle, comprising:
a radiation source for emitting infrared radiation,
a radiation receiver for receiving infrared radiation,
a windshield formed of an outer pane and an inner pane which are connected to one another via a thermoplastic intermediate layer, wherein the windshield has at least one functional layer reflecting infrared radiation,
wherein the radiation source is arranged such that infrared radiation is reflectable from the functional layer as first reflection radiation onto a face of a driver, the first reflection radiation is reflectable from the face of the driver as second reflection radiation onto the functional layer, and wherein the radiation receiver is arranged such that the second reflection radiation reflected from the functional layer as third reflection radiation is reflectable to the radiation receiver and received by the radiation receiver, and
wherein (a) the functional layer is arranged on a side of the inner pane facing the interior of the vehicle and the functional layer is a low-emissivity functional layer, or (b) the functional layer is arranged on a surface of the inner pane or outer pane facing the respective other pane and the functional layer is a functional layer with sun protection effect," as recited in amended claim 1.
The amended claim defines the functional layer explicitly as either:
(a) a low-emissivity (low-E) layer on the side of the inner pane facing the vehicle interior, or
(b) a sun-protection functional layer on a surface of the inner or outer pane facing the interspace (i.e. between the panes).
In Madau, the IR-reflective film is a component of a driver assistance/monitoring system. It is specifically designed to reflect IR light emitted by an IR source (flash or emitter) inside the car so that an IR camera can capture the reflection. This is a targeted optical functionality - essentially creating a reflective mirror for active IR signals (e.g. for night vision, driver monitoring, HUD, etc.). Madau does not discuss, disclose, teach or suggest any thermal or solar control benefit of this film; its sole taught function is to reflect the particular IR wavelength from the system's IR emitter.
Manz describes a conventional solar control coating on automotive glass. As paragraph [0003] states, such a low-E coating reflects infrared portions of sunlight to reduce heat gain in the vehicle, and when on the interior-facing surface, it also reflects long-wave IR (heat) back into the cabin. In other words, the coating of Manz is meant to passively control thermal radiation for comfort and energy efficiency (a feature well-known in automotive and architectural glazing). Nowhere does Manz teach or suggest that this coating is intended to reflect IR signals from an active IR source (like an IR camera system). Its focus is on broad-band solar IR and thermal radiation, not the directed near-IR used in IR illumination systems.
The Office Action's combination essentially assumes that because Manz's coating reflects IR (in a general thermal sense), it could double as the specialized IR-reflective layer in Madau's system. However, this assumption is not supported by any explicit teaching or suggestion in either reference. There is a "dot" missing between the two references: Madau's IR film and Manz's low-E coating are never linked in the prior art. Manz does not disclose, teach or suggest using its coating for any driver assistance or optical reflection purpose (it deals with thermal effects of sunlight), and Madau does not disclose that its IR film could be a generic low- E coating (it is a distinct film for a sensor system).
In fact, the only place where the idea of using a low-E/sun-protection coating for reflecting an IR beam from a driver assistance system appears is in Applicant's own application (now captured by amended claim 1). Relying on this concept without prior art support is classic hindsight. The Office is "connecting the dots"only with knowledge of the invention - a legal misstep.
Moreover, even if one were to hypothesize combining Madau and Manz, the MPEP and case law require a reasonable expectation of success for a prima facie obviousness case. See MPEP 2143.02: Obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success Here, the Office provided a reason (improve heat control in Madau's system by using Manz's coating) but failed to establish that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect this substitution to work for Madau's intended purpose.Important considerations include:
Different IR wavelength and intensity regimes: Madau's IR system likely operates in a specific IR wavelength (e.g., near-IR around 800-950 nm for camera illumination). Manz's low- E coating is designed to reflect a broad spectrum of solar IR (and far-infrared heat). There is no evidence that Manz's coating is sufficiently reflective at the exact wavelength/angle needed for the IR camera system. A person of ordinary skill would question whether a low-E film (optimized for solar spectrum) can effectively function as the optical mirror for an IR camera setup. Absent any teaching in Manz or known interchangeability, success would not be assumed.
Optical clarity vs. reflectance trade-offs: Low-E coatings on windshields are generally nearly transparent to visible light (to meet legal requirements), and their reflective properties are balanced against transparency. Madau's film, however, might be a more highly reflective layer (potentially even a narrow-band IR reflector or a partially reflective mirror) placed in a specific
zone of the windshield. Substituting a transparent heat-reflective coating for a dedicated IR mirror could risk undermining the driver-monitoring system's performance. The prior art provides no guidance that one could achieve Madau's functionality with Manz's coating without unacceptable trade-offs.This uncertainty means a lack of a reasonable expectation of success - a crucial flaw in the Office's logic.
No evidence of combination in practice: If using a low-E windshield for an IR camera were obvious, one might expect prior art or industry standards to mention it, but the Office cited none. In fact, Manz's own disclosure is silent about any use of its coatings with IR sensors or cameras, implying that this idea is not within the common general knowledge. The absence of such teaching reinforces that success would not have been anticipated by the skilled artisan.
Therefore, the Office has not shown any factual basis or prior art teaching that the low-E coating could successfully perform Madau's function. This goes beyond a mere difference in where the coating is applied; it is about what the coating is fundamentally designed to do. Manz's low-E layer works on sunlight heat, not on a directed IR beam from a device - a difference in kind, not just degree. And, even if one concedes a motivation (energy savings), the Office has not demonstrated the requisite expectation that the combination would actually achieve the driver-monitoring IR reflection function. Without that, the rejection fails at the prima facie stage.
For at least the foregoing reasons, amended claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Madau and Manz.
Claims 2-5 and 14-15 are patentable over Madau, Manz and any proper combination thereof at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1 and for the additional features recited therein.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madau, and Manz are respectfully requested.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Madau and Manz in view of US 5729619 A, hereinafter "Puma". The rejection is respectfully traversed.
Claim 13 is patentable over Madau, Manz and any proper combination thereof at least by virtue of its dependency from claim 1 and for the additional features recited therein.
Puma does not remedy the deficiencies of Madau and Manz noted above in claim 1. Therefore, any proper combination of Madau, Manz and Puma cannot result in any way in the invention of claim 1.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Madau and Manz in view of Puma is respectfully requested.”
As to (C), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20030142041 A1 which relates to an eye tracking system using reflections in a vehicle.
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 AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/27/26