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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaccaria et al (US 2022/0115763 A1), hereinafter Zaccaria.
Regarding claim 1, Zaccaria (Figures 1-5) teaches a vehicle glass, comprising a glass 20, an adhesive layer 13A and 13B and an antenna module 12, wherein the antenna module is bonded to the glass by the adhesive layer (para [0070] and [0089]), wherein the adhesive layer is distributed, in form of short lines, on an edge area of a bottom surface of the antenna module (Figure 3 shows four adhesive layers 13B being distributed in form of short lines on an edge area of a bottom surface of the antenna module 12).
Zaccaria does not explicitly teach that the vehicle glass further comprises a bracket that is bonded to the glass by the adhesive layer and the antenna module is clamped on the bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to clamp the antenna module onto a bracket that is bonded to the glass instead of bonding the antenna module onto the glass by an adhesive since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of clamping the antenna module to a bracket and bonding the antenna module to an adhesive for their use in the antenna art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to bond the antenna module onto a vehicle glass would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the antenna of Zaccaria is intended to be mounted on windows of a building. However, it would be a matter of intended use to apply the invention to other fields such as window of a vehicle. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches that the short lines (equivalent to adhesive layer 13B) comprise line segments or short arcs.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches that the adhesive layer 13B is distributed on a periphery of the bottom surface of the antenna module 12 or a periphery of the bottom surface of the bracket.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches that the adhesive layer 13B comprises four adhesive blocks each in form of a line segment, and the four adhesive blocks are distributed on the edge areas of all edges of the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches that a length of the adhesive block 13B is smaller than an edge length of the bottom surface.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a length of the adhesive block is less than or equal to 40% of the edge length and is greater than or equal to 30% of the edge length, and a width of the adhesive block is not greater than 15mm, since 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).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 3, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches that the adhesive layer 13B comprises four adhesive blocks, the four adhesive blocks are distributed on the edge areas of four corners of the bottom surface, and any two of the adhesive blocks do not completely connected. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure each adhesive blocks in form of a right-angled broken line structure for desired bonding characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a total length of the four adhesive block each in the form of a right-angled broken line structure is not less than 30% of a total perimeter of the bottom surface and not greater than 40% of the total perimeter of the bottom surface, and a width thereof is not greater than 15mm, since 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).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 3, Zaccaria (Figure 3) teaches four adhesive blocks 13B and the four adhesive blocks are distributed on the edge areas of four corners of the bottom surface. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure each adhesive blocks in form of a 90° round-corner broken line structure to achieve a desired level of bonding.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a total length of the four adhesive blocks each in the form of a 90° round-corner broken line structure is not less than 30% of a total perimeter of the bottom surface and not greater than 40% of the total perimeter of the bottom surface, and a width thereof is not more than 15mm, since 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).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arbitrary select the material of an adhesive for forming the adhesive layer to comprise one or more selected from polyurethane, acrylic resin, polycarbonate resin, ABS resin, and fluororesin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for the same reason for having the same scope as claims 1-4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights