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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 refers to “the substrate” in l. 2 of the claim. Claim 2 also refers to “the glass panel and substrate” in ll. 3 – 4 of the claim.
However, claim 2 depends on claim 1, which refers to “at least one substrate” (l. 4 of the claim). Ambiguity arises as to which substrate is referenced when the number of substrates is plural. Therefore, it appears “the substrate” and “the glass panel and substrate” as they appear in claim 2 should respectively read as “the at least one substrate” and “the glass panel and the at least one substrate”.
Regarding claims 3 – 9, each of claims 3 – 9 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 2. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 3 – 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 2.
The examiner further notes claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 each refer to “the substrate” and “the glass panel and substrate” in a similar manner to claim 2. The examiner’s recommendations noted above for claim 2 similarly apply to claims 3 – 9.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 13, claim 10 refers to “the glass panel and substrate” in ll. 2 – 4 of the claim (two instances), claim 11 refers to “the glass panel and substrate” in ll. 2 – 5 of the claim (two instances), and claim 13 refers to “the substrate” in ll. 1, 3, and 4 of the claim (three instances) and “the glass panel and substrate” in l. 4 of the claim (one instance).
The discussion above with respect to these recitations as they appear in claim 2 similarly applies to claims 10, 11, and 13 as appropriate. The examiner similarly makes similar recommendations to claims 10, 11, and 13 to those noted for claim 2.
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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross (WO 2020/123368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses an assembly (“dynamically bendable automotive interior display system”, e.g. “dynamically bendable automotive interior display system” 100: e.g. Fig. 3A – 11B; ¶¶ [0004] – [0007], [0014] – [0026], [0029] – [00176]), comprising:
a glass panel having a planar pre-installation geometry and first and second panel surfaces that are separated by a panel thickness (“sheet-like” “cover substrate” comprising a “glass article” which starts in a “flat shape” having a “first major surface” and a “second major surface”, e.g. “cover substrate” 120, 300: e.g. Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B; ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021] – [0026], [0029] – [0075], [0078] – [0087], [0090] – [00176]); and
at least one substrate that is bonded to at least a portion of the first panel surface (“reversible support”, e.g. “reversible support” 140: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0007], [0014], [0017] – [0020], [0029], [0036], [0074] – [0080], [0086] – [0088], [0092], [00103], [00137], [00138], [00149], [00151], [00152], [00161], [00162], [00174]),
wherein both the glass panel and the at least one substrate are made of bendable materials and are adapted to take on at least one bent post-installation geometry that is different than the planar pre-installation geometry (so as to bend from a “first radius of curvature” to a “second radius of curvature” and back in a “cycle”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021], [0022], [0036] – [0038], [0055], [0056], [0074], [0078] – [0080], [0085] – [0087], [0090], [0093], [0094], [0098], [00125], [00126], [00129], [00130], [00145], [00146], [00149] – [00151], [00170], [00171], [00174], [00175]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gross discloses the assembly further comprises a plurality of attachment features formed in the substrate that provide a plurality of attachment points that are adapted to fixably secure and hold the glass panel and substrate in the at least one bent post-installation geometry (“adhesion”, “local contact”, etc.: e.g. ¶¶ [0075], [0163]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, Gross discloses the assembly further comprises a fixture onto which the glass panel and substrate are installed where the plurality of attachment features in the substrate are attached to retaining features on the fixture to hold the glass panel and substrate in the at least one bent post-installation geometry (“adhesion”, “local contact”, etc., has to provide the ability to complete the aforementioned “cycle”: e.g. Fig. 5A – 8B; ¶¶ [0074] – [0081], [0163]).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Gross discloses the retaining features of the fixture are movable relative to one another between a first position limit and a second position limit such that the retaining features of the fixture hold the glass panel and substrate in a first bent post-installation geometry when the retaining features of the fixture are at the first position limit and the retaining features of the fixture hold the glass panel and substrate in a second bent post-installation geometry that is different than the planar pre-installation geometry and the first bent post-installation geometry when the retaining features of the fixture are at the second position limit (e.g. Fig. 5A – 5C; ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Gross discloses the assembly further comprises a plurality of actuators on the fixture that are adapted to move the retaining features between the first position limit and the second position limit (“driven by two or more wheels”: e.g. ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Gross discloses the glass panel is configured as a lens with a variable curvature that changes depending on the positioning of the retaining features to adaptively focus the lens (as will occur from bending from the “first radius of curvature” to the “second radius of curvature” and back in a “cycle”, where the amount of curvature, and therefore focusing power, can be changed according to the needs of the user: e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021], [0022], [0036] – [0038], [0055], [0056], [0074], [0078] – [0080], [0085] – [0087], [0090], [0093], [0094], [0098], [00125], [00126], [00129], [00130], [00145], [00146], [00149] – [00151], [00170], [00171], [00174], [00175]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Gross discloses the glass panel is configured as a vehicle display screen, dash panel, or vehicle trim piece and the fixture is part of a vehicle interior (for use in the “dynamically bendable automotive interior display system”, e.g. “dynamically bendable automotive interior display system” 100: e.g. Fig. 3A – 11B; ¶¶ [0004] – [0007], [0014] – [0026], [0029] – [00176]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gross discloses the first and second panel surfaces have a non-planar shape, bend, or contour in the bent post-installation geometry of the glass panel and substrate that is not present in the planar pre-installation geometry of the glass panel and substrate (per differences in the “first radius of curvature” and the “second radius of curvature”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021], [0022], [0036] – [0038], [0055], [0056], [0074], [0078] – [0080], [0085] – [0087], [0090], [0093], [0094], [0098], [00125], [00126], [00129], [00130], [00145], [00146], [00149] – [00151], [00170], [00171], [00174], [00175]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gross discloses the first and second panel surfaces extend parallel to a reference plane in the planar pre-installation geometry of the glass panel and substrate (the “sheet-like” “cover substrate” comprises a “glass article” which starts in a “flat shape”: e.g. Fig. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B; ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021] – [0026], [0029] – [0075], [0078] – [0087], [0090] – [00176]) and at least a portion the first and second panel surfaces are curved or bent away from the reference plane in the bent post-installation geometry of the glass panel and substrate (going from the “first radius of curvature” to the “second radius of curvature”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021], [0022], [0036] – [0038], [0055], [0056], [0074], [0078] – [0080], [0085] – [0087], [0090], [0093], [0094], [0098], [00125], [00126], [00129], [00130], [00145], [00146], [00149] – [00151], [00170], [00171], [00174], [00175]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gross discloses the glass panel includes a peripheral edge that follows a first shape in the planar pre-installation geometry and a second shape in the bent post-installation geometry (e.g. as will result from using a “bendable material” of “reversible support” 140C to bend the “cover substrate” with “local bends”: e.g. ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Gross discloses the substrate includes an anterior surface that is bonded to the first panel surface (e.g. Fig. 3A, 3B), a posterior surface opposite the anterior surface (e.g. Fig. 3A, 3B), and one or more relief cuts in the posterior surface of the substrate that enhance articulation of the substrate when the glass panel and substrate are bent from the planar pre-installation geometry to the bent post-installation geometry (the “reversible support” is “articulated” or “corrugated”, e.g. “segmented”: e.g. Fig. 5A – 5C; ¶¶ [0076] – [0078]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Boggs (US 2018/0188870 A1).
Regarding claim 8, although Gross is not explicit as to the plurality of attachment features being mounting holes in the substrate that receive a plurality of fasteners that engage the retaining features on the fixture, this feature would have been obvious in view of Boggs.
MPEP § 2143, I, B, states the following regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted above, Gross discloses the assembly of claim 8 except for attachment features as claimed.
With respect to (2), Gross discloses the attachment features may be adhesive but does not limit their disclosure thereto (“adhesion”, “local contact”, etc., has to provide the ability to complete the aforementioned “cycle”: e.g. Fig. 5A – 8B; ¶¶ [0074] – [0081], [0163]). Boggs identifies adhesive and mechanical coupling devices such as screws to be equivalents to one another as attachment features in the context Gross relates to where a glass panel is connected to a substrate (e.g. ¶ [0136]), where it will be understood that screws necessarily require a mounting hole into which the threads of the screw will secure the substrate to the glass panel.
With respect to (3), Boggs’ aforementioned equivalence coupled with Gross’ open-ended nature for what constitutes attachment features would have informed one of ordinary skill in the art that a substitution of adhesive as Gross discloses for a fastener with mounting holes as Boggs discloses is reasonable and predictable.
With respect to (4), like Gross (for use in the “dynamically bendable automotive interior display system”, e.g. “dynamically bendable automotive interior display system” 100: e.g. Fig. 3A – 11B; ¶¶ [0004] – [0007], [0014] – [0026], [0029] – [00176]), Boggs relates to bendable displays for vehicle interiors (e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0309]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute adhesives as Gross discloses for attachment features for mounting holes in the substrate that receive a plurality of fasteners that engage the retaining features on the fixture as Boggs suggests, e.g. by using screws. The rationale for such a substitution is that the result of this substitution is predictable with no substantive change in the function of the assembly.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Boggs.
Regarding claim 9, although Gross is not explicit as to the assembly further comprising a jig adapted to receive the glass panel and substrate and hold the glass panel and substrate in the at least one bent post-installation geometry as the plurality of attachment features are being formed in the substrate, this feature would have been obvious in view of Boggs.
Boggs describes aligning a glass panel and a substrate before adhering the two together using a jig adapted to receive the glass panel and substrate and hold the glass panel and substrate in a bent state (“fixture”: e.g. ¶¶ [0118], [0126], [0132], [0141], [0148], [0149], [0155], [0156], [0163], [0167], [0177], [0221]). Considering Boggs expresses concerns with prior methods in regards to effects such as optical distortion (e.g. ¶ [0003]), there is a suggestion that alignment using a jig helps avoid such distortion. Furthermore, Boggs suggests increasing adhesive thicknesses in order to enhance alignment as a means to help lower stress in lamination (e.g. ¶¶ [0148], [0155], [0163]).
Gross discloses adhesion or similar methods can be used to attach the glass panel to the substrate (“adhesion”, “local contact”, etc.: e.g. Fig. 5A – 8B; ¶¶ [0074] – [0081], [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Gross’ assembly to further comprise a jig adapted to receive the glass panel and substrate and hold the glass panel and substrate in the at least one bent post-installation geometry as the plurality of attachment features are being formed in the substrate as Boggs suggests, the motivation being to better align the glass panel and substrate, thereby reducing stress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783