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 .
Remarks
The Office has cited particular columns, line numbers, paragraph numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 and § 2123.
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) 1-3, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maniwa et al. (JP2010158035A, hereinafter referred to as Maniwa).
Regarding claim 1, Maniwa discloses a window glass (Figs. 4, 8) for a vehicle comprising
a laminated glass (the glass substrate 1, Figs. 4, 8) for a vehicle including a first glass plate (the plate glass 1b, Fig. 4; 1a, Fig. 8) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (surfaces of 1b, Fig. 4; 1a-1, 1a-2, Fig. 8), a second glass plate (the plate glass 1a, Fig. 4; 1b, Fig. 8) having a third main surface facing the second main surface and a fourth main surface opposite to the third main surface (surfaces 1a-1 and 1a-2 of the plate glass 1a, FIG. 4; 1b-1, 1b-2, Fig. 8), and an interlayer film (the intermediate film 1c, Figs. 4, 8) disposed between the second main surface and the third main surface;
a planar antenna (the antenna pattern 2, Figs. 4, 8) disposed between the second main surface and the third main surface (see Figs. 4, 8); and
a conductive member (the ground pattern 3, Figs. 4, 8) that is separated from the antenna in a direction from the first glass plate toward the second glass plate and overlaps at least a part of the antenna in a plan view of the laminated glass (see Figs. 4, 8).
Regarding claim 2, Maniwa discloses wherein the antenna (2, Fig. 8) is disposed between the second main surface (1a-2) and the interlayer film (1c).
Regarding claim 3, Maniwa discloses wherein the conductive member (the ground pattern 3, Fig. 8) is disposed between the interlayer film (1c) and the third main surface (1b-1).
Regarding claim 7, Maniwa discloses wherein the conductive member (the ground pattern 3, Fig. 4) is disposed on the fourth main surface (1a-2 of plate glass la; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Maniwa discloses wherein the conductive member is a planar conductive film (“ground pattern (conductor pattern) 3”, page 6).
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al. (JP 2007228414A, hereinafter referred to as Arai).
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a window glass (2, Figs. 9, 12) for a vehicle comprising
a laminated glass (outer window glass 2a and inner window glass 2b; FIG. 9) for a vehicle including a first glass plate (outer window glass 2a"; FIG. 9) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface, a second glass plate (inner window glass 2b; FIG. 9) having a third main surface facing the second main surface and a fourth main surface opposite to the third main surface, and an interlayer film (the antenna element 12 is mounted in the intermediate layer between the outer window glass 2a and the inner window glass 2b, claim 2; FIG. 9) disposed between the second main surface and the third main surface;
a planar antenna (12, claim 2, Fig. 9) disposed between the second main surface and the third main surface (see Figs. 4, 8); and
a conductive member (the ground conductor 13 is mounted on the inner side of the window glass 2b, claim 2, Fig. 9) that is separated from the antenna in a direction from the first glass plate toward the second glass plate and overlaps at least a part of the antenna in a plan view of the laminated glass (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Arai discloses wherein the conductive member is disposed on the fourth main surface (the ground conductor 13 is mounted on the inner side of the window glass 2b, claim 2; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Arai discloses wherein the conductive member is a conductive wire disposed at a predetermined interval and having a width narrower than the interval (“wherein the plurality of ground conductors are transparent or meshes or stripes whose intervals are narrower than 1/10 wavelength and sufficiently narrower than the intervals”, claim 3).
Regarding claim 9, Arai discloses wherein when a wavelength of a radio wave transmitted and received by the antenna with respect to a frequency F is λ, the interval is λ/25 or less (ground-conductor mesh or stripe intervals "narrower than 1/10 wavelength", (claim 3)).
Regarding claim 10, Arai discloses wherein the conductive member is a planar conductive film (ground conductor 13 is mounted as a facing planar conductor on the inner surface of the insulator; Figs. 1, 2(a), 9).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniwa in view of Funatsu (WO2022004559Al, hereinafter referred to as Funatsu).
Regarding claim 4, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose a first interlayer film and a second interlayer film sandwiching the conductive member.
Funatsu discloses "the intermediate film 40 includes the intermediate film 40A and the intermediate film 40B, and the conductive layer 30 is provided between the intermediate film 40A and the intermediate film 40B" (second paragraph on page 8, Fig. 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Maniwa's intermediate film 1c as two films sandwiching ground pattern 3, as taught by Funatsu, which is a conventional dual-PVB and carrier-film construction for encapsulating a conductor in laminated vehicle glass (page 7, Funatsu).
Regarding claim 5, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose a first interlayer film and a second interlayer film sandwiching the antenna.
Funatsu discloses dual intermediate films 40A and 40B in the same laminate as a planar antenna (see page 8, Fig. 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split Maniwa's intermediate film lc into two films sandwiching antenna pattern 2 for handling and registration during lamination.
Regarding claim 6, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the second interlayer film is disposed between the first interlayer film and the third main surface, and the conductive member is disposed between the second interlayer film and the third main surface.
Funatsu discloses dual interlayers 40A and 40B with conductive layer 30 between them, together with a planar slot antenna in the same laminate (see page 8, Fig. 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to order the layers as first interlayer, antenna pattern 2, second interlayer, ground pattern 3, and third main surface, combining Maniwa's embedded facing conductors with Funatsu's split interlayer coating stack, so the antenna and the conductive member remain overlapped in plan view but isolated by an interlayer film.
Regarding claim 11, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose that the conductive film has a sheet resistance of 5 Ω / □ or more.
Funatsu discloses "The sheet resistance of the conductive layer 30 is 300 Ω / □ or less, … preferably 200 Ω / □ or less, more preferably 100 Ω / □ or less, and even more preferably 80 Ω / □ or less… The lower limit is… for example, 5 Ω / □ or more" (third paragraph on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give Maniwa' s ground pattern 3 a sheet resistance of 5 Ω / □ or more as taught by Funatsu in order to improve a gain of the antenna (third paragraph on page 5).
Regarding claim 12, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the conductive film is a conductive film or a low-radiation film included in a light control film.
Funatsu discloses "the conductive layer 30 may be a conductive film contained in a light control film capable of actively changing the visible light transmittance" (third paragraphs on page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Maniwa's ground pattern 3 as a conductive film of a light-control film, which Funatsu laminates into vehicle glass together with a planar antenna.
Regarding claim 18, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose wherein in the antenna, a length of the antenna in a direction along an outer edge of the laminated glass is longer than a length in a direction orthogonal to that direction.
Funatsu discloses an elongated slot 72 (length of 290 mm versus width of 20 mm) arranged along the window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to elongate Maniwa's antenna pattern 2 along the outer edge to fit the available black band real estate.
Regarding claim 19, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose a light shielding layer that is provided along the outer edge of the laminated glass and shields visible light, wherein the antenna overlaps at least a part of the light shielding layer in a plan view of the laminated glass.
Funatsu discloses “a light-shielding portion on the side of the first main surface with respect to the first glass plate” (claim 6), “wherein at least a part of the slot overlaps the second region without a light-shielding portion in a plan view” (claim 8). Overlap of antenna conductors with a peripheral ceramic band is the conventional concealment arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a peripheral light-shielding layer and overlap Maniwa's antenna pattern 2 with it in plan view, as taught by Funatsu, so the conductor is concealed from exterior view.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniwa in view of Takahashi (JP2022088000A, hereinafter referred to as Takahashi).
Regarding claim 13, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the conductive member includes a first bus bar, a second bus bar separated from the first bus bar, and a heating element connected between the first bus bar and the second bus bar.
Takahashi discloses wherein the conductive member includes a first bus bar (3a, 72), a second bus bar (3b, 70) separated from the first bus bar, and a heating element (2) connected between the first bus bar and the second bus bar (see Figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Maniwa's ground pattern 3 as first and second bus bars plus a heating element connected between them, as taught by Takahashi, so the same overlapping conductive member also defogs the glass.
Regarding claim 14, Maniwa discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the first bus bar includes an upper portion extending in a direction along an upper edge of the laminated glass, the second bus bar includes a lower portion extending in a direction along a lower edge of the laminated glass, and the heating element includes a plurality of heating wires connected between the upper portion and the lower portion.
Takahashi discloses wherein the first bus bar includes an upper portion (3a) extending in a direction along an upper edge of the laminated glass, the second bus bar includes a lower portion (70) extending in a direction along a lower edge of the laminated glass, and the heating element includes a plurality of heating wires connected between the upper portion and the lower portion (see Figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use that conventional bus bar and heating wire layout as Maniwa's overlapping conductive member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hisaeda (US 20060092085 A1) discloses antenna-embedded laminated glass and method for preparing the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/DANIEL D CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights