DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although the prior art teaches similar glass plates with resin frames, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such a plate having the specific structure set forth in the present claims 8 and 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata, US 2004/0131802 A1, as evidenced by Templeton et al., US 6310134 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Nakata teaches a glass plate having a resin frame for a vehicle window (Abstract) comprising a glass plate (6 of Fig. 4), a resin frame disposed on the peripheral edge of the glass plate (10 of Fig. 4), a decorative molding disposed on the resin frame (2 of Fig. 4), and a spacer disposed between the resin frame and the decorative molding (23 of Fig. 4). Nakata teaches that the resin frame may be molded to the glass plate and to the decorative molding one unit ([0005]), that the spacer 23 may be made of metal such as steel ([0039]) which would be solid at room temperature, and that a gap may be formed between the resin frame and the spacer (depicted, but not labeled, in Fig. 4).
Although Nakata does not explicitly teach that the spacer comprises a material having a non-adhesive property to the resin frame, Nakata teaches that the spacer may be a metal or resin material and that the resin frame material may be a polyolefin ([0038]-[0039]). Metals and resins are not adhesive toward polyolefins because such molded polyolefins possess an inert, wax-like surface that requires a primer for adhesion, as evidenced by Templeton (col. 1 ln. 20-33 and col. 3 line 30-31).
Regarding claim 2, the characterization of the spacer as comprising a “sheet member” does not appear to impart any specific structural limitations. Nevertheless, the spacer 23 of Nakata appears to constitute a “sheet member” in accordance with the usage in Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 3, Nakata teaches that the spacer may comprise a metal ([0039]).
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata, US 2004/0131802 A1 as applied above, in view of Templeton et al., US 6310134 B1.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 16, Nakata teaches a glass plate as discussed above. The teachings of Nakata differ from the present invention in that Nakata does not teach any specific thickness or width for the decorative molding or the spacer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate thickness and width for the molding and the spacer based on the specific materials being used and the desired appearance and dimensions of the product. Additionally, arbitrary recitations of relative size or proportion cannot distinguish a claimed invention from that of the prior art when the differences would have otherwise been obvious (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights