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 claims
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended and Claim(s) 9-20 are withdrawn in the response filed 10/08/2025.
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.
The term “sharper feature line” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sharper” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what exactly “sharper” is intended to mean in claim 1. Does it mean a different radius of curvature or a different angle? The specification recites the same phrase and the drawings filed 07/01/2022 depict the first and second layers of glass having matching bends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomozane et al. (US 5589248)
Regarding claims 1, Tomozane discloses a method for forming a glass structure capable of use in a vehicle (Col 2; line 23-24).
Tomozane discloses forming a glass structure by laminating a first and second layer of glass with aligned bends (Fig 7A)
Tomozane suggests a polymer (6 or 5) of butyl rubber, silicone rubber and polysulferized synthetic rubber disposed between the first and second glass layers form the overall glass structure (Fig 7, Col 15; lines 12-21).
Tomozane discloses bends in glass may be formed by applying localized radiation heating to a first location (Col 7; line 28, Col 14; lines 50-53, Col 14; lines 36-40) of a bending line and bending via a gravity pull (Col 14; lines 54-57, Col 1; lines 40-48, Col 2; line 66), the temperature at a suggested temperature of 800 degrees Celsius (Col 14; line 53) and suggests a radius of curvature of 6 mm (Col 14, line 65).
Tomozane also discloses a bend line may be applied on one or both surfaces (Col 6; lines 3-11) thus yielding the bend around the heater given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Tomozane discloses it is known to form a bent glass layer by adhering two portions of glass matched edges of glass forming a miter joint (Fig 4K, 4L, Resulting images of Fig 6) and adhering the two portions, with an adhesive (Col 1; lines 31-39, Col 2; lines 2-56).
It would be obvious to form the laminate of tomozane where one layer is bent by gravity pull and another glass layer is bent via a glass joint as motivated to form a matching bent glass layer to form the disclosed laminate this is considered to “provide a sharper feature line” as given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
MPEP 2123 indicates patents are relevant for all they contain, preferred and non-preferred embodiments. A known method does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Regarding claim 2, the first location is along a line of the planar glass structure see Fig 4K-M, Fig 5-6I, 7A
Regarding claim 4, Tomozane discloses localized heating along the bend line of the glass with arc discharge, or electrically conductive (Col 1; lines 45-48 Col 5; lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locally heat on the mold as motivated to locally heat and bend the glass.
MPEP 2144.04 states
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results)
Regarding claim 8, Tomozane discloses heating the glass at the bend line about 800 deg. Celsius (Col 7; line 6-7, 39 or Col 14; line 43, Col 10; lines 12-18).
Tomozane discloses in a furnace at a controlled predetermined temperature, preferably 0 to 200 deg. Celsius below the annealing point of the glass before local heating (Col 10; lines 52-59) however does not disclose the claimed temperature of claim 8.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of heating in the oven in the method of Tomozane based on the thickness or composition of the overall glass sheet.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. As indicated in MPEP 2144.05 and the critical range must produce unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claim. The present specification and claims provides no reason this particular temperature yields unexpected results.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomozane et al. (US 5589248) and further in view of Arturo (WO2019130284) as cited in the US publication (US 20200356524).
Regarding claims 5-6, Tomozane suggests locally heating to bend a planar glass using a rod shape seeds heater, halogen lamp (Col 5; 9-13, arc discharge in Fig 4).
In an analogous art of locally heating a planar glass to bend along the locally heated area, Arturo discloses local heating with a laser source Fig 6-18 [0087] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one local heating source for another as motivated to provide the predicted results of locally heating glass to bend at the locally heated portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner has addressed the claim amendments filed 01/22/2026 in the rejection above.
I.Applicant argues that Tomozane does not teach the motivation to combine gravity bending and miter joint in a single laminate.
In response to applicant's argument that Tomozane does not teach combining gravity bending and miter joint in a single laminate, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Applicant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Tomozane, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) which clearly states" A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
Tomozane discloses a laminate of two bent glass sheets and two ways of bending the sheet; gravity bending with localized heating and a bend created by joining two pieces of glass, a skilled artisan has a good reason to attempt using each bend method in a single laminate. Absent any unexpected results this is common sense.
II. Applicant argues Tomozane teaches away from combining miter joints with gravity-bent laminates.
In response to this argument Examiner notes that Tomozane does not discuss and thus does not teach away from combining miter joints with gravity-bent laminates.
Applicant points to a portion of Tomozane that discusses using a frame to join glass pieces which reduces the appearance. Examiner cites the miter joining which attempts to solve this by not using a frame. Tomozane points out a reduced life for a bent glass formed of a sealed joint of two pieces of glass to form a bend As indicated previously, and in MPEP 2123 patents are relevant for all they contain, preferred and non-preferred embodiments. A known method does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore a method of forming a bent glass does not become patentable simply because it is described as inferior.
III. Applicant argues Examiner is using hindsight.
Examiner disagrees. Simply put, Tomozane teaches gravity bending of glass with local heating, miterjoint bending of glass and a laminate formed of two bent sheets of glass all in a single petent, it would be obvious to use the two known method of bending glass and forming a laminate therefrom the bent glass sheets.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741