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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “during said breaking, the opposite face of the glass sheet that faces the cutting line, the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat supporting bearing means is supported by a support” should read: “during said breaking, the opposite face of the glass sheet that faces the cutting line, the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat supporting bearing means are [[is]] supported by a support”. Appropriate correction is required.
DETAILED ACTION
In view of the appeal brief filed on 10/06/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “a/the local bearing means”, in claims 1 and 14-15.
With regard to the term “local bearing means”, in claims 1 and 14-15:
first, the term “means” is modified by the functional language “local bearing”; second, the term means is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “bearing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the bearing means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that the Claim limitations of Claims 1, 3, and 18, reading a “a first flat supporting bearing means and a second flat support bearing means” are not being treated under 35 USC 112(f) even though the limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Examiner notes that the Claim limitations of Claim 13, reading a “the local bearing means” is not being treated under 35 USC 112(f) even though the limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1, 3, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005123356A1 Jeong in view of USPGPUB 5398857, Kengo.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a method for breaking a sheet of glass (Background Art section of Jeong, and figs 11-12), comprising: tracing a cutting line 22 on a surface of the sheet of glass, using a cutting tool (“scribing process”),
positioning, on a face of the sheet of glass on which the cutting line is made and against the surface of the sheet of glass, both a first flat supporting bearing means (31) and a second flat supporting bearing means (32) along a length of the cutting line such that the first and second flat supporting bearing means are located along a first half and a second half of the length of the cutting line (fig. 11), the first and second flat supporting bearing means being spaced apart from each other and positioned on opposite sides of the cutting line (fig 11), the first and second flat supporting bearing means each have a width less than a width of the sheet of glass (see annotated fig 11 below); and after said positioning, breaking the sheet of glass using a local bearing means 60 applied to an opposite face of the glass sheet that is opposite to the face of the sheet of glass on which the cutting line is made (Background Art section of Jeong, and figs 11-12), the local bearing means being in line with the cutting line (fig 11), wherein the breaking of the sheet of glass is carried out by applying, on said opposite face, the local bearing means and moving the local bearing means along the cutting line and along the first and second flat supporting bearing means to generate a pressing force on the cutting line and a bending stress at all points of the cutting line (figs 11 and 12 and Background Art section of Jeong where it is disclosed: “Subsequently, the moving plates 41, 42 and the vacuum chucks 31, 32 are moved outward by the driving devices 51, 52 and the brittle material 20 is maintained with both sides thereof being tensioned outward on the basis of the crack line 22. Then, when the press roller 60 is lowered to press the surface of the brittle material 20 opposed to the crack line 22 and at the same time moved along the crack line 22 at a constant velocity, the brittle material 20 is cut along the crack line 22 due to a notch effect of the crack line 22”),
said first and second flat supporting bearing means being the only flat supporting bearing means positioned on the face on which the cutting line is made during said breaking (fig 11-12), and wherein both the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat supporting bearing means are positioned flat on, and in contact with, the surface of the glass along the length of the cutting line during said breaking (Background Art section of Jeong and fig 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeong lacks the cutting line 22 being a contour of a complex shape, said complex shape being (a) a curved line or (b) a sequence of lines of which some at least are not rectilinear or (c) rectilinear lines with changes of direction forming at least one concave part.
Kengo discloses a Method and Apparatus for Cutting Plate-shaped Brittle Material in the same field of endeavor as the substrate cracking apparatus of the present invention, and includes a disclosure that in breaking a brittle sheet of material via scoring on a top surface thereof and supporting the sheet on an opposite surface of the top scored surface, along the entirety of the score line (via raised portion 28 in fig. 9), to make a cut line that is intended to be broken via pressing forces that the cut line 21 (fig 7a) may be a curvilinear cutline (which cutline is a complex, non linear shape) in order to successfully make a curved cut line to be the breaking line in a brittle sheet (col 3 lines 1-5) while minimizing the warping that may happen when cutting nonlinear grooves into brittle materials, col 14 lines 5-29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong by having the cutting line being a contour of a complex shape, said complex shape being a curved line in order to make a curved cut line to be the breaking line in a brittle sheet while minimizing the warping that may happen when cutting nonlinear grooves into brittle materials as taught by Kengo.
Regarding Claim 3, in Jeong wherein each of the first and second flat supporting bearing means is a profiled element (figs 11-12, top flat profiled portions).
Regarding Claim1 3, in Jeong wherein the local bearing means is a ball or a wheel (Background Art section of Jeong and fig 11, “press roller 60” “moved along the crack line 20”).
Regarding Claim 14, in Jeong the breaking method as claimed in claim 1, further comprises moving the local bearing means in a horizontal plane along the cutting line while exerting a continuous bearing force (Background Art section of Jeong and fig 11, “press roller 60” “moved along the crack line 20”).
Regarding Claim 15, in Jeong the breaking method as claimed in claim 1, further comprises wherein the local bearing means is moved along a whole length of the cutting line (Background Art section of Jeong and fig 11, “press roller 60” “moved along the crack line 20”).
Regarding Claim 18, in Jeong the method thereof includes during said breaking, the opposite face of the glass sheet that faces the cutting line, the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat supporting bearing means is supported by a support (51 and 52).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kengo and further in view of US 4018372 Insolio.
Regarding Claims 14-16, Modified Jeong discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Jeong also discloses moving the local bearing means in a horizontal plane along the cutting line (fig 11-12 and background section of Jeong).
Modified Jeong lacks, moving the local bearing means in said horizontal plane along the cutting line while exerting a continuous bearing force (claim 14), and the local bearing means is moved along a whole length of the cutting line (claim 15), and wherein the continuous bearing force is of variable intensity during the moving (claim 16).
Insolio discloses a glass cutting/breaking method and apparatus in the same field of endeavor as the substrate cracking apparatus of the present invention, and includes a local bearing means 16, which presses on the sheet in a direction toward a cutting line formed by a scoring device 10 on an opposite surface of the sheet, as seen in fig 2, after the glass has been scored, and discloses that is it beneficial for the local bearer device to be a wheel (as in Jeong), and further disclosed:
moving the local bearing means in a horizontal plane (e.g. into and out of the page of fig 2, which may be horizontal depending on how the workpiece is orientated) along the cutting line while exerting a continuous bearing force (col 15 lines 50-60) (claim 14), and the local bearing means is moved along a whole length of the cutting line (col 15 lines 50-60) (claim 15), and wherein the continuous bearing force is of variable intensity during the moving (see claim 5 of Insolio) (claim 16) in order to break the glass sheet with forces within a conventional range, with forces that do not exceed those at which crushing of the glass being cut would likely occur, col 6, lines 60-67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong by including moving the local bearing means in a horizontal plane along the cutting line while exerting a continuous bearing force (claim 14), and the local bearing means is moved along a whole length of the cutting line (claim 15) and wherein the continuous bearing force is of variable intensity during the moving (claim 16) in order to break the glass sheet with forces within a conventional range, with forces that do not exceed those at which crushing of the glass being cut would likely occur, as taught in Insolio.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of USPN 5303861, Allaire.
Regarding Claims 19, Jeong discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Jeong lacks wherein the support is a flexible mat (claim 19).
Allaire discloses a glass breaking method and apparatus in the same field of endeavor as the flat workpiece breaking device of the present invention, and includes during said breaking, the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat support bearing means all being supported by a support (flexible belt 16, fig 3, wherein the support 16 is a flexible mat [fig 3, col. 3, 63-70]), in order to prevent the surface being broken from being affected by any deviations in the support surface, col 3 lines 65-70 and col 4 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong by including , during said breaking, the opposite face of the glass sheet that faces the cutting line, the first flat supporting bearing means and the second flat support bearing means is supported by a support (claim 18) and wherein the support is a flexible mat (claim 19), in order to support the parts while preventing the surface being broken from being affected by any deviations in the support surface as taught by Allaire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/6/25, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues persuasively that Aimar lacks support for “the flat supporting means” being positioned along the length of the cut line. The figure relied upon in Aimar is not sufficient to prove that the supports run along the length of the cut line. This argument being persuasive also renders moot any further rejection in view of Adachi. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jeong.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2011194644A and USPNs/USPGPUBs 20170008794 20030147035 20070158381 20070158381 20130255055 3532260 20170275197 20110250423 and 5398857 disclose state of the art glass cutting methods. While USPGPUB 20140239034 discloses irregular cutting on a glass. Thus, each of these disclosures disclose elements of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724