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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group, Claims 1-11 and 15 in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground there is no search burden and there is unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because a search of a method and product will require different search strategies that places a burden on the Office. With regard to the lack of unity, the rejection of Claim 1 over Kolf and Bard below demonstrates the lack of special technical feature of Claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “use” claim is an improper definition of a process. (MPEP §2173.05(q)).
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 11 and 15 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 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “heat coating” that renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is assumed to be the electric heating element.
Regarding Claim 15, to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process renders the claim the indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(q)). For purpose of examination, the claim is turned into a product claim of a windshield comprising the glazing.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolf et al. (US 2022/0152987 A1) in view of Bard et al. (US 2020/0391577 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kolf teaches a glazing suitable for electric heating (Abstract; Claim 6 of Kolf) comprising a first glass sheet (Fig. 12, Item 2 or 3), a first masking layer around the periphery of first glass sheet (Fig. 11, Item 11), an aperture in the first making layer for a sensor (Fig. 11), and a second glass sheet bonded to the first glass sheet by a ply of interlayer material (Fig. 12, Item 4). Kolf teaches an inlay (Item 5) located between the ply of the interlayer material and the first glass sheet, where the inlay comprises a carrier film (Item 8), an electric heating element on the carrier film (Item 10) and an opaque masking layer (Item 7), a second masking layer, on the carrier film. (Fig. 5-6). Kolf teaches opaque masking layers can be applied to the first and second panes. (Paragraph 0097).
Kolf does not specifically teach a third masking layer on a surface of the second glass sheet facing the ply of interlayer material, where the third masking layer obscures at least part of the second masking layer.
Bard teaches a glazing for electric heating (Abstract; Paragraph 0063), where a third masking layer on the surface of the second glass sheet (Fig. 3(a), Item 203) facing the ply of the interlay and obscures a portion of the second masking layer (Item 221). Bard teaches the third masking layer allows for a reduction in deformation in the glazing and allows for better hiding of various components (Paragraph 0052) and the overlapping of the second and third masking layer allows for better control of the opening and protection from stray light (Paragraph 0051-0053). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the claimed third masking layer on the surface of the second glass sheet facing the interlayer material, where the third masking layer obscures a part of the second masking film of Kolf.
Regarding Claim 2, Kolf teaches the second masking layer on an opposite surface of the carrier film than the electric heating element. (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Kolf teaches the electric heating element can be in contact with the first glass sheet. (Fig. 2 and 5).,
Regarding Claim 4, Kolf teaches the second masking has an internal edge and the shape of the internal edge can be oval or circle. (Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 5, Kolf teaches the second masking layer has an external edge and a width between the internal edge and external edge. (Fig. 5-6). Kolf does not teach the width range. However, Kolf does teach adjusting the width for different types of sensors. (Paragraph 0042). Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the width range to adjust for various sensors sizes to reach the claimed range through routine experimentation, after recognition of the width is a results-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 6, Bard teaches the internal edge of the second masking layer spaced from the edge of the first masking layer by a distance, and the distance is 0 to 22 mm (Paragraph 0055). This overlaps the claimed range. Bard teaches distance allows for proper light control, masks deformities and provide cover. (Paragraph 0055-0056). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed distance in Kolf.
Regarding Claim 7, Kolf teaches the carrier film can consist of PVB. (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding Claim 8, Kolf teaches the substrate layer can have a thickness of 10 to 500 microns. (Paragraph 0057). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Kolf teaches the electric heating element can be a conductive coating. (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 15, Kolf teaches this glazing is a windshield. (Paragraph 0030).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kolf and Bard, in further view of Park (US 2016/0198527 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kolf does not teach the electric heating element is conductive tracks.
Park teaches forming a transparent electric heating element of conductive tracks comprising silver nanowires (Abstract; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0012). Park teaches this conductive track structure provide improve thermal response and flexibility and are cheap. (Paragraph 0003-0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use conductive tracs of silver as the electric heating element in Kolf for a more flexible and cheap option.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolf and Bard, in further view of Ma et al. (US 2020/0307167 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kolf does not teach the power density of the electric heating element.
Ma teaches a power density of 500 to 700 W/m2 is suitable to melt snow or ice on a windshield for a car. (Paragraph 0003) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the power density of the heating element of Kolf to the claimed range to ensure it can melt ice and snow.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights