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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on Jan. 14, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux et al. (WO 2017/218652 A1) (“Dannoux”).
With respect to claim 1, Dannoux discloses a glass article comprising a glass sheet comprising a first major surface and a second major surface, wherein the second major surface is opposite the first major surface (abstr., 0042, Fig. 2), wherein the first major surface defines a variable curvature comprising a vertex, a first edge spatially disposed in a first direction from the vertex, a second edge spatially disposed from the vertex in a second direction opposite the first direction, a first flat tip region having a nonzero span from the first edge and a second flat tip region having a nonzero span from the second edge, wherein the first edge is positioned between the vertex and the first flat tip region, and the second edge is positioned between the vertex and the second flat tip region (Fig. 2), wherein the variable curvature has a first radius of curvature at the vertex, a second radius of curvature at the first edge and a third radius of curvature at the second edge, wherein both of the second radius of curvature and the third radius of curvature are greater than the first radius of curvature (0039-0042, Fig. 2).
Regarding the recitation “a cold-formed glass sheet”, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 1; the reference teaches the structure.
Regarding “wherein, in the first flat tip region, the first major surface transitions from the second radius of curvature to a fourth radius of curvature greater than 10 m; and wherein, in the second flat tip region, the first major surface transitions from the third radius of curvature to a fifth radius of curvature greater than 10 m”, Dannoux discloses that in the first and second flat tip regions, the first major surface transitions from the second radius of curvature to a fourth radius of curvature, and from the third radius of curvature to a fifth radius of curvature, the fourth and fifth radii of curvature approaching flatness (Fig. 2), which according to the instant specification corresponds to a radius of curvature of at least 10 m (par. [0031]), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the third and fifth radii of curvature into which the first major surface of Dannoux transitions overlaps the range of greater than 10 m. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the first radius of curvature is constant in a first section spanning a first distance across the vertex, wherein the second radius of curvature is constant in a first side region spanning a second distance to the first edge, and the third radius of curvature is constant in a second side region spanning a third distance to the second edge (Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1, comprising a first gradient region disposed between the first edge and the vertex, and a second gradient region disposed between the second edge and the vertex, wherein the first radius of curvature increases continuously to the second radius of curvature in the first gradient region, and the first radius of curvature increases continuously to the third radius of curvature in the second gradient region (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1. As Dannoux discloses the article as disclosed in the instant specification, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the variable curvature of Dannoux satisfies claim 4, that is, it is defined by a polynomial function of at least a third degree.
With respect to claim 5, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the glass sheet is V-shaped and comprises a first flat region and a second flat region, wherein the first flat tip region transitions the first edge to the first flat region and the second flat tip region transitions the second edge to the second flat region (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 5. Dannoux discloses that the minimum radius of the bend may be in a range of from 200 µm to 100 mm (0038), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the glass sheet of Dannoux deviates no more than 100 µm from a planar configuration in the first and second flat tip regions and the first and second flat regions.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux, in view of Cleary et al. (WO 2018/075853 A1) (“Cleary”).
With respect to claim 7, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1, and discloses that it can be used for display application in vehicles (0039), but does not specify that it comprises at least one display adhered to the second major surface of the glass sheet. Cleary discloses a glass article having a variable curvature (0042, Fig. 2), having a first surface and a second surface, wherein a display – element 410 - is adhered to the second surface of the glass sheet (0085-0088, Figs. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a display adhered to the second major surface of the glass sheet of Dannoux as it is known in the art of glass articles for vehicles comprising a display, to adhere a display to the second major surface of a glass sheet.
Regarding claim 8, Dannoux and Cleary teach the article of claim 7. As the references teach the structure of the article as discussed above and as disclosed in the instant specification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the article according to the references is capable to perform as intended, that is, the at least one display comprises a black uniformity in a range satisfying the range recited in the claim.
As to claim 21, Dannoux teaches the article of claim 1. Dannoux is silent with respect to the article comprising a frame and an adhesive disposed between the frame and the second major surface of the glass sheet.
