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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated January 27, 2026 was submitted on March 25, 2026 and entered with the request for continued examination on April 2, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 8 and 9 were canceled. Claims 11 and 12 were added. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-7 and 10 (¶¶ 8-20 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below. New claims 11 and 12 have also been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0018847 A1, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Charon et al. (European Patent Publication No. EP 0 603 047 A1, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below) and Amano et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2005-104331 A, cited in IDS submitted December 4, 2023, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Lynam discloses a method of producing component-attached vehicle window glass (FIG. 1, [0032] of Lynam, rain sensor module assembly #10 mounted to inner surface #11 of windshield #12 via mounting button #17), the method comprising: disposing a component on a main surface of a glass plate having a heat absorbing layer via an adhesive (FIG. 1, [0032] of Lynam, button #17 adhered to inner surface #11 of windshield #12 by layer #18 of adhesive; [0058] of Lynam, ceramic black frit layer can be used on inner surface of windshield to hide attachment location of rain sensor module), wherein the component is attached to the glass only via the adhesive and wherein the component and the adhesive are disposed only on the main surface of the glass (FIG. 2, [0032] of Lynam, rain sensor assembly #10 attached to main inner surface of glass #11 via only adhesive layer #18).
Lynam does not specifically disclose locally heating the heat absorbing layer and transferring heat from the heat absorbing layer to the adhesive to heat and cure the adhesive. Lynam, however, discloses that the rain sensor mounting button #17 can be metal ([0032] of Lynam). Charon discloses bonding enameled glass (i.e., glass with a frit coating) to metal with an adhesive wherein the glass is heated using infrared radiation to gel or cure the adhesive ([0011], [0015], [0019] of Charon). According to Charon, the glass itself without the coating does not absorb the IR radiation and therefore does not cure the adhesive ([0023] of Charon). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locally heat the frit layer using IR radiation in the method of Lynam since Charon establishes that it was known to do so to bond automotive glass. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since the frit layer is positioned between the glass and the adhesive on the rear surface of the windshield in the modified process, some heat would necessarily be transferred from the frit layer to the adhesive.
Lynam does not specifically disclose that the vehicle window glass is laminated glass in which two glass plates are bonded to each other via an intermediate film. Amano, however, discloses a method of making a window assembly for a vehicle ([0001] of Amano) comprising attaching a shield member to a window plate #10 via an adhesive layer wherein the window plate is a laminated glass having a transparent intermediate film #10E (Abstract, FIG. 7, [0048] of Amano). Amano also discloses locally heating an adhesive layer #30 on the window plate via infrared radiation ([0044] of Amano). According to Amano, the method allows for attachment of the shield member to the front window of a vehicle which is made of laminated glass ([0048] of Amano). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a laminated glass as the vehicle widow glass in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for attachment of the shield member to the front window of a vehicle which is made of laminated glass as taught by Amano ([0048] of Amano).
Amano does not specifically disclose that the local heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed with a temperature of the intermediate film being less than or equal to 100 ℃. Amano, however, discloses locally heating an adhesive layer #30 on the window plate via infrared radiation ([0044] of Amano) wherein the maximum temperature that the laminated window pane #10 is heated to is limited to about 110 ℃ ([0048] of Amano). Amano therefore clearly teaches a temperature range (i.e., ≤ 110 ℃) that overlaps with that recited in claim 9 (i.e., ≤ 100 ℃) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Lynam discloses that the component is made of resin ([0032] of Lynam, rain sensor mounting button may comprise an engineering resin).
Regarding claim 3, Charon discloses that the heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed by radiation, by conduction, or by radiation and conduction (Abstract of Charon, heating performed by infrared radiation; heat is transfer from heated window plate #10 to adhesive; heat would necessarily be transferred through frit layer).
Regarding claim 4, Charon discloses that the heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed in a windless state (Abstract of Charon, heating performed by infrared radiation which does not involve moving air).
Regarding claim 5, Charon discloses that the heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed with a near-infrared heater ([0009] of Charon, infrared emitter provides radiation having a wavelength of 0.76 to 2.5 µm or 760-2500 nm which is “near-infrared” radiation).
Regarding claim 6, Lynam discloses that the component is a component for mounting an in-vehicle item ([0032] of Lynam, rain sensor assembly mounted to an inner surface of a windshield via a layer of adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, Charon discloses that the adhesive is an adhesive whose curing is accelerated by heating ([0013] of Charon, adhesives gels and cures by thermal action).
Regarding claim 11, Amano does not specifically disclose that, in the local heating of the heat absorbing layer, a temperature reached by the heat absorbing layer is 100 °C or less. Amano, however, discloses heating the window plate to a temperature of 30 to 230 ℃ in order to heat the adhesive via heat transfer and radiation from the window plate ([0044] of Amano). Amano therefore clearly teaches a temperature range (i.e., 30-230 ℃) that overlaps with that recited in claim 9 (i.e., 100 ℃ or less) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynam in view of Charon and Amano as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0047378 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Lynam does not specifically disclose that the heat absorbing layer is a layer formed by firing a ceramic paste provided on a peripheral edge portion of the vehicle window glass. Moreover, Lynam discloses a ceramic frit layer formed on an inner surface of the windshield ([0058] of Lynam) but does not specifically disclose the method of forming the frit layer. Yamada discloses forming coatings on automotive glass by a process comprising applying ceramic paste to the glass and heating and baking (i.e., firing) the ceramic paste to form the ceramic layer on the glass surface ([0036] of Yamada). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the frit layer by firing a ceramic paste provided on a peripheral edge portion of the vehicle window glass in the modified method since Yamada establishes that it was known to form layers using such methods. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynam in view of Charon and Amano as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tamon (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2017-75064 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 12, Charon discloses that a focal point is located on a surface of the heat absorbing layer or within the heat absorbing layer ([0009] of Charon, infrared energy focused on part of glass substrate in contact with adhesive), and such that the focal point is located at a predetermined distance from the adhesive ([0009] of Charon, infrared energy focused on part of glass substrate in contact with adhesive; focal point would necessarily be some distance from the adhesive) but does not specifically disclose that the local heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed by linearly concentrating near-infrared radiation, with a focal width of 1 mm to 10 mm. Tamon, however, discloses a method for locally heating glass using a lamp emitting near IR radiation (Abstract, [0043] of Tamon) wherein the lamp is a line heater ([0041] of Tamon) having a focal width of 1 to 5 mm ([0045] of Tamon). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the IR line heater of Tamon as the heater in the modified process since Tamon establishes that it was known to use such heaters to locally heat glass. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that neither Lynam nor Charon address the technical problem of curing an adhesive on a laminated vehicle window glass while maintaining the intermediate film at a temperature of ≤ 100 ℃ (pg. 5 of the amendment) and that Amano’s cited temperature is framed at limiting the maximum heating temperature of the laminated window pane to about 110 ℃ not as controlling that the adhesive is heated and cured via local heating of the heat absorbing layer (pg. 7 of the amendment). Amano, however, discloses heating the adhesive layer by heat transfer and radiation from the window pane ([0044] of Amano) and limiting the temperature of the window pane to about 110 ℃ when laminated glass is used ([0048] of Amano).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights