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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 16, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the objections to the drawings and specification have been overcome by amendment. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the objections.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the rejections.
Regarding the prior art, applicant has argued that the claim amendments overcome the rejection based on Ushiyama et al. (US 8,247,921). Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn all rejections based on Ushiyama. However, the amended claims stand rejected based on newly discovered prior art.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 16, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukumoto et al. (US 6,386,620, hereinafter Fukumoto).
With regard to claim 1, Fukumoto discloses a flexible electrical connection (10, see Fig. 1) for a vehicle glazing movable in translation relative to a bodywork element of said vehicle (note that this refers to the intended use of the electrical connection), said flexible electrical connection having, along its length, an upstream connector (20) attachable to an inner element fixed to said bodywork element (the connector 20 is “attachable” to a bodywork element, and such a bodywork element is not positively recited in the claim) and a downstream connector (19) attachable to a glass pane of said glazing (the glass pane is not positively recited), the flexible electrical connection comprising a flexible ribbon cable (10a) comprising at least one conductive wire (11a-c) and/or at least one conductive strip, said flexible ribbon cable having a cable length (Fig. 5), a cable width perpendicular to said cable length (Fig. 5), and a thickness smaller than said cable width (Figs. 4 and 5), wherein said flexible ribbon cable has a curved lateral shape (Fig. 4) where said flexible ribbon cable is connected to said upstream connector (Fig. 11 shows a sectional view through the connector 20, and also shows the curvature of the cable at that point) and a curved lateral shape where said flexible ribbon cable is connected to said downstream connector (see annotated Fig. below. Also, note the breadth of the phrase “where said flexible ribbon cable is connected”—the word “where” is interpreted to encompass the portion of the cable close to the connector 20. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any particular specific structural relationship between surfaces of the connectors and surfaces of the cable), each of said curved lateral shapes being a shape whose curvature is in a lateral direction of said flexible ribbon cable, that is, along said cable width, perpendicular to said cable length (see Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Fukumoto teaches that said upstream connector (20) and said downstream connector (19) each comprise a receiving surface (see annotated Figs. below, related to connectors 19 and 20) which is in contact with said flexible ribbon cable and which is curved laterally, along said cable width, so as to impart said curved lateral shape to said flexible ribbon cable (note that the phrase “so as to impart said curved lateral shape to said flexible ribbon cable” is being interpreted to require that the receiving surface matches the curvature of the ribbon cable, and thus can be considered to maintain and/or impart the curvature to the cable).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 5-11 and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of Snider et al. (US 2018/0227986, hereinafter Snider).
With regard to claims 5 and 7, Fukumoto fails to disclose a glass pane, or a vehicle equipped with glazing comprising a glass pane, a system configured to allow mobility of said glass pane in translation relative to a bodywork element of said vehicle and at least one flexible electrical connection according to any one of claim 1, wherein said downstream connector is attached to said glass pane. Instead, Fukumoto discloses a sliding door, and that the downstream connector is attached to the sliding door.
Snider teaches a vehicle window having a sliding glass pane (20), where a flexible electrical cable (30) is connected to the glass pane at the downstream end (see elements 28 and 36 in Fig. 2).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Fukumoto such that the flexible electrical connector was attached to a sliding glass pane, rather than a sliding door, with a reasonable expectation of success given that the teachings of Fukumoto are generally useful for relatively slidable panels in vehicles, and Snider shows that sliding glass panels can utilize similar flexible connectors to that of Fukumoto to achieve predictable results.
With regard to claims 6 and 9, Fukumoto in view of Snider teaches that the glass pane includes a heater or a lightening/darkening system (Snider, whose glass pane has been incorporated into Fukumoto, teaches a “heating or defogging” system, see paragraph 0026).
With regard to claims 8 and 15, Fukumoto in view of Snider is silent as to the flexible ribbon cable having, along its length, a fold having a radius of curvature between 0.2 and 20.0 mm, or between 5.0 and 15.0 mm. However, it is noted that Fig. 1 of Fukumoto appears to show a bend radius that could be within the range of 15 millimeters.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Fukumoto in view of Snider such that the fold in the cable had a radius of curvature between 5.0 and 15.00 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 10, Fukumoto in view of Snider teaches that the flexible ribbon cable extends along its length in a direction parallel to an principle component of a direction of translation of said glass pane (Fukumoto’s principle component of translation movement is in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, corresponding to the opening/closing direction of the door. When modifying Fukumoto to be utilized with a glass window pane, one of ordinary skill would position the cable in the same manner with respect to the window opening direction).
With regard to claim 11, Fukumoto teaches that said inner element is an interior guide for said flexible ribbon cable (see annotated Fig. below), said interior guide having a surface on which said flexible ribbon cable slides and which prevents said flexible ribbon cable from moving further inward (Fig. 1 shows that the cable does not move further inward beyond the interior guide surface in either position of the sliding door).
PNG
media_image4.png
398
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights