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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 14: Instant claim 14 recites --the consumer electronic device-- in lines 1 to 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the consumer or automotive interior electronic device".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couillard et al. (US 2019/0039935 A1), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Frangibility of Tempered Soda-Lime Glass Sheet") (referred to herein as "Gulati").
Regarding Claim 1: Couillard teaches a glass article comprising a cold-formed, complexly-curved continuous glass sheet, wherein the glass sheet can be heat strengthened glass or tempered glass ([0037] and [0041] of Couillard). Couillard also teaches that the glass sheet is shaped from an initial profile (unbent shape) to a second profile (conformed shape) by a cold-bending process, wherein the preform forces and maintains the glass sheet in the second profile ([0061]-[0069] of Couillard).
Couillard teaches the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite --in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped--. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature references that a tempered glass sheet (substrate) when bent would possess such fracture properties. Gulati teaches that a tempered glass sheet when fractured with a minimum external energy will dice into uniform square fragments with a depth, the fragmentation occurring in bent glass (figure 3, Page 72, and Page 74, of Gulati). Therefore, as evidenced by Gulati, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have recognized that the tempered glass substrate of Couillard in the second position, upon fracture, would fragment into pieces that are generally cubic shaped, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3: Couillard teaches that the component forces the tempered glass substrate to bend in the second position uniaxially along a bend axes of the tempered glass substrate ([0061]-[0066] and [0068] of Couillard).
Regarding Claim 4: Couillard teaches the claimed product, but does not explicitly recites that --a fracture in the tempered glass substrate propagates toward a side of the tempered glass substrate in a direction parallel to the bend axis, wherein the direction is perpendicular to a length of the tempered glass substrate--. However, Couillard uses the same tempered glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a tempered glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0037], [0038], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052]-[0058], and [0061]-[0066]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the tempered glass substrate of Couillard inherently possesses a fracture in the tempered glass substrate that propagates toward a side of the tempered glass substrate in a direction parallel to the bend axis, wherein the direction is perpendicular to a length of the tempered glass substrate. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 5: Couillard teaches that the component forces the tempered glass substrate to bend in the second position biaxially along two bend axes of the tempered glass substrate ([0061]-[0066] and [0069] of Couillard).
Regarding Claim 6: Couillard teaches that the tempered glass substrate can have an exemplary thickness of 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2 millimeters ([0037] of Couillard); which anticipates the claimed range of --2 mm or less--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 7: Couillard teaches the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite that --the tempered glass substrate in the first position has a tensile energy that does not cause fragmentation of the glass substrate into cubic pieces upon fracture of the tempered glass substrate; and in the second position, the tensile energy of the tempered glass substrate causes fragmentation of the tempered glass substrate into cubic pieces upon fracture of the tempered glass substrate--. However, Couillard uses the same tempered glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a tempered glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0037], [0038], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052]-[0058], and [0061]-[0066]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the tempered glass substrate of Couillard inherently possesses in the first position a tensile energy that does not cause fragmentation of the glass substrate into cubic pieces upon fracture of the tempered glass substrate, and in the second position, the tensile energy of the tempered glass substrate causes fragmentation of the tempered glass substrate into cubic pieces upon fracture of the tempered glass substrate. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 8: Couillard teaches the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite that --in the first position, the tempered glass substrate has a first layer of compressive stress extending from the first surface, and in the second position, the compressive stress at the first layer is higher than in the first position--. However, Couillard uses the same tempered glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a tempered glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0037], [0038], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052]-[0058], and [0061]-[0066]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the tempered glass substrate of Couillard inherently possesses in the first position, the tempered glass substrate has a first layer of compressive stress extending from the first surface, and in the second position, the compressive stress at the first layer is higher than in the first position. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 9: Couillard teaches that the product is a automotive display ([0070] of Couillard).
Regarding Claim 10: Couillard teaches a glass article comprising a cold-formed, complexly-curved continuous glass sheet, wherein the glass sheet can be heat strengthened glass or tempered glass ([0037] and [0041] of Couillard). Couillard also teaches that the glass sheet is shaped from an initial profile (unbent shape) to a second profile (conformed shape) by a cold-bending process, wherein the preform forces and maintains the glass sheet in the second profile ([0061]-[0069] of Couillard). It is also disclosed by Couillard that a vehicle interior component can include the complexly curved glass article, the vehicle interior component can be a instrument cluster cover that houses various displays and indicators, said instrument cluster cover includes a cover (i.e., the complexly curved glass article) that covers the dashboard instrument cluster ([0070]-[0071] of Couillard). Couillard further teaches that the glass article can be a complexly-curved continuous glass sheet having a first bend in a first portion of the sheet and a second bend in a second portion of the sheet (figures 1A to 3F and [0074] of Couillard). It is further taught by Couillard that the strengthened glass sheets have a compressive stress layer extending from a surface thereof to a compressive stress depth of layer ([0041] of Couillard).
Couillard teaches the claimed consumer or automotive interior electronic device, but does not explicitly recite --upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis; wherein, the plurality of fractures do not propagate along an entire length of the glass substrate--. However, Couillard uses the same glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a glass substrate disposed over a display screen, the glass substrate having a length, and a width extending from a first side to a second side, wherein in a first position, the glass substrate has a first layer of compressive stress extending from a first surface, and a component that bends and maintains the glass substrate along a bend axis from the first position in a second position bent relative to the first position, the bend axis is parallel to the width; see (figures 1A to 3F, [0034], [0035], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052]-[0058], [0061]-[0066], [0070], [0071], and [0074]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the glass substrate of Couillard inherently possesses a component a bend axis in a second position bent relative to the first position, such that upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis; wherein, the plurality of fractures do not propagate along an entire length of the glass substrate. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 11: Couillard teaches that the component that bends the glass substrate to the second position increases the compressive stress within the first layer (figures 1A to 3F and [0034]-[0035] of Couillard). (In the instant case, because the component can bend the glass in an "S" shape there would exist a region of bending where the first surface, from which the first layer of compressive stress extends, would be subject to increased compressive stress, and thereby result in an increase in the compressive stress in the first layer.)
Regarding Claim 13: Couillard teaches the consumer or automotive interior electronic device, but does not explicitly recite that --the plurality of fractures comprise segments extending along the bend axis that bifurcate--. However, Couillard uses the same tempered glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a tempered glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([figures 1A to 3F, [0034], [0035], [0037], [0038], [0041], [0047]-[0049], [0052]-[0058], [0061]-[0066], [0070], [0071], and [0074]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the glass substrate of Couillard inherently possesses the plurality of fractures comprising segments extending along the bend axis that bifurcate. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 14: Couillard teaches that the consumer or automotive interior electronic device is an automotive display ([0070] and [0071] of Couillard).
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens et al. (US 4,985,099 A) in view of Couillard et al. (US 2019/0039935 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Mertens discloses a glazing comprising an original, curved, side, glass pane (ref. #2) and a thinner glass sheet (ref. #3; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "glass substrate") that is cold-bend and cemented to a surface of the original glass pane by an interposed layer (ref. #4; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "adhesive layer"), wherein the thinner glass sheet is bent from a natural state into a curved state (figure 1, [Col. 2: li. 61-65], and [Col. 8: li. 6-45] of Mertens). Mertens also discloses that the thinner glass sheet has been chemically tempered ([Col. 8: li. 10-21 and 25-26] of Mertens). Specifically, Mertens provides for --an article, comprising: a glass substrate disposed over an underlying surface, the glass substrate having a length, and a width extending from a first side to a second side; and an adhesive layer that bonds the glass to the underlying surface and maintains the glass substrate in a second position where the glass substrate is bend around a bend axis--.
Mertens fails to disclose --in a natural planar state, the glass substrate has as first layer of compressive stress extending from a first surface; the glass substrate is bend around a bend axis relative to the natural planar shape, wherein, upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate in the second position, the plurality of fractures comprises one of the following characteristics: the plurality of fractures are generally cubic shaped, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis, and the plurality of fractures forms an isotropic fracture pattern--.
Couillard discloses a glass article comprising a cold-formed, complexly-curved continuous glass sheet, wherein the glass sheet can be chemically strengthened glass ([0038] and [0041] of Couillard). Couillard also discloses that the strengthened glass sheets have a compressive stress layer extending from a [exterior] surface thereof to a compressive stress depth of layer ([0041]-[0042] of Couillard). Couillard further discloses that the strengthened glass can have thicknesses of 1.2 millimeters or 3 millimeters, can be formed to be flat, and used in a laminate of two glass sheets bonded by an interlayer ([0037], [0048]-[0049], and [0059] of Couillard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the chemically strengthened glass of Couillard as the glass substrate of the article disclosed by Mertens in order to have --in a natural planar state, the glass substrate has as first layer of compressive stress extending from a first surface; the glass substrate is bend around a bend axis relative to the natural planar shape--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the chemically strengthened glass of Couillard as the glass substrate of the article disclosed by Mertens, from the stand-point of having a glass sheet suitable for complexly curved glass articles formed via cold forming ([0001], [0009], and [0010] of Couillard).
Mertens in view of Couillard discloses the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite that --upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate in the second position, the plurality of fractures comprises one of the following characteristics: the plurality of fractures are generally cubic shaped, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis, and the plurality of fractures forms an isotropic fracture pattern--. However, Couillard uses the same glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a chemically strengthened glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0038], [0041]-[0042], [0047]-[0049], and [0052]-[0059]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the chemically strengthened glass substrate of Mertens in view of Couillard inherently possesses, upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate in the second position, the plurality of fractures comprising one of the following characteristics: the plurality of fractures are generally cubic shaped, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis, and the plurality of fractures forms an isotropic fracture pattern. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 16: Mertens in view of Couillard discloses the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite that --the plurality of fractures are generally cubic shaped and smaller than fractures that form in the glass substrate when in the natural planar state--. However, Couillard uses the same glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a chemically strengthened glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0038], [0041]-[0042], [0047]-[0049], and [0052]-[0059]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the chemically strengthened glass substrate of Mertens in view of Couillard inherently possesses the plurality of fractures that are generally cubic shaped and smaller than fractures that form in the glass substrate when in the natural planar state. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 17: Mertens in view of Couillard discloses the claimed product, but does not explicitly recite that --the plurality of fractures has the orientation bias along the bend axis and the bend axis is along the width so that the plurality of fractures do not propagate along an entire length of the glass substrate--. However, Couillard uses the same glass substrate as applicants (i.e., a chemically strengthened glass substrate, a first position where the tempered glass substrate is not bent, and a second position where the tempered glass substrate is cold-bent relative to the first position, wherein, in the second position, upon fracture, the tempered glass substrate fragments into pieces that are generally cubic shaped; see ([0038], [0041]-[0042], [0047]-[0049], and [0052]-[0059]) of Couillard and ([0059]-[0082] and [0090]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the chemically strengthened glass substrate of Mertens in view of Couillard inherently possesses the plurality of fractures has the orientation bias along the bend axis and the bend axis is along the width so that the plurality of fractures do not propagate along an entire length of the glass substrate. See MPEP §2112.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens et al. (US 4,985,099 A) in view of Couillard et al. (US 2019/0039935 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Loup (FR 2839020 A1).
Mertens in view of Couillard is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 19: Mertens in view of Couillard fails to disclose --in the second position the glass substrate is cylindrically bent at a constant bend radius--.
Loup discloses a front or rear door opening of a motor vehicle, wherein the glazed part of a traditional door opening includes a retractable sliding glass panel, the movable pane of the opening must have a substantially constant radius of curvature, with respect to a cylindrical curvature, in order to be able to slide in the door frame ([0006] of Loup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the radius of curvature of the traditional movable pane of Loup with the glass substrate of the article disclosed by Mertens in view of Couillard in order to have --in the second position the glass substrate is cylindrically bent at a constant bend radius--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the radius of curvature of the traditional movable pane of Loup with the glass substrate of the article disclosed by Mertens in view of Couillard, from the stand-point of having a retractable sliding glass panel that can slide inside the door frame ([0007] of Loup). (In the instant case, adjusting the shape of the glass substrate to be cylindrically bent at a constant bend radius would amount to a mere change in the shape of the glass substrate.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 12, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Couillard et al. (US 2019/0039935 A1): Couillard teaches --a product-- {instant claim1} and --a consumer or automotive interior electronic device-- {instant claim 10}, wherein Couillard's product {instant claim 1} and consumer or automotive interior electronic device {instant claim 10} further comprises the structure --a glass article comprising a cold-formed, complexly-curved continuous glass sheet having a first bend in a first portion of the sheet defining a first bend region and having a set of first bend line segments, and a second bend in a second portion of the sheet defining a second bend region and having a set of second bend line segments, wherein the first bend line segments and the second bend line segments are independent, are not parallel, and do not intersect; wherein the glass sheet can be heat strengthened glass or tempered glass; that the glass sheet is shaped from an initial profile to a complexly-curved profile by a cold-bending process, wherein the preform forces and maintains the glass sheet in the complexly-curved profile-- ([0029], [0037], [0041], and [0061]-[0069] of Couillard). However, Couillard does not teach that --in the second position, the first surface and the second surface of the tempered glass substrate are more planar than the first surface and the second surface of the tempered glass substrate are in the first position-- {instant claim 2} or --that the component that bends the glass substrate is an adhesive layer that permanently holds the glass substrate in the second position-- {instant claim 12}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Couillard with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Couillard in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Mertens et al. (US 4,985,099 A): Mertens teaches --an article--, wherein Mertens' article further comprises the structure --a glazing comprising an original, curved, side, glass pane (ref. #2) and a thinner glass sheet (ref. #3) that is cold-bend and cemented to a surface of the original glass pane by an interposed layer (ref. #4), wherein the thinner glass sheet is bent from a natural state into a curved state; and that the thinner glass sheet has been chemically tempered-- (figure 1, [Col. 2: li. 61-65], and [Col. 8: li. 6-45] of Mertens)--. However, Mertens does not teach that ---in a natural planar state, the glass substrate has as first layer of compressive stress extending from a first surface; the glass substrate is bend around a bend axis relative to the natural planar shape; wherein, upon formation of a plurality of fractures in the glass substrate in the second position, the plurality of fractures comprises one of the following characteristics: the plurality of fractures are generally cubic shaped, the plurality of fractures has an orientation bias along the bend axis, and the plurality of fractures forms an isotropic fracture pattern-- along with --the plurality of fractures forms an isotropic fracture pattern and the glass substrate is biaxially bent in the second position-- {instant claim 18} or --the first layer of compressive stress comprises a compressive stress that is from 825 MPa to 1000 MPa, the thickness of the glass substrate is either 0.55 mm or 0.7 mm, and the first layer of compressive stress has a depth of compression that is from 40 µm to 80 µm-- {instant claim 20}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Mertens with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mertens in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781