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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 and 02/03/2026 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered.
Regarding the temperature limitation argument, the current Office Action incorporates a new reference to read on the argued temperature limitation. Additionally, the current Office Action rewrites portions of the prior Office Action to better map limitations from each applied reference; for example, highlighting how the Young reference local heats the peripheral portion.
Regarding the loading limitation argument, the argument is not persuasive because the instant claims use comprising limitations, as such the constant load applied before/after the gradual loading for the pressing step in the Li reference inherently and effectively read on the instant claim. Should the Applicant disagree, the burden is on the Applicant to prove how the gradual loading or constant load of the Li reference would effectively be different the instant claim and influence the properties of the product, see MPEP 2112(V).
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “a temperature” which was already introduced in claim 1. Please fix the antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-10 and 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 Afzal et al (US-20150329402-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). 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.
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 heat bending glass art, Afzal teaches of heating and bending glass at about 650 °C [0055, 58]. 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 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 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 Afzal wherein Young heats the peripheral portion of the glass substrate (Line 169-177, 306-316) and Afzal teaches to heat the glass substrate to 650 °C with at least about 45 °C temperature different to the peripheral portion [0055] 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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Young et al (KR-101893830-B1) and further in view of Li et al (CN-109264976-A) and Negishi (JP-H-0826753-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
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). In related hot pressing of glass art, Negishi teaches of pressing glass with a load of 300 kg in a similar temperature range (Line 131-153). 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
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