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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 regarding claim 1/11 have been fully considered.
Regarding the nominal temperature and load limitation argument, the current Office Action incorporates a new reference to read on the argued nominal range limitations. The arguments do not explain how a skilled artisan would not be able to experiment/optimize the temperature and load such that the range of either would be nonobvious.
Regarding the temporally consecutive limitation argument, the argument is not persuasive because the burden is on the Applicant to prove how repeating the gradual loading plus constant load of the Li reference would effectively be different to influence the properties of the product, see MPEP 2112(V). For example, instant Fig. 6 shows the dash-dot-dash line as the loading plot wherein the constant load in P4 is not constant. Despite desired loading conditions as written in [0077] of the instant specification, the actually measured load profile does not match. Both the Li and Yoneda reference have a desired constant load but both choose to wait for their apparatus to stabilize the final load during the ramping step before continuing to the predetermined applied load. This is typical for mechanical compression testing whether the apparatus is operated at either load-control or displacement-control can react accordingly to the viscoelastic material being tested. Unless the Applicant provides an affidavit from the Inventors explaining how ramp-ramp-constant loading would significantly change the product compared to the ramp-constant-ramp-constant loading of the prior art, the argument is technically unpersuasive. Furthermore, the constant load step of Li can be omitted by choice of a skilled artisan per MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Young et al (KR-101893830-B1, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Li et al (CN-109264976-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and Yoneda (US-20070206290-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Young teaches a molding method for a window (Line 28, 58), the method comprising: locally heating a peripheral portion of a glass substrate around a central portion of the glass substrate (Line 169-172, 306-311), forming the window by pressing the glass substrate (Line 260-271).
Young does not expressly teach of annealing and cooling the window. In related molding of glass sheet art, Li teaches of heating and forming glass followed by annealing and cooling the glass (Line 161-164). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to anneal and cool the formed/pressed glass as a known process step to relieve the glass from any residual uneven internal stress to better handle thermal/mechanical shock. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Young teaches of heating the peripheral portion of the glass substrate to a predetermined temperature (Line 118-121, 169-177) and concurrently heating the peripheral portion during forming (Line 113-115, 194-204, 306-316). Young does not expressly teach 4 time periods associated with the forming step. Li teaches of load and time periods associated with their forming step (Fig. 3, Line 297-298) with a first time period (between 0 and t1) in which in the first pressing step has a load applied to the glass gradually increases in the second time period (between t1 and t2); a second pressing step has the load applied to the glass substrate gradually increases in the third time period (between t2 and t3), and a third pressing step has the load applied to the glass substrate is constant in the fourth time period (between t3 and t4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have three pressing steps in which load is applied to the glass substrate gradually in the first two pressing steps and the load is applied constant in the third step as a known multi-stage loading process for improved control and overall yield (Line 99-102, 277-280).
Young does not nominally teach of the operating temperature for the step. Li teaches of heating the glass substrate from room to about 700°C prior to the molding step (Line 173-179). In related glass molding art, Yoneda teaches of heating and press-molding glass at 590-640° C [0120-121] and at a load of 150 kgf [0121] but optionally up to 300 kgf [0074]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to heat and form glass in its peripheral portion in the instantly claimed temperature range and load as known process parameter in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding the limitation that the second pressing step “is temporally consecutive with the first pressing step”, Yoneda teaches that their process involves displacement control to reach a first pressing load and operated at a displacement rate of 0.03 mm/sec until a second pressing load, wherein once the pressing load is achieved and maintained for a constant time [0121]. Though relied upon Li also teaches constant load holds between their steps, the elimination of a step is considered obvious if the function is not desired, see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Young teaches of using induction heating (Line 174-177) for the local heating. Young does not expressly teach that the induction heating has as induction coil; however, Young infers a heating wire (Line 257-258). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4-5, depending form claim 3, Li illustrates (Fig. 3) the loading rate of the second pressing step (P1 to P2) to be steeper/greater than/different that loading rate of the first pressing step (P0 to P1). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 1, Young teaches the window comprises a flat portion corresponding to the central portion (Fig. 7, substrate 10); side portions each adjacent to an edge of the flat portion and comprising an outwardly convex curved surface (Fig. 7, bending portion 20); and corner portions each connecting two adjacent side portion among the side portions and comprising an outwardly convex curved surface (Fig. 7, corner bending portion 20).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 7, Young teaches that the mold has a lower surface of the corner portion (associated with Fig. 3 surrounding edge portion 226, receiving step 227/press unit 224) relative to the outer surface of the window (associated with Fig. 11 fix unit 222). Young does not teach the nominal height between these features. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 7, Young illustrates the mold for the window has a radius of curvature for each of the side portion and each of the corner portions (Fig. 3, surround edge portions 226). Young does not teach the nominal radius of curvature for either of the side portions or the corner portions. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 9, Young illustrate a planar shape of the peripheral portion of the glass substrate comprises a short side extending in a first direction, a long side extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and a curve connecting an end of the short side and an end of the long side (Fig. 7). Young illustrates the mold for the window has a width in the second direction between a virtual first line extending from the end of the short side in the first direction and a virtual second line extending from a center of the curve in the first direction, and the radius of curvature of the inner surface of each of the corner portions of the window (Fig. 3). Young does not teach the nominal dimension of the width of the two virtual lines to be relative to the radius of curvature. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 21, depending from claim 1, modified Young uses the temperature range taught by Yoneda wherein Young heats the peripheral portion of the glass substrate (Line 169-177, 306-316) and Yoneda teaches the temperature falls within 590-640° C [0120-121] which falls within the instantly claimed range. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Young teaches a molding method for a window (Line 28, 58), the method comprising: locally heating a peripheral portion of a glass substrate around a central portion of the glass substrate (Line 169-172, 306-311), forming the window by pressing the glass substrate so as to form a curved portion at a region of the peripheral portion (Line 260-271, Fig. 9).
Young does not expressly teach of annealing and cooling the window. In related molding of glass sheet art, Li teaches of heating and forming glass followed by annealing and cooling the glass (Line 161-164). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to anneal and cool the formed/pressed glass as a known process step to relieve the glass from any residual uneven internal stress to better handle thermal/mechanical shock. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Young teaches of displacement control forming by pressing (Line 265-267). Li teaches of load/pressure control pressing (Line 300-323). Young does not nominally teach of the operating temperature for the step. Li teaches of heating the glass substrate from room to about 700°C prior to the molding step (Line 173-179). In related glass molding art, Yoneda teaches of heating and press-molding glass at 590-640° C [0120-121] and at a load of 150 kgf [0121] but optionally up to 300 kgf [0074]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to heat and form glass in its peripheral portion in the instantly claimed temperature range and load as known process parameter in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to forming the glass in its peripheral portion in the instantly claimed load range as known process parameter in the art.
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 11, Young teaches of using induction heating (Line 174-177) for the local heating. Young does not expressly teach that the induction heating has as induction coil; however, Young infers a heating wire (Line 257-258). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 11, Young teaches of displacement control forming by pressing (Line 265-267). In related molding of glass sheet art, Li teaches of load/pressure control pressing (Line 300-323) wherein Fig. 3 has time and load/pressure for the x-y axis respectively (Line 297-298). Li teaches of a first pressing step in which a load applied to the glass substrate gradually increases (between P0 and P1); a second pressing step in which a load applied to the glass substrate gradually increase (between P1 and P2); and a third pressing step in which a load applied to the glass substrate is constant (P2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to perform the forming/pressing step with gradually load increases and constant load as a process that enables more precise forming and improve yield (Line 99-102). Additionally, the instant claims use comprising language which does not differentiate from the applied prior art that has gradually increasing load and constant load that reads on the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14-15, depending form claim 13, Li illustrates (Fig. 3) the loading rate of the second pressing step (P1 to P2) to be steeper/greater than/different that loading rate of the first pressing step (P0 to P1). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 16, depending from claim 11, Young teaches of pressing the glass while locally heating the glass substrate (Line 313-316).
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 11, Young teaches the window comprises a flat portion corresponding to the central portion (Fig. 7, substrate 10); side portions each adjacent to an edge of the flat portion and comprising an outwardly convex curved surface (Fig. 7, bending portion 20); and corner portions each connecting two adjacent side portion among the side portions and comprising an outwardly convex curved surface (Fig. 7, corner bending portion 20).
Regarding claim 18, depending from claim 17, Young teaches that the mold has a lower surface of the corner portion (associated with Fig. 3 surrounding edge portion 226, receiving step 227/press unit 224) relative to the outer surface of the window (associated with Fig. 11 fix unit 222). Young does not teach the nominal height between these features. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 17, Young illustrates the mold for the window has a radius of curvature for each of the side portion and each of the corner portions (Fig. 3, surround edge portions 226). Young does not teach the nominal radius of curvature for either of the side portions or the corner portions. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 20, depending from claim 19, Young illustrate a planar shape of the peripheral portion of the glass substrate comprises a short side extending in a first direction, a long side extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and a curve connecting an end of the short side and an end of the long side (Fig. 7). Young illustrates the mold for the window has a width in the second direction between a virtual first line extending from the end of the short side in the first direction and a virtual second line extending from a center of the curve in the first direction, and the radius of curvature of the inner surface of each of the corner portions of the window (Fig. 3). Young does not teach the nominal dimension of the width of the two virtual lines to be relative to the radius of curvature. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10759689-B2 teaches similar working temperature range
US-20200156985-A1 teaches peripheral heating and molding with subsequent annealing
US-20130081428-A1 teaches induction heating coils embedded in the mold
US-20200346965-A1, WO-2021165431-A1 teach overlapping workable temperature range
JP-2006282439-A teaches 200 kg load
JP-2006016265-A teaches 300 kgf at 850C
JP-2001158627-A teaches 400 kgf at 640C, and cooling at 300 kgf
JP-2000275479-A teaches 1000 kgf at 600C
WO-9933753-A1 teaches a misprint of 3000 kg which should be 300 kg at 620C
KR-950002227-B1 teaches a loading range for molding of 50-1000 kg
US-4199342-A teaches 580-640C at 200 kg
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights