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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard et al. (WO 2019/017915 A1) [referenced via US 2020/0171952 A1] in view of Wakatsuki et al. (US 2017/0059749 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 8, Couillard teaches a cold-formed cover glass for a console of a vehicle (Abstract; Paragraph 0061, 0073) comprising a first end; a second end opposing the second end; a first major surface extending from the first end to the second end, a second major surface opposing the first major surface, a minor surface connecting the first major surface and the second major surface, a thickness defined as a distance between the first major surface and the second major surface, a width defined as a first dimension of one of the first or second major surfaces orthogonal to the thickness, a length defined as a second dimension of one of the first or second major surfaces orthogonal to both the thickness and the width; a first axis and a second axis, the first and second axis both extending along the width or the length. (Fig. 1-4).
Couillard teaches the first portion extending from the first axis to the first end to the first portion comprising a first radius of curvature of 20 to 2000 mm (Paragraph 0080) or greater than 20 mm to 5 meters (Paragraph 0041). These ranges overlap or lie within the claimed range of 20 to 20,000 mm. 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). Couillard teaches a second portion extending from the first axis to the second axis, the second portion comprising a second radius of curvature that increases or decreases from the first axis to the second axis. (Fig. 2-4; Paragraph 0037-0085)
Couillard teaches the glass surface comprises a two separate bend region. (Paragraph 0094). Couillard does not teach the substrate Gaussian curvature with the claimed absolute value range.
Wakatsuki teaches a curved glass (Abstract), where the substrate Gaussian curvature of the bent portion of the glass is -0.1 or less. (Paragraph 0051). 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). Wakatsuki teaches having this Gaussian curvature range allows for the curved glass to fit to complex devices, such as a center console in transport devices. (Paragraph 0051). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set he substrate Gaussian curvature to the claimed range to ensure the cover glass substrate can properly fit complex devices, such as a center consoles of cars.
Regarding Claim 2, Couillard teaches the first axis and the second axis are disposed between the first end and the second end. (Fig. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 3, Couillard teaches the first axis is disposed between the first and second ends, and the second axis is disposed at the second end. (Fig. 2-4)
Regarding Claim 7, Couillard teaches the second radius of curvature can have a range of 20 to 5 meters (Paragraph 0041) or greater than 1000 mm. (Paragraph 0076). This means the second radius of curvature range overlaps the range of the first radius of curvature to about 30,000 mm. 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 14, Couillard teaches a third portion disposed between the second end and the second axis, wherein the third portion comprises a third radius of curvature that differs from the first radius of curvature. (Fig. 2-4; Paragraph 0037-0085).
Regarding Claim 15, Couillard teaches one of the first portion and the third portion comprises a concave curvature and the other one of the first portion and the third portion comprises a convex curvature. (Fig. 2-4; Paragraph 0037-0085).
Regarding Claim 17, Couillard teaches the first portion and the third portion both comprise a convex curvature or a concave curvature. (Fig. 2-4; Paragraph 0037-0085).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard and Wakatsuki, in view of Salgado et al. (US 2019/0012032 A1).
Regarding Claim 4-5, Couillard does not teach the distance between the first and second axis. Salgado teaches a curved cover plate for a vehicle interior system can have a length of about 5 cm to about 250 cm. (Abstract; Paragraph 0058). Wakatsuki teaches a curved glass with various curves to fit complex geometry of vehicle interior systems. (Paragraph 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance between the first and second axes and therefore the length of the second radius of curvature to fit various shaped interior systems vehicles with lengths of 5 to 250 cm, where the glass substrate can be 5 to 250 cm in length. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard and Wakatsuki in view of 49 CFR 571.21 and 49 CFR 572.12.
Regarding Claim 23, Couillard teaches this cover glass can be used in consoles and instrument panels in a car. Couillard does not teach the claimed deceleration of an impactor.
49 CFR 571.21 and 49 CFR 572.12 recite the required impact standards for cars and components within the car, which require the deceleration of the impactor to not be greater than 80 g for any 3-millisecond interval over the time of impact and the deceleration of impact is 100 to 120 g-force. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in to ensure the glass of Couillard meets or exceeds the federal regulations and the claimed deceleration ranges, so the glass can actually be used in a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Couillard teaches the glass has a zero substrate Gaussian curvature, based off of Paragraph 0094. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Couillard recites “In one or more embodiments… have a Gaussian curvature (GC) that is equal to zero…”, which does not require all the embodiments to have a zero Gaussian curve. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. (MPEP §2123).
Applicant argues that Couillard teaches the respective “bend line segments are independent, are not parallel, and do no intersect” means the bend regions have a zero Gaussian curvature. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Couillard teaches “a first bend region in a first portion has a set of first bend line segments, and a second bend in a second portion has a set of second bend line segments, wherein the first bend line segments and the second bend line segments are independent, are not parallel, and do not intersect.” This means the bends are independent, which allows the bend line segments in each bend to be parallel and/or intersect, which allows for non-zero Gaussian curvature within a bend region.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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