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
This is a response to the amendment filed 12/24/2025. Claims 7-8 have been canceled and thus all rejections are withdrawn with respect to these claims. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues FR2699165 teaches away from remaining cold. Although it is true FR2699165 desires heating of the glass in thick adhesive to ensure heat to the glass side sufficient to gel, it is well-known heating of the glass should be minimized to the extent it can be heat to the glass can cause issue with transparency, and this is well understood in the prior art (See, for example, George et al., US 6,316,099, col. 11, lines 52-65, indicating heating of sealants when attaching windshield should be below the softening point of polyvinyl butyral interlayers, which is 75 C or below). The glass in FR2699165 is heated as a consequence of providing heat to the adhesive, not because heating glass is desirable in its own right. Further, FR2699165 acknowledges induction alone is sufficient for thinner adhesive systems, and thus, omitting IR is suitable in such cases wherein the glass may “remain cold” while the 120 C temperature implemented via induction heating the metal to gel the adhesive. Such a process is well-known in the prior art (See, for example, Johnson, US 6,313,448, col. 4, lines 46-55, and col. 7, lines 51-54, indicating using induction only to heat the conductive metal when joining it to a glass windshield so as to activate the bonding agent, i.e. adhesive, while the non-conductive glass does not heat up) and reads on Claim 1 as written.
However, in view of the amendment and the fact using both IR and below 100 C is not completely clear in FR2699165 and is now required for Claim 4, the amendments necessitate a new rejection to best address the current claim scope, and thus Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new rejection below. Examiner submits IR appears to be central to the invention, and thus Examiner has framed the rejection to address it. However, the Examiner notes induction heating the metal alone reads on Claim 1 (since induction heating is local to the metal and occurs in no other locations), and such methods are well-known in the prior art to locally heat the metal to provide heat to the adhesive while minimally heating the glass.
Further, since the IR heating appears central to the invention, Examiner encourages Applicant claim it to move prosecution forward. However, as the claims are currently written, even if the local heating is specified as IR, the IR heating need not be the only method of heating the system, nor the metal, and thus the heat provided to the metal may come from primarily come from other heating (including non-local heating before the metal is moved into contact with the adhesive), as long as some local heating is performed on the metal during the process. This is true even if said local heating of the metal is incidental within the process. It is further noted any heating on the metal, or the local heating, need not occur while the metal is in contact with the glass. Specifying the glass is in place on the metal during heating would also appear central to the process, yet this still is not claimed. Locally heating the metal prior to disposing the metal and glass in contact via adhesive reads on the heating as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huotari et al. (US 2020/0047595) in view of in view of Duck et al. (US 5,064,494) and George et al. (US 6,316,099).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 6, Huotari et al. teaches a method of producing component-attached vehicle window glass (See page 1, paragraph [0011], teaching bonding a frame to glass in vehicle applications such as windshields), the method comprising: disposing a frame flange [21] on a main surface of window glass [12] via an adhesive (See Fig. 1 and page 1, paragraph [0010]);
locally heating the frame flange [51] via IR heat to 60-80 C (See page 2, paragraphs [0013]-[0014], wherein an IR source face towards the frame flange to heat the adhesive thereon, whose curing is acerated by heating, thus inevitably heating the frame flange to some extent, which is directly adjacent the adhesive and in the path of the IR waves).
The material of the frame flange is unspecified, and further it is unclear if the such a frame is heated to the extent it can transfer heat to the adhesive. However, in similar processes of attaching glass windshields to frames using radiative heating, the frames are commonly metal and pre-heated to transfer heat into the adhesive to facilitate curing from the metal side and supplement the radiative heat provided from the glass side (See, for example, Duck et al., col. 3, lines 45-58, teaching pre-heating metal to 80-95 C is helpful to reduce heat dissipation from the metal side). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a metal frame flange in Huotari et al. and to pre-heat said metal frame flange prior to IR-heating. Metal frames are standard in windshield bonding and would have predictably been suitable as the flange frame in Huotari et al. Further, pre-heating such metal opposite the adhesive from the glass would have predictably helped provide additional heating to the adhesive from the metal side for curing. Such pre-heating also would have predictably reduced some of the required heating from the glass side, which is desirable to avoid overheating the interlayer, such interlayers known to have been ubiquitous in windshield glass between outer glass layers for safety (See, for example, George et al., col. 11, lines 52-65, teaching heating to fix a windshield to a substrate should be limited so as not to heat above the softening temperature of the interlayer, such as polyvinyl butyral (PVB), which is standard as an interlayer in windshields, and known to soften around 70 C). Note such a pre-heated metal will transfer heat to the adhesive upon contact and facilitate curing, since heat acerates curing of the adhesive in Huotari et al. (See page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that almost any windshield glass is a glass sandwich with an intermediate film interlayer such as PVB because this is standard and assumed in windshield construction to create safety glass necessary for vehicle safety standards in virtually every market. Huotari et al. teaches applying IR-heating from 60-80 C to the adhesive on the frame flange, such as metal, as described above, and it would have been apparent pre-heating such a metal would have reduced the heating burden from the glass side, thus protecting the interlayer from undesirable overheating. Since all references teach applying heat at lower temperatures than 100 C to assist curing, and since such high temperatures close to 100 C would have predictably negatively affected the interlayer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to applying heat to the adhesive (via IR and pre-heating the metal) such that the interlayer stays well under 100 C. Further, as described above, the IR heating element, pointed at the adhesive on the metal flange, will inevitably provide some IR heat, i.e. radiation, to heat the metal, thus providing the local heating as claimed. Note such heat at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention since the metal is in the path of the heater, adjacent the desired item to be heated (i.e. the adhesive), and there being no coherent reason to take steps to avoid heating the metal, and some reasons to heat it (i.e. more even heat distribution within the adhesive).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huotari et al., Duck et al., and George et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of FR2699165 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation).
Regarding Claims 4, Huotari et al., Duck et al., and George et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Huotari et al. further teaches applying heat via an IR heating element, but is silent on the type of IR heat. However, FR2699165 teaches a similar process of using a heated metal frame and IR heating the glass side to cure an adhesive between a metal from and windshield glass, and teaches the the IR radiation wavelength as being in the 0.76-2.5 microns range, which includes near IR wavelengths (See page 4, paragraph [0008]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a near infrared heater. Such a heater would have predictably been suitable for heating adhesive through glass as is desired in Huotari et al. As described above, although such a heater is specifically for heating the adhesive, Examiner submits it is inevitable, or at the very least obvious, some of this IR heat will also provide heat to the metal since it heats the system overall. Note the glass is clearly transparent to the IR radiation and said radiation is depicted as being applied by hand with an IR heater, suggesting some may pass through the glass and hit the metal directly. Further, it is also likely IR heat provided to the adhesive [3] will radiate through the adhesive such that at least some small heat is provided to the metal. Note at the very least, such IR heating or radiating heat would have been obvious to assist in curing the adhesive because the metal is already pre-heated (and also taught as being heating in FR2699165), thus making it apparent additional heat provided to the metal would not negatively affect the system. Such a wider IR would have predictably ensured the entire width of the adhesive is heated, there being no concrete side effects to heating said metal, and likely advantages of more even heating from the metal side.
Regarding Claim 9, Huotari et al., Duck et al., and George et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. George et al. indicate ceramic frit is known on windshields (See col. 11, lines 49-51), but none of the reference teach bonding the metal frame to the shielding layer. However, FR2699165 teaches an “enamel layer,” which would have been understood to have been ceramic frit, that protects the adhesive from sunlight, i.e. a shielding layer (See page 4, paragraph [0008]), and is screen printed around the edge on the glass where the glass bonds to the adhesive (See pages 5-6, paragraphs [0010]-0011], wherein the screen-printed black enamel would have been well understood to have been a ceramic frit as discussed in George et al., and note such ceramic frit has been previously been established on the record as standard and well-known). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to fire a ceramic paste onto the interior of the glass to which the metal is mounted. Doing so would have provided a well-known shielding layer for protecting the adhesive from environmental exposure while also hiding the adhesive for decorative affect, such as is well-known when adhesive bonding on windshields.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huotari et al., Duck et al., and George et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 6,667,896).
Regarding Claim 5, Huotari et al., Duck et al., and George teaches mounting metal components on vehicle glass such as windshields via adhesive, but fail to explicitly teach a metal component for mounting an in-vehicle component. However, such mounting components, e.g. metal brackets, are well-known in windshield, such as to mount components for holding, for example, rear view mirrors, and are known to be bonded via similar methods (See, for example, Carter et al., col. 1, lines 20-21, col. 12, lines 42-50, and col. 14, lines 1-7, indicating rear view mirrors are well-known to be attached to the interior of windshield and indicating metal attachment pieces may be bonded to glass via adhesive that may be cured via IR or induction heating). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to attach a metal component for mounting an in-vehicle item, such as a metal attachment bracket for a rear-view mirror. Such brackets for mounting mirror are well-known to be attached to windshields such as in Huotari et al., and similar methods as described above (with the same heating limitations as to temperature) would have predictably been suitable for attaching, heating, and accelerating curing of the adhesives that secure said brackets while not overheating the PVB interlayer.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746