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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 3 – 4, 6, 11 – 13, 14, 17 – 18, and the cancellation of claims 2, 5, & 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 15, & 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. (DE 20 2020 107193), in view of Kleo et al. (US 2012/0320621 A1).
With regard to claims 1 & 14, AGP America S.A. teaches a vehicle (i.e., “an automobile”) comprising a glazing (i.e., “automobile window”) (see Fig. 11B below) for a panoramic roof attached to the vehicle (i.e., “automobile housing”) (paragraphs [0007] & [0012]). The automobile housing defines a body opening (i.e., “a window”), the glazing is mounted in the body opening (paragraph [0083]), and the reinforcement (22) (i.e., “stiffener”) is fixed and connected via encapsulation, fasteners, and spacers for the final assembly of the vehicle (i.e., “automobile housing”) (paragraph [0074]).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the glazing comprises an outer glass sheet (201), an inner glass sheet (202), an intermediate adhesive layer (4), and a reinforcement (22) (i.e., “stiffener”) (paragraph [0130] & Fig. 11B), wherein
The outer glass sheet has a first surface (101) and a second surface (102), the inner glass sheet has a third surface (103) and a fourth surface (104), the first surface faces outside the automobile, and the fourth surface faces inside the automobile;
The second surface (102) has a first mounting region and a first attaching region (interface of outer glass sheet (201) and intermediate adhesive layer (4) which does not overlap with the inner glass sheet (202)) located at a side of the first mounting region (interface of outer glass sheet (201) and intermediate adhesive layer (4) which overlaps with inner glass sheet (202)), one surface of the intermediate adhesive layer has a second mounting region (interface of intermediate adhesive layer (4) and inner glass sheet (202)) and a second attaching region (interface of intermediate adhesive layer (4) and adhesive (34) that does not overlap with inner glass sheet (202)) located at a side of the second mounting region;
The outer glass sheet (201), the intermediate adhesive layer (4), and the inner glass sheet (202) are stacked in sequence, the second surface (102) is adhered to the third surface (103) through the intermediate adhesive layer (4), an orthographic projection of the second mounting region on the outer glass sheet completely overlaps the first mounting region, an orthographic projection of the second attaching region on the outer glass sheet overlaps the first attaching region completely covers an orthographic projection of the inner glass sheet (202) on the outer glass sheet (201); and
The reinforcement (22) (i.e., “stiffener”) is disposed at a side portion of the inner glass sheet, the stiffener has one end connected to the second attaching region (22), and the stiffener has the other end connected to an edge of the fourth surface (104) of the inner glass sheet (Fig. 11B).
AGP America S.A. teaches the reinforcement (22) (i.e., “stiffener”) has a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section (labeled below) has two opposite ends that are respectively connected to the first section and third section, and the first section and the third section are arranged in parallel and each extend away from the second section; the fourth surface (104) of the inner glass sheet (202) has a carrying region (labeled below) at two side edges of the fourth surface, the first section is stacked with and attached to the carrying region, and the third section is stacked with and attached to the second attaching region (of intermediate adhesive layer (4)); and the automobile window further comprises a light source (26) (i.e., “light- emitting body”), the light source (26) is located between the second section and the side portion of the inner glass sheet (202) and the light-emitting body (26/28) is connected to the second attaching region (Fig. 10B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AGP America teaches the light source can be temporarily attached to the glass by means of a device that can be easily reversed to allow for replacement and maintenance (paragraph [0088]).
However, AGP America does not explicitly teach the first section has a moveable section, the movable section is openable and closeable relative to the other part of the first section, and the movable section corresponds to the light-emitting body in position.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Kleo et al. teach a vehicle glazing comprising light emitting diodes (light-emitting source), wherein a cap (4) (i.e., “movable section is openable and closeable”) is demountable in order to insert light emitting diodes (2) or replace them (paragraphs [0001] & [0303]), wherein the cap has a general planar or rectangular contour (paragraph [0298]).
PNG
media_image4.png
260
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kleo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to form a moveable part in the reinforcement taught by AGP America, such as the cap taught by Kleo et al., for replacing the light source of a luminous glazing for an automobile.
With regard to claims 3 & 17, AGP America S.A. does not teach the light-emitting body is thicker than the inner glass sheet (Fig. 10 below), such that the first section [of the stiffener] has a first sub-section (511), a second sub-section (512), and a third sub-section (513) that forms a recess to allow for the light-emitting body to fit in a cooperating space formed by the recess, outer glass sheet, and inner glass sheet.
AGP America S.A. teaches the light source (26) can consist of at least two independent sets of LEDS (28) (paragraph [0076]). Doubling or even tripling the number of LEDS and control can be embedded and permanently attached to the glazing (paragraph [0078]).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that increasing the number of LEDS which would alter the size (i.e., thickness) of the light source (26). Therefore, based on the teachings of AGP America S.A., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the dimensions, such as the number of sub-sections of the first section of the reinforcement (22) through routine experimentation in order to accommodate the size (i.e., thickness) of the light source resulting from the presence of a plurality of LEDs. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 4 & 18, AGP America S.A. teaches the reinforcement can be provided with openings cut in such a way that the light from each LED (a plurality of LEDs) is unobstructed (paragraph [0081]).
AGP America S.A. do not explicitly teach the openings (cuts) are for the purpose of heat dissipation of that the cuts in in the first section.
However, any cut would inherently allow heat to dissipate and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cuts in the reinforcement (22) in any region of the reinforcement in contact with the light-source that would allow light to penetrate through to the inside of the vehicle (i.e., the first section of the reinforcement).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 6, as discussed above for claim 1, the opening/cut in the reinforcement would be in any portion of the reinforcement facing the inside of the vehicle, which would include the embodiment of cap.
With regard to claims 7 & 19, AGP America S.A. teaches the glazing further comprises an adhesive (34) (i.e., “a first connecting body”) between the outer glass sheet (201) and the reinforcement (22) (i.e., “stiffener”), wherein the outer glass sheet is adhered and fixed to the stiffener through the first connecting body (see Fig. 11B above).
With regard to claim 10, AGP America S.A. teaches the reinforcement (22) is made of PET (“plastic”) (paragraphs [0066] & [0097]).
With regard to claim 11, as shown in labeled Fig. 11B below, is defined at one side of the second section away from the inner glass and one side of the third section away from the outer glass sheet, and the receiving region is connected to the automobile housing via the encapsulation material (24).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, as shown in labeled Fig. 11B below, AGP America S.A. teaches the light source (26) (i.e., “light-emitting body”) has a first fixing surface, an LED (28) (i.e., “light-emitting surface”), a second fixing surface, and a backlight surface (opposite surface of LED), wherein the first fixing surface of the light-source (26) is fixed and connected to the second attaching region of the intermediate adhesive layer (4) via adhesive layer (34); and the second fixing surface and the fourth surface (104) (of inner glass) (202) are on the same plane, and the second fixing surface is fixed and connected to the reinforcement (22).
PNG
media_image5.png
359
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, AGP America S.A. teaches the reinforcement (22) (stiffener) comprising the first section has a third attaching region, the second section has a seventh surface corresponding the backlight surface of the light-source, the third section has a fourth attaching region, the seventh surface is connected between the third attaching region and the fourth attaching region;
As shown below in Fig. 11B, the second attaching region (of the intermediate adhesive layer) (4)) is the same size as (i.e., not smaller than) a sum of an area of the fourth attaching region (56) of the reinforcement and an area of the first fixing surface of the light source (26) at the adhesive (34).
PNG
media_image6.png
392
662
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11B shows an area of a projection of the third attaching region of the reinforcement (22) (i.e., stiffener) on the carrying region (22) of the inner glass sheet is not smaller than a sum of an area of the carrying region (where arrow 22 meets the glass) of the inner glass sheet and an area of the second fixing surface (surface of light emitting body where arrow 26 is pointing) of the light-emitting body.
PNG
media_image5.png
359
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, AGP America S.A. teaches the two opposite sides of the opening (i.e., “window”) of the vehicle frame, such as a roof, are carrying edges, each of the carrying edges has a mounting region (not shown in figures), the reinforcement (22) defines a receiving region (as discussed in claim 11 above) at one side of the reinforcement (22) away from the inner glass sheet (202) and away from the outer glass sheet (201), the mounting region [of the automobile housing] and the receiving region are opposite to each other and cooperatively define a dispensing space, wherein an encapsulation material (24) (i.e., “second connecting body”) is disposed in said dispensing space (Fig. 11B). The glazing (i.e., “automobile window”) is fixed to the vehicle frame (i.e. “automobile housing”) through the encapsulation material (i.e., “second connecting body”) and additional stiffening element (30)(Fig. 6C & paragraph [0086]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. & Kleo et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of LeGrand et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,683,172).
With regard to claim 9, AGP America S.A. teaches a large number of adhesives (34) can be used to connect the light source 26 to the glazing, but do not explicitly teach the adhesive (34) is a cured colloid.
LeGrand et al. teach a safety laminate (window) for automobiles, wherein the safety laminate comprises two or more laminate, one of which is composed of a glass sheet, at least one interlayer, and a sufficient number of adhesive layers to bon all laminae and interlayers, wherein all the adhesive layers are a pressure sensitive adhesive (Col. 1, Line 61 – Col. 2, Line 6). The pressure sensitive adhesive is formed by an aqueous emulsion (i.e., a colloid) (Col. 3, Lines 49 – 57).
Therefore, based on the teachings of LeGrand et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use commonly known adhesive for use in automobile windows, such as a pressure sensitive adhesive formed by an aqueous emulsion (i.e., a colloid).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claims 8 & 20, AGP America S.A. fail to teach the outer glass sheet defines a first adhesive groove in the first attaching region of the outer glass sheet, the intermediate adhesive layer defines a second adhesive groove in the second attaching region, the first adhesive groove and the second adhesive groove are in communication with each other and from a third adhesive groove, the third adhesive groove is filled with the first connecting body, and part of the first connecting body extends to part of the second attaching region outside the second adhesive groove to connect the stiffener. (See (14) and (35) of Applicant’s Fig. 7.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant has also amended paragraphs [0031] and [0052] of the specification to change ‘the second attaching surface” to “the second fixing surface” to be consistent with corrected claim 13” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's amendment of the specification has been entered.
Applicant argues, “By this amendment, ‘the second attaching surface’ in claim 13 has been amended into ‘the second fixing surface.’ Therefore, the term ‘the second fixing surface’ has proper antecedent basis in the claim; (2) the claim clearly recites that the area of the projection of the third attaching region 54 on the carrying region 24 is not smaller than the sum of the area of the carrying region 24 and the area of the second fixing surface 43. Claim 13 is now clear and definite.
“In addition, for consistency, Applicant has also amended paragraphs [0031] and [0052] of the specification to change ‘the second attaching surface’ to ‘the second fixing surface’.
“Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of the specification and claim 13, which are properly supported by Figs. 7 – 10, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Examiner’s position appears to equate a removable cap with an openable and closeable movable section. However, these structures are fundamentally different. Access in Kleo is achieved by disassembly and removing a separate component, whereas access in the present application is achieved by opening and closing a portion of the first section itself. Accordingly, Kleo provides a detachable cover rather than a moveable section that forms part of the first section and is openable and closeable relative to the remaining portion thereof” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing that the phrase “openable and closeable relative to the other part of the section” of amended claim is limited to movable sections are not detachable. In other words, Applicant appears to be arguing their claim requires the presence of a moveable section for opening and closing via a hinge (i.e., not detachable), without explicitly using the word “hinge” in their argument. There is no such limitation in Applicant’s claim language. Applicant’s written specification also does not support Applicant’s argument regarding the mechanics (i.e., hinge vs. detachment) of the moveable section.
Furthermore, Applicant’s Figs. 8 – 9 showing said moveable section do not clearly teach the moveable section is limited to only non-removable components or a hinge of any form. Therefore, Applicant’s extremely narrow interpretation of their claim language does not appear to be supported by their specification.
Kleo’s cap technically opens and closes a section of the first section by detaching said cap (i.e., moving said cap) relative to the other part(s) of the first section. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, a reasonable person would consider detachable section as a moveable section. The act of removing said section allows opening and closing of the section, and therefore, openable and closeable relative to the other parts. As such, the teachings of Kleo et al. meet the broad claim language of Applicant’s claim 1.
Applicant argues, “Second, AGP itself provides no motivation to modify its reinforcement structure in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
Paragraph [0088] of AGP discloses:
“The light sources can be permanently attached to the glass in the space provided by the stiffening support element 30, or by means of a device that can be easily reversed to allow for replacement and maintenance. An example of an easily reversible fastening method is a type of attachment using hook and loop fastener fabric.”
“As expressly stated above, AGP addresses replacement and maintenance of the light source through a reversible attachment mechanism for the light source itself. In other words, AGP already provides a solution for replacement and maintenance without modifying the structure of the stiffening support element.
“Thus, AGP achieves replaceability through the manner in which the light source is attached, rather than through introduction of an access structure into the reinforcement member. Because AGP already provides a satisfactory mechanism for replacing the light source, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to redesign the reinforcement structure by incorporating the removable cap arrangement of Kleo” (Remarks, Pgs. 12 – 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, AGP teaches the light source can be replaced, but does not teach the structural details of how said replacement is achieved when the light source is enclosed in the space between the glass and a stiffening support element. AGP’s suggestion of a “hook and loop fastener fabric” as an example is vague and unclear. AGP does not suggest the stiffening support is a piece of fabric. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s argument, AGP does not clearly disclose a satisfactory mechanism for replacing the light source when enclosed by a glass sheet and a stiffening support element.
The cited secondary reference of Kleo et al. teach a clear and detailed structural feature for modifying a stiffening support, such as the stiffening support taught by AGP, to allow for easy replacement of a light source enclosed therein. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the stiffening support taught by AGP with the structural feature taught by Kleo et al. because Kleo et al. teach practical and detailed disclosure for achieving a structure capable of replacing the light source.
Second, the teachings AGP are not limited to a preferred embodiment (a mere example of a hook and fabric). The hook and fastener suggestion does not teach away from possibility of other means for removing said light source for replacement when enclosed by a stiffening support element. MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Applicant argues, “Moreover, the proposed modification would alter the manner in which replacement and maintenance are achieved in AGP. Whereas AGP relies on reversible fastening of the light source itself, Examiner’s proposed modification shifts the focus to structural access through the reinforcement member. Such modification would fundamentally change the manner in which replacement and maintenance are achieved, thereby changing the principle of operation of AGP” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. AGP teaches reversible fastening of the light source is an optional structural feature but does not limit the structural features for achieving said reversible fastening. The principle of operation of AGP is the presence of a light source enclosed in a stiffening support when the light source is in use. Therefore, the detachable cap taught by Kleo et al. does not alter the principle of operation of a stiffening support enclosing said light source when the light source is in use.
Applicant argues, “Accordingly, the rejection relies upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap” (Remarks, Pg.13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues, “Claims 8 and 20 were objected to as depending from rejected base claims 1 and 14, but were found to recite allowable subject matter.
“Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 14 for the reasons discussed above will render the objection to claims 8 and 20 moot.
“Withdrawal of the objection to claims 8 and 20 is respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pgs. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights