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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 16-19, 22-25, 29, 31, and 40-42 are pending.
Claims 5, 9-15, 20-21, 26-28, 30, and 32-39 are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
No amendments were made.
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) 1-4, 16-19, 22-25, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. US 2018/0188870 A1) in view of Iwatani et al. (JP 2015/080981 A; machine translation) and in further view of Carter (US 6,102,546 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 4,
Boggs teaches a curved glass article (Boggs: abstract). The curved glass article comprises: a glass substrate (140, a glass sheet) having a first major surface (142) and a second major surface (144) which define a thickness therebetween (Boggs: Figs. 2 and 3; par. 0039 and 0040); the glass sheet is adhered to a frame (158, a carrier) wherein said frame has a curvature and a carrier material (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0029-0032, 0035, 0101, 0105-0108, 0121-0126, 0130-0141, 0153, and 0173-0182).
Boggs is silent towards the carrier material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of from 8(10-6)/°C to 40(10-6)/°C. However, Boggs does teach the frame may be composed of metal alloys, including iron-based alloys, and fiber reinforced plastics and composites (Boggs: par. 0140).
Iwatani teaches a laminated panel (11) for use in an automobile comprising a glass panel (12) adhered to a holder that is a frame (15, corresponds to a carrier) (Iwatani: abstract; Fig. 2; par. 0020 and 0024). The frame may be composed of a steel material (steel is an iron-based alloy) which has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of 11.7(10-6)/°C, which is within the claimed range, to which provides sufficient strength and support (Iwatani: par. 0029, 0035, and 0040-0047).
Boggs and Iwatani are in the corresponding field of laminated glass panels adhered to frames for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a steel alloy as the carrier material, having the claimed CTE, of Boggs to provide sufficient strength and support as taught by Iwatani.
Boggs and Iwatani are silent towards the carrier defining a bezel along a lateral side of the glass sheet that is less than or equal to 10 mm in width. However, the carrier (the frame of Boggs) does define a bezel, which would be along a lateral size of the glass sheet (Boggs: par. 0172).
Carter teaches an automobile display laminate comprising a bezel (48, corresponds to the frame/carrier with a bezel of Boggs) that hides elements underneath with a total width of from 4 to about 10 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range (Carter: abstract; col. 4, lin. 29-63). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Boggs and Carter are in the corresponding field of frames/bezels along lateral edge of glass laminates for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the bezel in the carrier of Boggs to be within the claimed range to sufficiently conceal or seal the elements beneath the frame as taught by Carter.
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
Boggs in view of Iwatani teaches the curved glass article required by claim 1. Boggs further teaches the frame (158, the carrier) may be considered to comprise a plurality of reinforcing strips along a first lateral side (left side of Fig. 14) of the glass sheet (140) a plurality of reinforcing strips along a second lateral side (right side of Fig. 14) due to the honeycomb like shape of the frame on each side (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0143 and 0144).
Regarding claims 16-18,
Boggs in view of Iwatani teaches the curved glass article required by claim 1. Boggs further teaches the frame (158, the carrier) may be considered a segmented strip adhered to at least one lateral side of the glass sheet (140) (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0143 and 0144). The segmented strip may be defined as a zigzag structure along the length of the glass sheet and adhered to the frame at the curved support surface (Boggs: par. 0130). Thus, there would be a plurality of bonding surfaces due to the zigzag structure and the adhesive may be applied to the frame support surface or coated (Boggs: par. 0130). The carrier (158) may be attached to a center console base (110, a frame of a vehicle interior system) by way of a cantilever snap-fit joint (a detent or a hook member) which connects the carrier (158) to the frame (110) and is snaped into a plurality of slots (123) periodically spaced along the length of a mounting surface of the segmented strip as shown in Fig. 20 A (Boggs: Fig. 14; Figs. 20A-C; par. 0108).
Regarding claim 19,
Boggs in view of Iwatani teaches the curved glass article required by claim 1. Boggs further teaches the frame (158, the carrier) may be considered a segmented strip adhered to at least one lateral side of the glass sheet (140) (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0143 and 0144). The segmented strip may be defined as a zigzag structure along the length of the glass sheet and adhered to the frame at the curved support surface (Boggs: par. 0130). Thus, there would be a plurality of bonding surfaces due to the zigzag structure and the adhesive may be applied to the frame support surface or coated (Boggs: par. 0130). The carrier (158) may be attached to a center console base (110, a frame of a vehicle interior system) by way of a cantilever snap-fit joint (a plurality of apertures configured to receive fasteners) which connects the carrier (158) to the frame (110) and is snaped into a plurality of slots (123) in which a mounting surface is arranged substantially perpendicular to the bonding surface as shown in Fig. 20A (Boggs: Fig. 14; Figs. 20A-C; par. 0108).
Regarding claims 22-25,
Boggs teaches a curved glass article (Boggs: abstract). The curved glass article comprises: a glass substrate (140, a glass sheet) having a first major surface (142 or 144) and a second major surface (142 or 144) which define a thickness therebetween (Boggs: Figs. 2 and 3; par. 0039 and 0040); the glass sheet is adhered to a frame (158, a carrier), which may be considered to be bonded to the first or second surface of said glass sheet, wherein said frame has a curvature and a carrier material (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0029-0032, 0035, 0101, 0105-0108, 0121-0126, 0130-0141, 0153, and 0173-0182).
Boggs further teaches the adhesive may be composed of overlapping tradenames, such as EP21TDCHT-LO, (Boggs: par. 0131 and Applicant’s specification: par. 0030) and thus would be expected to inherently have the claimed bonding strength of at most 0.6 MPa. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Boggs is silent towards the carrier material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of from 8(10-6)/°C to 40(10-6)/°C and wherein the CTE is matched to the glass sheet. However, Boggs does teach the frame may be composed of metal alloys, including iron-based alloys, and fiber reinforced plastics and composites (Boggs: par. 0140).
Iwatani teaches a laminated panel (11) for use in an automobile comprising a glass panel (12) adhered to a holder that is a frame (15, corresponds to a carrier) (Iwatani: abstract; Fig. 2; par. 0020 and 0024). The frame may be composed of a steel material (steel is an iron-based alloy) which has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of 11.7(10-6)/°C, which is within the claimed range, to which provides sufficient strength and support (Iwatani: par. 0029, 0035, and 0040-0047). The holder (15, frame/carrier) CTE is approximately the same (matched) to the glass panel (12) (Iwatani: par. 0029).
Boggs and Iwatani are in the corresponding field of laminated glass panels adhered to frames for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a steel alloy as the carrier material, having the claimed CTE that is matched to a glass panel, of Boggs to provide sufficient strength and support as taught by Iwatani.
Boggs and Iwatani are silent towards a combined stress includes a bending stress to conform the glass sheet to a curvature and a shear stress caused by a differential in expansion resulting from heating the glass sheet and carrier up to 75° from room temperature; and wherein the combined stress is less than the bonding strength, wherein the combined stress is no more than 1.4 MPa.
However, Boggs does teach the glass article is curved by heating and maintaining the temperature below 100°C, which overlaps with the claimed 75°C from room temperature (Boggs: par. 0127) in addition to teaching the claimed structure as explained above with a glass panel composed of overlapping compositions as detailed in the specification (Boggs: par. 0075-0095 and Applicant’s specification: par. 0069-0092), and a carrier composed of the claimed composition having the claimed CTE properties. Thus, it would be expected for the glass article of Boggs and Iwatani to necessarily have the claimed combined stress, bending stress, and shear stress as claimed. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Boggs and Iwatani are silent towards the carrier defining a bezel along a lateral side of the glass sheet that is less than or equal to 10 mm in width. However, the carrier (the frame of Boggs) does define a bezel, which would be along a lateral size of the glass sheet (Boggs: par. 0172).
Carter teaches an automobile display laminate comprising a bezel (48, corresponds to the frame/carrier with a bezel of Boggs) that hides elements underneath with a total width of from 4 to about 10 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range (Carter: abstract; col. 4, lin. 29-63). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Boggs and Carter are in the corresponding field of frames/bezels along lateral edge of glass laminates for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the bezel in the carrier of Boggs to be within the claimed range to sufficiently conceal or seal the elements beneath the frame as taught by Carter.
Regarding claims 40-41,
Boggs in view of Iwatani teaches the curved glass article required by claim 22. Boggs further teaches the frame (158, the carrier) may be considered a segmented strip adhered to at least one lateral side of the glass sheet (140) (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0143 and 0144). The segmented strip may be defined as a zigzag structure along the length of the glass sheet and adhered to the frame at the curved support surface (Boggs: par. 0130). Thus, there would be a plurality of bonding surfaces due to the zigzag structure and the adhesive may be applied to the frame support surface or coated (Boggs: par. 0130). The carrier (158) may be attached to a center console base (110, a frame of a vehicle interior system) by way of a cantilever snap-fit joint (a detent or a hook member) which connects the carrier (158) to the frame (110) and is snaped into a plurality of slots (123) periodically spaced along the length of a mounting surface of the segmented strip as shown in Fig. 20 A (Boggs: Fig. 14; Figs. 20A-C; par. 0108).
Regarding claim 42,
Boggs in view of Iwatani teaches the curved glass article required by claim 22. Boggs further teaches the frame (158, the carrier) may be considered a segmented strip adhered to at least one lateral side of the glass sheet (140) (Boggs: Fig. 14; par. 0143 and 0144). The segmented strip may be defined as a zigzag structure along the length of the glass sheet and adhered to the frame at the curved support surface (Boggs: par. 0130). Thus, there would be a plurality of bonding surfaces due to the zigzag structure and the adhesive may be applied to the frame support surface or coated (Boggs: par. 0130). The carrier (158) may be attached to a center console base (110, a frame of a vehicle interior system) by way of a cantilever snap-fit joint (a plurality of apertures configured to receive fasteners) which connects the carrier (158) to the frame (110) and is snaped into a plurality of slots (123) in which a mounting surface is arranged substantially perpendicular to the bonding surface as shown in Fig. 20A (Boggs: Fig. 14; Figs. 20A-C; par. 0108).
Claim(s) 6-8, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs in view of Iwatani and in view of Carter and in further view of Lee et al. (KR 10-1434730 B1; machine translation).
Regarding claims 6-8, 29, and 31,
Boggs in view of Iwatani and Cater teaches the curved glass article required by claims 1 and 22.
Boggs is silent towards the carrier is composed of fiber reinforced epoxy with a glass fibers at a volume fraction of from 0.38 and 0.52. However, Boggs does teach the frame may be composed of metal alloys, including iron-based alloys, and fiber reinforced plastics and composites (Boggs: par. 0140).
Lee teaches a window frame (corresponds to a carrier) for use in a window in a vehicle to provide excellent properties (Lee: abstract; par. 0001). The frame is composed of an epoxy resin reinforced with glass fibers with the glass fibers being in a volume fraction of between 30 and 60% to improve/adjust the mechanical strength properties of the frame (Lee: par. 0017, 0041, 0052, and 0082-0086). A volume fraction of 40% provides maximum compressive strength, which is within the claimed range (Lee: par. 0085).
Boggs and Lee are in the corresponding field of windows with fiber reinforced frames for use in automobiles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a glass fiber reinforced epoxy composite, within the claimed glass fiber volume fraction, as the carrier material of Boggs to provide improved mechanical properties as taught by Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Carter is nonanalogous art to the present invention. Applicant argues that Carter is drawn to bezel construction for review mirrors and is not in the same field as the present invention, which is structural and adhesives systems for curved glass display covers in vehicle interiors.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no requirement for a prior art reference to be in the same corresponding field or solve the same corresponding problem as invention presented in the specification. The requirement is for the art to be analogous to the claimed invention which is broadly drawn to a curved glass article, which carter clearly is drawn to glass laminates for use in vehicles (articles). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Applicant further argues that Carter does not reasonably teach a corresponding problem as the present invention, such as CTE matching and thus is not valid for use as prior art.
The argument is not found persuasive as there is no requirement for the prior art to teach the same problem as disclosed in the specification. The product claims are met when the prior art teaches the required structure. In this case, the CTE properties required in claim 1 are met by the combination of prior art, Boggs and Iwatani. Carter is simply utilized for teaching the bezel structure. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP 2145 IV.
Applicant further argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not choose bezel optimization for electrochromic mirrors for solutions regarding CTE properties to mount curved displays such as disclosed in the specification.
The argument is not found persuasive for the same reasons previously explained in points above. Carter is not utilized to teach the claimed properties or the structure of the curved glass, just the bezel width, in which the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to adjust the bezel width does not have to be the same reason Applicant adjusts the bezel width. Applicant has not provided any explicit teaching away or evidence that the proposed combination would render Boggs unsatisfactory for the intended purpose.
Applicant’s arguments towards Boggs in view of Lee have been found persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
New Section 103 rejections have been implemented in view of Boggs, Iwatani, Carter, and Lee upon further search and consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783