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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 05/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites 8(10-6) and 40(10-6) it is believed this is a typo and “-6” is supposed to be a superscript. Similar typographical errors are present in claims 17 and 18. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. (US 2018/0188869) and further in view of Chiappeta et al. (US 2007/0026238).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Boggs discloses a curved glass 140, depicted as having a first major surface 142 (i.e., second major surface) and a second major surface 144 (i.e., first major surface) opposite to the first major surface 142, wherein the first major surface 142 (i.e., second major surface) is adhered to a frame 158 (i.e., includes a frame adhered to the second major surface of the glass sheet at a surface) by an adhesive (0040-0041, 0109, 0130, 0143; Figs. 2 and 14). The glass having a first radius of curvature of 20 mm or greater (0098), overlapping the claimed radius of greater than or equal to 20 mm and less than or equal to 10,000 mm. Boggs teaches that the glass substrate or display module may be curved to match each other (0096) or the surface of the vehicle interior system (0100). Given that the glass substrate may be formed to coincide with the curved and flat portions of a given substrate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill this would include a curved configuration in which a curved region disposed between a first and second flat section as claimed (0146).
The frame (instant carrier) of Boggs is configured to maintain the glass sheet in a curved configuration (0035) and comprises first and second spaced apart longitudinal strips and first and second spaced apart lateral strips extending between each of the longitudinal strips (Fig. 14). The longitudinal strips define the radius of curvature of the curved region of the glass (Fig. 14).
Boggs does not expressly teach wherein the glass sheet deviates 0.3 mm of less from planar in the first flat section and in the second flat section, however, given Boggs discloses cold-bending the glass to match the curvature of the substrate (0096), implying a deviation of 0 mm, overlapping the claimed deviation of 0.3 mm or less form planar.
Alternatively, Boggs discloses the same process of cold-bending onto the frame surface (0125) the deviation of 0.3 mm or less would be expected from the prior art.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Boggs teaches wherein a portion of the width of the first lateral strip is located in the curved region and in the first flat section and wherein at least a portion of the width of the second lateral strip is located in the curved region and in the second flat section given the fame supports the glass in the curved form. Boggs does not teach suitable widths for the longitudinal or lateral strips.
However, as the present specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the width of the longitudinal and lateral strips of the frame based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said frame. Said obvious modifications including, selecting a width required for a given end use including those widths in the range of 2 mm or less for the first and second longitudinal strips and 20 mm or less for the first and second lateral strips. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a strips. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2D 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is no patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the widths including over the range presently claimed to create a frame as required for a given end use.
Alternatively, Chiappeta, in the analogous field of curved glass substrate (0005) teaches a peripheral support having an edge thickness (i.e., width) ranging from 0.1 to 1 cm (1 to 10 mm; 0023-0024), overlapping the claimed Wlong of 2 mm or less, and width W-lat of 20 mm or less.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the lateral and longitudinal supports of the frame of Boggs to have a widths of 0.1 to 1 cm as taught by Chiappeta, to provide sufficient support to the glass in a bending operation (0024).
Chiappeta further teaches the peripheral support situated at less than 5 cm from the edge of the glazing element.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the frame of Boggs, including the first and second longitudinal strips to be situated less than 5 cm from the edge, including within the first and second flat sections, as taught by Chiappeta, to support the glass at the edge (0013).
Regarding claim 2, Boggs discloses a c-shaped cross section in the curved configuration (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Boggs teaches the outer edge of the frame aligned with a minor surface (i.e., the edge surface) of the glass sheet at the first lateral strip (Fig. 5, 14).
Regarding claim 4, Chiappeta discloses the outer peripheral support being situated less than 5 cm from the edge of the glazing (0013), thus teaching an overlapping range where the carrier extends into curved regions 5 mm or less.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 1 and 4 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Boggs teaches and adhesive between the frame and glass (0109).
Regarding claim 6, Boggs teaches the glass being cold-bent including during lamination (0102).
Please note, claim 6 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “cold-formed”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Boggs teaches the glass having a thickness of 1.5 mm or less (0004), overlapping the claimed thickness from 0.1 to 1.5 mm (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Boggs teaches that the curved section can vary in form being more or less curved and given that the glass substrate may be formed to coincide with the curved and flat portions of a given substrate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill this would include a curved configuration having a v-shape as claimed (0146).
Regarding claim 10, Chiappeta teaches the peripheral support situated at less than 5 cm from the edge of the glazing element, overlapping the claimed no more than 5 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Boggs teaches the glass having a first radius of curvature of 20 mm or greater (0098), overlapping the claimed radius of greater than or equal to 20 mm and less than or equal to 500 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Boggs discloses the first and second lateral strips connected to the first and second longitudinal and second longitudinal strips defining a closed quadrilateral shape (e.g., Fig. 14).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Boggs discloses a curved glass 140, depicted as having a first major surface 142 (i.e., second major surface) and a second major surface 144 (i.e., first major surface) opposite to the first major surface 142, wherein the first major surface 142 (i.e., second major surface) is adhered to a frame 158 (i.e., includes a frame adhered to the second major surface of the glass sheet at a surface) by an adhesive (0040-0041, 0109, 0130, 0143; Figs. 2 and 14). The glass having a first radius of curvature of 20 mm or greater (0098), overlapping the claimed radius of greater than or equal to 250 mm and less than or equal to 1,000 mm. Boggs teaches that the glass substrate or display module may be curved to match each other (0096) or the surface of the vehicle interior system (0100). Given that the glass substrate may be formed to coincide with the curved and flat portions of a given substrate, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill this would include a curved configuration in which a curved region disposed between a first and second flat section and to be v-shaped as claimed (0146).
The frame (instant carrier) of Boggs is configured to maintain the glass sheet in a curved configuration (0035) and comprises first and second spaced apart longitudinal strips and first and second spaced apart lateral strips extending between each of the longitudinal strips (Fig. 14). The longitudinal strips define the radius of curvature of the curved region of the glass (Fig. 14).
Boggs does not expressly teach wherein the glass sheet deviates 0.3 mm of less from planar in the first flat section and in the second flat section, however, given Boggs discloses cold-bending the glass to match the curvature of the substrate (0096), implying a deviation of 0 mm, overlapping the claimed deviation of 0.3 mm or less form planar.
Alternatively, Boggs discloses the same process of cold-bending onto the frame surface (0125) the deviation of 0.3 mm or less would be expected from the prior art.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Boggs teaches wherein a portion of the width of the first lateral strip is located in the curved region and in the first flat section and wherein at least a portion of the width of the second lateral strip is located in the curved region and in the second flat section given the fame supports the glass in the curved form. Boggs does not teach suitable widths for the longitudinal or lateral strips.
However, as the present specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the width of the longitudinal and lateral strips of the frame based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said frame. Said obvious modifications including, selecting a width required for a given end use including those widths in the range of 2 mm or less for the first and second longitudinal strips and 20 mm or less for the first and second lateral strips. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a strips. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2D 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is no patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the widths including over the range presently claimed to create a frame as required for a given end use.
Alternatively, Chiappeta, in the analogous field of curved glass substrate (0005) teaches a peripheral support having an edge thickness (i.e., width) ranging from 0.1 to 1 cm (1 to 10 mm; 0023-0024), overlapping the claimed Wlong of 2 mm or less, and width W-lat of 20 mm or less.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the lateral and longitudinal supports of the frame of Boggs to have a widths of 0.1 to 1 cm as taught by Chiappeta, to provide sufficient support to the glass in a bending operation (0024).
Chiappeta further teaches the peripheral support situated at less than 5 cm from the edge of the glazing element.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the frame of Boggs, including the first and second longitudinal strips to be situated less than 5 cm from the edge, including within the first and second flat sections, as taught by Chiappeta, to support the glass at the edge (0013).
Regarding claim 15, Boggs teaches the glass being cold-bent including during lamination (0102).
Please note, claim 15 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “cold-formed”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Boggs teaches the glass having a thickness of 1.5 mm or less (0004), overlapping the claimed thickness from 0.1 to 1.5 mm (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Boggs discloses the first and second lateral strips connected to the first and second longitudinal and second longitudinal strips defining a closed quadrilateral shape (e.g., Fig. 14).
Claims 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs in view of Chiappeta as applied to claims 1 or 14 above, and further in view of Iwatani et al. (JP 2015/080981).
Regarding claims 8 and 17-18, Boggs in view of Chiappeta disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above. While Boggs teaches the frame may be composed of metal alloys, including iron-based alloys, and fiber reinforced plastics/composites (0140), Boggs is silent towards the carrier material having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of from 8-6/oC to 40-6/oC (or 8-6/oC to 15-6/oC). Iwatani, in the analogous field of laminated glass panels adhered to frames (Fig. 2, 0024) , teaches a glass panel adhered to a frame. The frame composed of steel material having a CTE of 11.7-6/oC, overlapping the claimed ranges of from 8-6/oC to 40-6/oC (and 8-6/oC to 15-6/oC).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a steel alloy frame material, having the claimed CTE, in Boggs to provide sufficient strength and support (0029, 0035, and 0040-0047).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights