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
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 5470422 A) hereinafter Gold ‘422, in view of Choi (KR 19980035753 U) and Luttermann et al. (DE 102018002898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gold ‘422 discloses a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 1 when used in normal and usual operation. Gold ‘422 discloses installing a vehicle glass component (Gold ‘422, windshield 16 in Fig. 4), positioning a spacer element (Gold ‘422, 28 in Fig. 4) between the glass component and a vehicle frame (Gold ‘422, 14A and 14B in Fig. 5); aligning the glass component with respect to the spacer element and the vehicle frame (Gold ‘422, aligned as shown in Fig. 4) to position the glass component and the spacer element in an installation position (Gold ‘422, Fig. 4 position) with respect to the vehicle frame, wherein the glass component, spacer element, and vehicle frame define a channel (Gold ‘422, see annotated Fig. 4); and injecting an adhesive (Gold ‘422, 30 in Fig. 5) into the channel at a sufficient pressure to fill the channel (Gold ‘422, Fig. 5-6, the adhesive will have a pressure when it goes into the channel) and permanently bond the glass component to the vehicle frame in the installation position (Gold ‘422, after curing of the adhesive); injecting the adhesive into the channel at a sufficient pressure comprises positioning an adhesive dispenser (Gold ‘422, Gold ‘422, Fig. 5 shows a dispenser where the adhesive originates, Fig. 8 shows same dispenser labeled as 36), the adhesive is captive in two dimensions (Gold ‘422, Fig. 5, entirely captive in left and right direction by windshield 16 and wall14A, partially captive in the up-down direction by 14B) and partially captive in a third dimension by a trailing portion of previously applied adhesive (Gold ‘422, claim 1, urethane adhesive is apply along the peripheral edge, therefore as the dispenser applies the adhesive along the edge, some portions of the adhesive will be behind others, therefore captivates in the third dimension, which is the dimension along the peripheral edge, or in the direction into or out of the page in Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 4 from Gold '422
Gold ‘422 fails to disclose a plurality of openings, wherein injecting the adhesive causes the adhesive to expel air through the plurality of openings to uniformly fill the channel with the adhesive; and at least partially into the channel such that, while injecting, the adhesive is entirely captive in two dimensions.
Choi teaches a plurality of openings (Choi, 10 in Fig. 2), wherein injecting the adhesive causes the adhesive to expel air through the plurality of openings (Choi, abstract and Fig. 2) to uniformly fill (after combination, urethane can fill the space since air are no longer in the channel) the channel with the adhesive.
Choi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 to incorporate the teachings of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success and have openings. Doing so improves adhesion of the glass (Choi, abstract).
Luttermann teaches at least partially into the channel (Luttermann, Fig. 3 shows the dispenser 7 partially into the channel) such that, while injecting, the adhesive is entirely captive in two dimensions (after combination, since having the dispenser partially into the channel will captivate the adhesive from the above, which makes the adhesive of Gold ’422 entirely captive in the left-right direction and the up-down direction since Gold ‘422 already discloses captive from the bottom, left, and right).
Luttermann is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window installation using adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi to incorporate the teachings of Luttermann with a reasonable expectation of success and have the nozzle partially into the channel. Doing so provides better aim and prevents the adhesive from incorrectly apply to unintended locations outside the channel.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein positioning the spacer element further comprises: attaching the spacer element to the vehicle frame (Gold ‘422, Fig. 4-5); and positioning the glass component over the spacer element (Gold ‘422, Fig. 4).
Examiner notes that no order is being claimed for the steps or actions therefore Gold ‘422 reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein positioning the spacer element further comprises: attaching the spacer element to the glass component (Gold ‘422, Fig. 4-5); and positioning the glass component and spacer element over the vehicle frame (Gold ‘422, Fig. 4).
Examiner notes that no order is being claimed for the steps or actions therefore Gold ‘422 reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adhesive comprises a curable (Gold ‘422, Col. 3 lines 54-55, urethane is curable) waterproof adhesive (Gold ‘422, urethane is waterproof, also admitted by Applicant in specification paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adhesive comprises at least one of urethane (Gold ‘422, Col. 3 lines 23-24), butyl, and silicone.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the glass component comprises a vehicle windshield (Gold ‘422, Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 17-18).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gold (US 4847977 A), hereinafter Gold ‘977.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, a perimeter (Gold ‘422, Fig. 1 shows the glass perimeter) of the glass component.
The combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann fails to teach a continuous channel around the perimeter of the glass component, and injecting a continuous bead of adhesive into the channel around the perimeter of the glass component.
Gold ‘977 teaches a continuous channel around the perimeter (Gold ‘977, Col. 4 lines 26-32, spacer 46 is continuous around the window peripheral and act as closure for the adhesive, which is continuous around glass perimeter, therefore the channel formed by the spacer would also be continuous around perimeter), and injecting a continuous bead of adhesive into the channel around the perimeter of the glass component (Gold ‘977, Col. 3 lines 23-25, adhesive bead is continuous along the perimeter).
Gold ‘977 is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann to incorporate the teachings of Gold ‘977 with a reasonable expectation of success and have the channel and adhesive be continuous around the glass perimeter. Doing so provides maximum positioning support for the window and maximizes the bonding between the glass and the vehicle frame.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose the spacer element comprises a continuous spacer element having a perimeter smaller than the perimeter of the glass component.
Gold ‘977 teaches a continuous spacer element (Gold ‘977, Col. 4 lines 26-32, spacer 46 is continuous around the window peripheral) having a perimeter smaller than (Gold ‘422, spacer 28 is inward from the edge of the glass, therefore when made continuous by the teaching of Gold ‘977, it will have a small perimeter) the perimeter of the glass component.
Gold ‘977 is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches to incorporate the teachings of Gold ‘977 with a reasonable expectation of success and have the spacer continuous around the perimeter such that it has a smaller perimeter. Doing so provides maximum positioning support for the window and maximizes the bonding between the glass and the vehicle frame.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi, Luttermann, and Gold ‘977 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rentz (US 3400971 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi, Luttermann, and Gold ‘977 teaches the method of claim 3, but fails to teach a distance between the perimeter of the spacer element and the perimeter of the glass component is substantially uniform.
Rentz teaches a distance between the perimeter of the spacer element and the perimeter of the glass component is substantially uniform (Rentz, Col. 2 lines 42-47, spacer have same shape as the window and is spaced inwardly from the window edge at a distance, therefore the distance between the perimeters will be substantially uniform).
Rentz is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi, Luttermann, and Gold ‘977.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi, Luttermann, and Gold ‘977 to incorporate the teachings of Rentz with a reasonable expectation of success and have substantially uniform distance between the perimeters. Doing so ensures sufficient channel space for the adhesive and allows the window to be properly supported around the perimeter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck et al. (KR 20050050943 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose a plurality of spacer element sections, and wherein positioning the spacer element comprises positioning the plurality of spacer element sections within a perimeter of the glass component to define the channel.
Beck teaches a plurality of spacer element sections (Beck, 25 in Fig. 3), and wherein positioning the spacer element comprises positioning the plurality of spacer element sections within a perimeter of the glass component (Beck, Fig. 4b, also in combination with Gold ‘422 which teaches the spacer are inward of the glass perimeter) to define the channel.
Beck is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann to incorporate the teachings of Beck with a reasonable expectation of success and have spacer element sections. Doing so save material for the spacer and allows stronger bonding due to increased surface area in contact with the adhesive.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roze et al. (US 6134851 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose a rigid plastic.
Roze teaches a rigid plastic (Roze, Col. 3 line 14, frame can be made using nylon, Fig. 2 shows frame 16 includes spacer 20; nylon is acknowledged by Applicant in paragraph 34 of the specification as a harder plastic).
Roze is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann to incorporate the teachings of Roze with a reasonable expectation of success and use nylon for the spacer such that it is made of rigid plastic. Doing so provides the spacer with reinforcement function (Roze, Col. 2 line 62) and by using a strong material the product can be made more durable and impact-resistant.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one of ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) rubber, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), and polyamide nylon (PA).
Roze teaches a rigid plastic polyamide nylon (PA) (Roze, Col. 3 line 14, nylon is a polyamide, frame can be made using nylon, Fig. 2 shows frame 16 includes spacer 20).
Roze is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle window with spacer and adhesive as Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device performing the method as taught by Gold ‘422 in view of Choi and Luttermann to incorporate the teachings of Roze with a reasonable expectation of success and use nylon for the spacer such that it is made of polyamide. Doing so provides the spacer with reinforcement function (Roze, Col. 2 line 62) and by using a strong material the product can be made more durable and impact-resistant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 2/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Luttermann et al. (DE 102018002898 A1), which teaches the dispenser partially into the channel such that the adhesive is entirely captive in two dimensions.
Applicant's arguments in the last paragraph on page 6 and the last paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither references (Gold ‘422 and Gold ‘977) teaches injecting adhesive under sufficient pressure to fill the channel. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 5 of Gold ‘422 shows the adhesive 30 being injected out from a nozzle into the channel to fill it up. Additionally, pressure is an inherent property. Therefore, the adhesive in Fig. 5 of Gold ‘422 will have a certain pressure value that is sufficient to fill the channel as shown. Applicant did not claim any range of pressure value to define what is considered sufficient pressure, therefore the limitation is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as any pressure that is sufficient for the adhesive to fill the channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612