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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated April 21, 2026 was submitted on July 20, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 5 and 6 were canceled. Claims 8 and 9 were previously canceled. Claims 13 and 14 were added. Claims 1-4, 7 and 10-14 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-4, 7 and 10-12 (¶¶ 9-24 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 These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.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 13 and 14 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 1-4, 7, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewno (U.S. Patent No. 6,319,344 B1) in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,544,458) 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, Lewno discloses a method of producing component-attached vehicle window glass (Abstract of Lewno, methods of forming bonded vehicular glass assemblies comprising a load bearing attachment member bonded to a glass substrate), the method comprising: disposing a component for mounting an in vehicle item on a main surface of a glass plate having a heat absorbing layer via an adhesive (Abstract of Lewno, assembly comprises a load bearing attachment member bonded to a glass substrate with an adhesive; FIG. 3 of Lewno, member #32 bonded to main surface of glass panel #24), wherein the component is attached to the glass only via the adhesive (FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 of Lewno, member #50 bonded to glass substrate #60 only via adhesive #70) and wherein the component and the adhesive are disposed only on the main surface of the glass (FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 of Lewno, adhesive #70 only disposed on main surface of glass substrate #60).
Lynam does not specifically disclose locally heating the heat absorbing layer from a side of the glass plate on which the heat absorbing layer is provided, using a near-infrared heater and transferring heat from the heat absorbing layer to the adhesive to heat and cure the adhesive. Fisher, however, discloses a method for manufacturing a vehicle panel assembly (Abstract of Fisher) comprising heating a frit layer on a glass panel locally using infrared radiation to a temperature sufficient to activate bonding of an adhesive primer layer (FIG. 19, 13:29-55 of Fisher). According to Fisher, the infrared radiation can be directed into the frit layer from the same side as the frit layer (13:41-45 of Fisher). Also according to Fisher, the infrared radiation has a wavelength of 7x103 Angstroms (14:12-14 of Fisher) which encompasses near infrared wavelengths. Fisher also discloses that using localized infrared heating avoids the problems associated with heating and cooling large expanses of glass panels (14:26-29 of Fisher). 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 localized near infrared heating of the frit layer wherein the radiation is directed from the same side as the frit layer as taught by Fisher in the method of Lewno. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid the problems associated with heating and cooling large expanses of glass panels as taught by Fisher (14:26-29 of Fisher).
Lewno 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. Moreover, Lewno discloses that the glass may be a multi-composite laminate such as transparent glass and plastic (6:62-67 of Lewno) but does not specifically disclose 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, Lewno discloses that the component is made of resin (10:44-47 of Lewno, materials bonded to glass include plastics and composites; plastics and composites include synthetic polymer resins).
Regarding claim 3, Lewno and Fisher each disclose that the heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed by radiation, by conduction, or by radiation and conduction (12:16-18 of Lewno, acceleration of adhesive cure performed by infrared heating; 13:41-45 of Fisher, infrared heating which involves radiation used to heat frit layer).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher discloses that the heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed in a windless state (13:41-45 and 51:55 of Fisher, heating performed by infrared radiation absorbed by frit layer which does not involve moving air).
Regarding claim 7, Lewno discloses that the adhesive is an adhesive whose curing is accelerated by heating (12:13-18 of Lewno, adhesive cure accelerated by heating).
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)).
Regarding claim 13, Lewno discloses that the adhesive is a heat-curable adhesive selected from the group consisting of a modified silicone/epoxy adhesive, a two-component urethane adhesive, a one-component thermosetting urethane adhesive, and a second generation acrylic adhesive (SGA) (Abstract of Lewno, adhesive is a two-component urethane adhesive; 12:12-18 of Lewno, cure accelerated by heating; claim only requires one of the recited adhesive types).
Regarding claim 14, Fisher suggests that the adhesive is cured solely due to the transferred heat. Moreover, Fisher discloses heat is generated in the frit layer solely by absorption of infrared radiation (13:51-55 of Fisher).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewno in view of Fisher 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, Lewno 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, Lewno discloses glass with a layer of ceramic frit layer (6:62-65 of Lewno) and Fisher discloses the ceramic frit layer concealing a peripheral area near the edge of the glass (5:20-22 of Fisher) but neither reference specifically discloses 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 Lewno in view of Fisher and Amano as applied to claim 1 above and further 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 Tamon (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2017-75064 A, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below).
Regarding claim 12, Fisher suggests that local heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed using near-infrared radiation (13:51-55 of Fisher, frit layer heated by localized absorption of infrared energy; 14:8-14 of Fisher, infrared radiation has a wavelength greater than 7.0x103 Angstroms which includes near infrared range) but does not specifically disclose that a focal point is located on a surface of the heat absorbing layer or within the heat absorbing layer, and such that the focal point is located at a predetermined distance from the adhesive, but does not specifically disclose that the local heating of the heat absorbing layer is performed by linearly concentrating the near-infrared radiation, with a focal width of 1 mm to 10 mm. Charon, however, 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). Charon also discloses that a focal point of the radiation 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), 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), Charon 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 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 the references cited in the previous Office Action do not teach or suggest locally heating the heat absorbing layer from a side of the glass plate on which the heat absorbing layer is provided (pp. 4-5 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Lewno and Fisher references to address this limitation.
Conclusion
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 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