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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa (US-20130106140).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches:
A packaging structure comprising:
a main body ([0033]; Fig. 2, #16) adapted to be installed in an encapsulation mold ([0036] and [0049] – [0050]; Fig. 1, #61 and #62) and provided with an attachment surface to attach to at least part of a surface of a glass to be encapsulated ([0042] and [0061]; Fig. 2, #14, #46), and
a lip extending from the attachment surface of the main body and adapted to attach to the surface of the glass to be suitable for sealing the surface of the glass ([0042] and [0061]; Fig. 2, #14, #46, and #52),
wherein at least a part of the packaging structure is made of flexible material ([0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the packaging structure further comprises a supporting edge extending from the attachment surface in the opposite direction to the lip, and a thickness of the supporting edge is greater than or equal to a thickness of the lip ([0037] – [0043]; Figs. 1-2, #31).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the packaging structure is configured as a strip or a frame followed by the a shape of the glass ([0033] – [0047]; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the packaging structure is made of thermoplastic elastomer ([0036] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
A preparation device for a packaging structure according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the preparation device comprises a molding chamber to be suitable for manufacturing the packaging structure by flexible material ([0049] – [0050] and [0064]; Fig. 1, #65).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the preparation device is a mold for injection molding ([0049] – [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
An encapsulation mold comprising:
an upper mold ([0049]; Fig. 1, #62) and a lower mold ([0049]; Fig. 1, #61), the upper mold and the lower mold defining a molding cavity ([0049]; Fig. 1, #63),
at least one packaging structure according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above;
wherein the packaging structure is arranged in the upper mold and/or the lower mold, and the packaging structure is arranged outside the molding cavity adjacent to the molding cavity with the lip of the packaging structure not exceeding a cavity wall of the molding cavity ([0049] – [0062]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 10 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the encapsulation mold further comprises a floating mechanism to support the glass to be encapsulated ([0042] – [0046]; Fig. 2, #53).
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 11 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
A vehicle window assembly comprising a glass and an encapsulation covering at least one edge area of the glass ([0033] – [0042]; Figs. 3-6), wherein the vehicle window assembly is manufactured by an encapsulation mold according to claim 8, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends on. Ishikawa further teaches:
wherein the glass is a sunroof glass, a vehicle door glass or a quarter window glass ([0017] – [0022] and [0033]).
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.
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US-20130106140) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, respectively, and further in view of Abrams (U.S. Patent No. 5800757).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not explicitly teach a mounting hole, however, Abrams, in a similar field of endeavor, a packaging structure for glass parts made in a mold, teaches:
wherein the main body is provided with a mounting hole to be suitable for being fixed in the encapsulation mold by a fastener (Col. 19, lines 10-17; Fig. 18, #220). Although the mounting holes from Abrams are in the lower mold and not the main body, they are used for the same purpose of fixing the main body with a fastener, and neither the claims nor specifications describe why it would be advantageous for the mounting holes to be in the main body instead of the mold, therefore they would be obvious equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, Ishikawa already discloses mounting holes (Ishikawa; [0047]), but is silent as to using them in the mold, therefore the teaching of Abrams would be easily used to modify Ishikawa and teach the limitations of claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging structure of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Abrams and explicitly include a mounting hole. The purpose, as stated by Abrams, being facilitates preventing the sheet from moving on mold member (Col. 19, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 9 depends on, but does not explicitly teach an engagement hole, however, Abrams, in a similar field of endeavor, an encapsulation mold for packaging glass parts, teaches:
wherein a groove is formed in the encapsulation mold to accommodate the packaging structure, and the groove is provided with an engagement hole to be suitable for fixing the packaging structure in the encapsulation mold by a fastener (Col. 19, lines 10-17; Fig. 18, #220). Although the mounting holes from Abrams are in the lower mold and not the main body, they are used for the same purpose of fixing the main body with a fastener, and neither the claims nor specifications describe why it would be advantageous for the mounting holes to be in the main body instead of the mold, therefore they would be obvious equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, Ishikawa already discloses mounting holes (Ishikawa; [0047]), but is silent as to using them in the mold, therefore the teaching of Abrams would be easily used to modify Ishikawa and teach the limitations of claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the encapsulation mold of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Abrams and explicitly include an engagement hole. The purpose, as stated by Abrams, being facilitates preventing the sheet from moving on mold member (Col. 19, lines 26-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Jiangyin (CN-211251097) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ishikawa (US-20130106140).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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 L Hindenlang can be reached at 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748