DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 11/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 2 was amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faik et al. (US 20180111569) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20180065881) and Fukushi et al. (US 20180088399).
Faik discloses a panel for a vehicle interior panel (FIG. 5). The panel comprises a curved base (element 25) and two displays (element 26) with a glass cover layer adhered to the curved base and the displays (para. 0005-0024 and 0044). The glass cover layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 mm (para. 0010). The glass cover layer is bonded to the base (para. 0044). Examiner notes that the test apparatus and method is not part of a vehicle system and as such, not given patentable weight. With respect to claim 6, since Faik is silent to further layers disposed on the outermost surface of the glass and as such, would meet the limitations as claimed. Concerning claims 7-9, the glass cover layer can be bent using a cold forming process which would intrinsically be done below the glass transition temperature (para. 0039). Examiner notes that the glass transition temperature is the point where a material goes from glassy to molten, wherein under the Tg, the material would remain glassy. As such, since the materials and the process are the same, the values would be meet the claimed ranges and have a stored internal tensile energy as claimed. However, Faik is silent to the glass cover layer having the radius of curvature, compressive stress and depth layer and the mounting mechanism.
Hashimoto discloses a vehicle mounted display device that may be curved. Concerning the compressive stress and depth layer, Hashimoto discloses the glass sheet has the claimed thickness, a compressive stress layer having a thickness over 30 microns, and a surface compressive stress of 750 MPa or higher (para. 0032-0042). Such a glass sheet is preferable because of strength and design (para. 0032 and 0039). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a glass sheet that has the claimed depth of compression and compressive stress. Hashimoto further discloses mounting the display device into a housing of the automobile by using mounting components (para. 0062-0077). The specific mounting components each have an energy absorption rate related to the thickness of the glass cover wherein the fixing components have the same materials as that disclosed in the instant application (para. 0070-0077). Examiner notes that there are specific safety standards that should be met for keeping people safe. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed stiffness relationship.
Fukushi discloses glass articles for vehicle displays wherein the radius of curvature for glass sheets is 5 mm to 5000 mm (para. 0091). As such, for use as displays in vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the claimed radius of curvature.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faik et al. (US 20180111569) in view of Fukushi et al. (US 20180088399) and Yamamoto et al. (WO 2013/176150).
Faik discloses a panel for a vehicle interior panel (FIG. 5). The panel comprises a curved base (element 25) and two displays (element 26) with a glass cover layer adhered to the curved base and the displays (para. 0005-0024 and 0044). The glass cover layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 mm (para. 0010). The glass cover layer is bonded to the base (para. 0044). As shown in Figure 5, the cover glass matches the base having a curved surface and as such, for reducing the gaps between the base and the glass cover layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the claimed difference. Regarding claims 12 and 13, as shown in Figure 5, the surfaces are convex and concave and is a center console structure with the base being a center console base. Examiner notes that the test apparatus and method is not part of a vehicle system and as such, not given patentable weight. With respect to claim 14, since the glass cover layer is cold-formed, the adhesive would have the claimed surface compressive stress. Concerning claim 16, adhesives are used to fix the structures of the laminate together, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere the components in the periphery of the side surfaces to prevent delamination of the structure. Regarding claim 17, based upon design requirements and safety requirements to prevent delamination, one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed thickness between the glass and the base or at the periphery. Regarding claim 20, in order to provide the desired aesthetic look, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a bezel-free look which would have an exposed edge for the glass cover layer. However, Faik is silent to the glass cover layer having the claimed radius of curvature and strengthening of the glass and the edges.
Fukushi discloses a glass article and glass substrate thereof. Concerning claim 1, Fukushi discloses the glass article can be an interior vehicle component such as a display front surface or instrument panel surface, wherein the glass article comprises a glass layer having radius of curvature of 100 mm to 3000 mm for providing complex shapes (para. 0091 and 0115). Further, Fukushi discloses the glass substrate is chemically strengthened with a surface compressive stress value over 700 MPa and a depth of layer of 8 microns to 70 microns (para. 0130-0137). Chemically strengthening the glass allows for glass that is higher in mechanical stress. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to Given that the combination teaches the same glass as claimed and the curved base, the impact properties as claimed would be met by the combination.
Yamamoto discloses a glass sheet that has all edges and the major surfaces are all chemically strengthened (FIG. 1). The ground edges and all major surfaces are all chemically strengthened by ion exchange, in order to slow cracking (pp. 3-32). As such, in order to provide resistance to cracking, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to chemically strengthen the ground edge of the glass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments as overcoming the previous objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 16 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 regarding the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the combination of Faik in view of Hashimoto and Fukushi does not teach the claimed stiffness relationship. While it is noted that relationship of stiffness is not explicitly recited, Hashimoto discloses the mounting mechanism in combination with the display device components, including the glass sheet are meant to provide excellent impact resistance and impact absorption is such as to prevent breakage of the glass even when colliding with the head or the like of the passenger in a collision. Examiner notes that the materials and structure of the mounting mechanism are the same as that claimed and since the purpose as disclosed by Hashimoto is to prevent breakage of glass, which is the same as that in the instant invention, the stiffness relationship would be intrinsic to the combination. Regarding Applicant’s assertions of the stiffness of the module being low and the stiffness of the mounting clamp stiffness being high, the instant claims do not recite any specific values or relationship. The stiffness of the resulting system is such as to prevent fracture from the impact of the impacter which is the same result as the disclosure of the combination: the system does not fracture when in contact with an impacter. Again, since the end result is the same, the stiffness of each component is the same as that disclosed since the materials and structure are the same.
With respect to Applicant’s assertions that the Office Action is incomplete, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected in the heading which is sufficient for addressing the claims. Furthermore, the deceleration is part of the apparatus used to test the interior system; in that sense, the apparatus to test the system is not part of the system and the deceleration is in reference to the reduction of speed of the impacter and not given patentable weight. Nevertheless, it is noted that the heading clearly states that claim 2 is rejected and in the action, the limitations as it relates to the test apparatus and method are not given patentable weight. With respect to claim 3, this is addressed by the statement that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed stiffness relationship. This addresses the values as claimed. Regarding Applicant’s assertions of incompleteness with respect to claim 18, Examiner notes that “impact properties” addresses the limitation. Regarding Applicant’s assertions with respect to claim 20, Examiner notes that disagreeing to the motivation does not equate to a teaching away. The combination teaches a chemically strengthened edge and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have the claimed exposed edge. As such, the Office Action is not incomplete and the rejections are maintained for the above reasons.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783