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 .
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support in the instant disclosure of the coating being a tape and applied as a liquid polymer.
Correction is required.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it appears to conflict with independent claim 1 where the coating is a tape.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it appears to conflict with independent claim 1 where the coating is a tape.
Corrections are required.
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) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP63-67128 (cited on IDS filed 1/26/24 with English machine translation) in view of JP2013529396 (English machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, JP63-67128 teaches:
1. A method of producing a cover for elective opening or firm closing of an opening in a vehicle roof, wherein the cover has a transparent sheet and a foam edging, comprising and, in the course of the method:
applying a coating is applied atop a region to be covered on the transparent sheet that is to be visible at a later stage, adjacent to the foam edging to be foamed (JP63-67128: elastic sealing bodies 13/14 constitutes the coating; short specification; figs 1-4),
introducing the transparent sheet is introduced into an open mold such that an edge region of the sheet is disposed in a cavity of the mold for formation of foam edging on the sheet (JP63-67128: sheet glass 3 constitutes the transparent sheet; short specification; figs 1-4),
closing the mold is closed (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4),
injecting a polymer or polymer foam is injected into the cavity in order to form the foam edging of the cover (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4),
opening the mold is opened and removing the cover is removed from the mold (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4), and
then removing the coating is removed (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4).
However, JP63-67128 does not teach a coating of an elastic adhesive tape. JP2013529396 teach using a compressible/elastic double-sided adhesive tape as a seal 9 for defining a boundary of a molding cavity (figs 1-2). Since JP63-67128 and JP2013529396 are analogous with respect to using an compressible/elastic seal to define the boundary of a molding cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the compressible/elastic double-sided adhesive tape of JP2013529396 as the elastic sealing bodies of JP63-67128 in order to reduce the risk of the seals moving during the injection molding step.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by JP63-67128 (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4; elastic sealing bodies 13/14 form a sealing section).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by JP63-67128 (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4; elastic sealing bodies 13/14 contact both the top and bottom surfaces of the sheet glass 3).
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by JP63-67128 (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4; elastic sealing bodies 13/14 contact both the top and bottom surfaces of the sheet glass 3 to form a boundary of the molding cavity).
Regarding claim 5, such is taught by JP63-67128 (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4; sheet glass 3).
Regarding claim 6, JP63-67128 does not teach the claimed material. The use of a specific material is a mere matter of choice dependent on the desired final product and material availability. Since PU foam is well-known in the seal art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use PU foam as the molding material of JP63-67128 in order to form a durable and effective seal.
Regarding claim 7, JP63-67128 does not teach applying a liquid polymer as the coating material. Protective coatings in the initial form of a liquid material are well-known in the seal art for its easy application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the protective coating/coating material of JP63-67128 as a liquid material in order to facilitate the molding process.
Regarding claim 8, JP63-67128 teach applying the protective coating/coating material onto the sheet glass before the sheet glass is inserted into the mold (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4). However, JP63-67128 does not teach applying a liquid polymer as the coating material and then solidifying the liquid polymer. Protective coatings in the initial form of a liquid material are well-known in the seal art for its easy application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the protective coating/coating material of JP63-67128 as a liquid material and then solidifying the coating before inserting the sheet glass into the mold in order to facilitate the molding process.
Regarding claim 9, such is taught by the above combination of JP63-67128 and JP2013529396 since the double-sided adhesive tape of JP2013529396 constitutes a solid film.
Regarding claim 12, such is taught by JP63-67128 since the elastic sealing bodies of JP63-67128 are on both sides of the glass sheet including the top face (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, such is taught by JP63-67128 since the edging of JP63-67128 extends from an outer edge of the sheet as far as an opposite side of the sheet from the elastic sealing bodies (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, such is taught by the above combination of JP63-67128 and JP2013529396 since both the elastic sealing bodies of JP63-67128 and the double-sided adhesive tape of JP2013529396 are applied before the sheet is introduced into a mold or molding cavity.
Regarding claim 15, JP63-67128 does not teach the claimed material. The use of a specific material is a mere matter of choice dependent on material availability. Since polyester adhesive tapes are well-known in the seal art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use polyester adhesive tape as the elastic sealing material of JP63-67128 (modified) in order to form a durable and effective seal/protective coating.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP63-67128 in view of JP2013529396 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Akuzawa et al (USPN 9623735). The above teachings of JP63-67128 and JP2013529396 are incorporated hereinafter.
JP63-67128 teaches a mold having an upper portion and a lower portion (JP63-67128: short specification; figs 1-4), but does not teach a lateral portion of the mold having a projection disposed on the lateral portion of the mold that forms a groove in the edging. Akuzawa et al teach molding a seal edging on a glass sheet, wherein the seal edging has a groove that is formed by a protrusion of a lateral portion of a mold (Akuzawa et al: fig 5). Since JP63-67128 and Akuzawa et al are analogous with respect to molding a seal edging, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the lateral portion including the protrusion of Akuzawa et al into the mold of JP63-67128 in order to form a seal edging compatible for a gap sealing profile/opening abutting member.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following USPs teach molding seal edging onto a glass sheet: 6099779,4738482, and 20070246973.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744