Cleary discloses a glass article having a variable curvature (0042, Fig. 2), having a first surface and a second surface, Cleary disclosing an adhesive layer – element 210 - disposed between a frame – element 310 – and the second major surface of the cold-formed glass sheet, wherein a display – element 410 - is adhered to the second surface of the glass sheet, wherein the frame is configured to hold the cold-formed glass sheet in a cold-formed configuration (0085-0089, Figs. 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the glass article of Dannoux with a frame and an adhesive layer disposed between the frame and the second major surface of the glass sheet as it is known in the art of glass articles for vehicles comprising a display, to adhere a display to the second major surface of a glass sheet.
Regarding the recitation “wherein the adhesive layer holds the cold-formed glass sheet in a curved shape and prevents the cold-formed glass sheet from springing back to a non-curved configuration”, although the glass sheet of Dannoux is not cold-formed, since the frame and adhesive layer of Cleary are used for a cold-formed sheet (0085-0089), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that if the glass sheet of Dannoux was cold-formed the adhesive layer as disclosed in Cleary would be capable to perform as intended.
Regarding the recitation “a cold-formed glass sheet”, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 21; the references teach the structure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux, in view of Cleary, and further in view of Faik et al. (US 2018/0050948 A1) (“Faik”).
With respect to claim 9, Dannoux and Cleary teach the article of claim 7. Cleary discloses an adhesive layer – element 210, a frame adhered to the second major surface of the cold-formed glass sheet by the adhesive layer, wherein the frame is configured to hold the cold-formed glass sheet in a cold-formed configuration (0085-0088, Figs. 3 and 4). Cleary is silent with respect to a bumper element disposed adjacent the at least one display. Faik discloses a cold-formed article comprising a display (0010), comprising a bumper element – e.g. elements 6 and 7 - disposed adjacent the display – elements 20 and 21 (0048-0050, Fig. 5). The bumper elements – stiffeners – help to maintain the flat shape of the article’s regions to prevent detachment of additional elements and enable the attachment of elements of the article (0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the article of Dannoux and Cleary a bumper element to help maintain the flat shape of the regions of the article for additional elements to be attached to the article. It is inherent that the adhesive layer of Dannoux comprises a first modulus of elasticity and the bumper element of Faik comprises a second modulus of elasticity. As the bumper’s purpose is to maintain the shape of specific certain regions of the article, as discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a bumper material having a greater modulus of elasticity than the remaining areas that also include the adhesive, thus the second modulus of elasticity would be greater than the first modulus elasticity, that is the adhesive’s modulus of elasticity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued Dannoux fails to teach or suggest that there is a transition of radii that spans a nonzero distance from the first and second edges at which the radii of curvature are greater than the first radius of curvature of the vertex, to ends of the first and second flat tip regions, respectively, at which the radius is greater than 10 m. The Examiner notes Dannoux discloses in the first and second flat tip regions, the first major surface transitions from the second radius of curvature to a fourth radius of curvature, and from the third radius of curvature to a fifth radius of curvature, the fourth and fifth radii of curvature approaching flatness (Fig. 2), which according to the instant specification corresponds to a radius of curvature of at least 10 m (par. [0031]), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the third and fifth radii of curvature into which the first major surface of Dannoux transitions overlaps the range of greater than 10 m.
The Applicant argued that in the rejection the Examiner relied mostly on Fig. 2, as par. [0042] generally describes glass article of Fig. 2. The Applicant argued par. [0039]-[0041] relate to Fig. 1. The Examiner notes Fig. 1 is a view of the glass article of Fig. 2 prior to bending, but par. [0039]-[0041] provide more detail with respect to the glass sheet shown in Fig. 2.
The Applicant argued Fig. 2 does not show the glass sheet to scale, and the only dimension depicted in Fig 2 is bend angle α. The Applicant argued “angle α” does not provide any insight as to the structure of the local bend 12', particularly with respect to the radius along the bend 12'. The Examiner notes claim 1 does not recite specific limitations regarding the structure corresponding to “the local bend 12’.”
The Applicant reiterated the subject matter of claim 1, arguing that the rejection of claim 1 appears to rely primarily on Fig. 2 of Dannoux, but Fig. 2 does not reasonably disclose and suggest the detailed features of the first major surface and the radii relationships of the variable curvature recited in claim 1. The Examiner notes the features of the glass article of claim 1 are disclosed and suggested in Dannoux as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783