DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 16645741 application filed March 9, 2020, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on October 24 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15 and 20-25 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 4, 7 and 16-19 acknowledged.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 24 2025 has been entered.
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.
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:
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 1-3, 5-10 and 20-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Isono et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140033768), hereinafter “Isono”, in view of Azuma (WO/2017/057686 published April 6, 2017, herein referred as U.S. PGPub. No. 20180174606), hereinafter “Azuma”:
--Claims 1, 8, 23, 24, 25: Isono teaches a method of manufacturing a glass disk for magnetic media by forming a glass disk by press molding, then refining the glass disk by double-side grinding and double-side polishing ([0122, 0128]) to produce a final glass disk having a diameter of 20-200 mm ([0083]), a thickness 0.2- 1.1 mm ([0084]), and a chamfering angle of 40-50 degrees ([0120]). Isono is silent about a thickness removed during the grinding and polishing. Azuma, also directed to a method of manufacturing a glass disk for magnetic media by forming a glass disk by press molding ([0089, 0092]), teaches refining the glass disk by double-side grinding and double-side polishing ([0111-0113]). In an embodiment, Azuma teaches that the chamfering width is 0.15 mm ([0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to chamfering both the upper and the lower edges of the outer circumferential end portion of the glass disk so that a chamfering width is 0.15 mm, as taught by Azuma, in the invention of Isono because Isono teaches chamfering the outer edge of the glass disk, but is silent about chamfering both the top main face and the bottom main face of the glass disk and the chamfering dimensions, and Azuma teaches that such chamfering would be effective. Azuma further teaches that the grinding and the polishing reduce the glass disk from 0.7 mm to about 0.635 mm ([0123, 0130]). For a better understanding, Fig. 2 of Azuma for the case of 45 degrees chamfering angle and 0.15 mm chamfering width is shown and illustrated below. It is noted that for the chamfering angle 40 degrees, the thickness that is removed in the vertical direction at the edge would be 0.125 mm (i.e. 0.15 mm x tangent(40 degree)).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since Isono discloses that the final thickness of the glass disk is 0.2- 1.1 mm and Azuma discloses that the grinding and polishing removes about 0.065 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in routine experimentations, to obtain a glass disk having a thickness range t1 = 0.265 to 1.165 mm prior to the grinding and polishing in the invention of Isono because Isono is silent about a thickness removed during the grinding and polishing and Azuma teaches that removing such thickness would be effective. It is noted that for the glass disk shown in Fig. 2 to satisfy the claimed feature t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4, for a chamfering angle of 45 degrees, the inequality becomes 0.15 t1 < (t1- (0.15 x 2)) < 0.4 t1, resulting in 0.35 mm < t1 <0.50 mm. For a chamfering angle of 40 degrees, the inequality becomes 0.15 t1 < (t1-(0.125 x 2)) < 0.4 t1, resulting in 0.27 mm < t1 <0.42 mm. For a chamfering angle of 50 degrees, the inequality becomes 0.15 t1 < (t1-(0.179 x 2)) < 0.4 t1, resulting in 0.42 mm < t1 <0.6 mm, which overlaps the claimed thickness range t1 = 0.5 to 1.0 mm Alternately, when the glass disk is thin, e.g. less than about 0.3 mm, the chamfering faces of the two sides of the substrate would meet at the middle of the substrate, i.e. would produce an edge having a triangular cross section, so that there would be no definite thickness at the edge. In this case, the thickness t2 at the edge may be taken as any thickness from 0 to t3, and would satisfy the inequality t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4 and t3x0.5<t2 recited in claims 1, 11 and 14 . Alternately, in another embodiment Azuma teaches that the chamfering may be performed by helical grinding technique ([0083-0085], Fig. 7 and 11) to produce an edge that has a curved cross section (Fig. 6, [0082]). For a better understanding, Fig. 6 of Azuma is copied and illustrated below. A hypothetical edge profile, as a red dotted line, which may occur when the substrate is thin so that the chamfering width exceeds the substrate’s thickness, is added as shown. Therefore, since Isono teaches that the final glass disk may have a thickness 0.2- 1.1 mm and the chamfering angle may be 40-50 degrees, and Azuma teaches that chamfering width is 0.15 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, that the chamfering would produce a circular edge cross section, of which there would be no definite thickness at the edge, and the thickness t2 at the edge may be taken as any thickness from 0 to t3, and would satisfy the inequality t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4 and t3x0.5<t2 recited in claims 1, 11 and 14 .
PNG
media_image2.png
670
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
--Claim 2: Isono further teaches that the final glass disk may have a thickness 0.2-1.1 mm ([0084]). It is noted that this is equivalent to 200-1100 µm. Since Isono teaches that the first polishing has machining allowance of about several um to about 50 μm, the glass disk may have a thickness of about 250-1150 µm after the grinding and before the first polishing. It is noted this overlaps the thickness range recited in claim 2. --Claims 3, 20, 21: Isono further teaches that the glass disk may have a diameter of 20- 200 mm ([0083]). In an embodiment, Isono discloses a glass disk having a diameter of 75 mm ([0150]). --Claims 5, 6, 9: Although Isono is silent about a parallelism between the two main surface of the disk, since Isono describes a flat disk that has a uniform thickness (Fig. 1, [0031]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the optimal parallelism between the two main surface of the disk, such as less than 1.0 µm or 0.05-0.95 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. --Claim 10: Isono further teaches that the second polishing uses the same apparatus as the first polishing but with different slurry ([0136]). --Claim 22: Isono further teaches that the first polishing produces a glass disk having surface roughness Ra on less than 0.5 nm and a microwaviness Rq of less than 0.5 nm ([0129-0130]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum root mean square roughness Rq, such as 0.4 nm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ozeki et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20160357294), hereinafter “Ozeki”, in view of Miyagoe et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170282500), hereinafter “Miyagoe”, Nordin et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20100007444), hereinafter “Nordin”, Bankaitis (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170008793), hereinafter “Bankaitis”, and Huang. --Claims 1, 2, 3 , 10: Ozeki teaches a method for manufacturing a glass substrate for a light-guided plate ([0313]), comprisingi) preparing a blank glass substrate ([0203, 0208, 0210], Fig. 8 and 9);ii) first polishing the surface of the glass substrate with a rotational grind stone ([0218]); theniii) second polishing the surface of the glass substrate using a rotational sander tool and a slurry ([0231, 0220-0221, 0231]), wherein the rotational sander tool moves forward and backward on the glass disk ([0222]), wherein the polishing is performed by using a double face polisher ([0250]), wherein the surface roughness Rq after the polishing may be 0.3 nm ([0310]); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the double face polisher to perform both the first polishing and the second polishing to save equipment cost and simplify manufacturing processes. Ozeki fails to teach chamfering the blank glass substrate. Miyagoe ([0065-0066]) and Bankaitis ([0005]) teaches that such substrate should be chamfered to prevent chipping at the edge. Bankaitis further teaches that polishing the edge during traditional chamfering is labor intensive and may cause surface damage ([0006-0007]). Instead, Bankaitis teaches that a chamfered glass substrate may be advantageously produced by using a laser to cut a substrate having a rough chamfered edge directly from a glass panel ([0069-0072]), then performing a quick chamfered polishing ([0029]), rather than a long polishing as in a conventional method ([0199, 0205]), Claim 1), to produce the final substrate that is chamfered in both the top and bottom surface (Fig. 7B), wherein the chamfering may form a round edge profile (Fig. 20A, B; [0151]). Thus, one of skill in the art would be motivated to form a rough chamfered edge directly from a glass panel then performing a quick chamfered polishing, as taught by Bankaitis, to prevent chipping at the edge and saving time and labor while doing so. Since Bankaitis teaches that the chamfer polishing is performed immediately after the glass substrate is cut and separated from the glass panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the chamfer polishing immediately after the laser cutting/separation step. It is noted that Fig. 7B includes a photograph of the cross section of the glass substrate that shows the edge thickness t2 approximately 1/3 the thickness t1 of the glass substrate. This satisfies the claimed equation t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4. Alternately, Ozeki further teaches that the final glass disk may have a thickness 0.1-0.8 mm or less ([0194]). It is noted that this is equivalent to 100-800 µm. Bankaitis teaches that the chamfering may have an angle of 45 degrees, and a width 100 µm (Fig. 12C). It is noted that the overlaps the ranges t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4 and t3x0.5<t2 recited in claims 1, 11 and 14. Alternately, when the glass disk is thin, e.g. less than about 0.3 mm, the chamfering faces of the two sides of the substrate would meet at the middle of the substrate, i.e. would produce an edge having a triangular cross section, so that there would be no definite thickness at the edge. In this case, the thickness t2 at the edge may be taken as any thickness from 0 to t3, and would satisfy the inequality t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4 and t3x0.5<t2 recited in claims 1, 11 and 14 Alternately, in the embodiment that the edge of the disk has a circular cross section at the edge as shown in Fig. 6, and as explained in Section 3(a) above, the thickness t2 at the edge may be taken as any thickness from 0 to t3, and would satisfy the inequality t1x0.15<t2<t1x0.4 and t3x0.5<t2 recited in claims 1, 11 and 14.
--Claim 8: Bankaitis discloses that a portion of the chamfering surface remains after the grinding and the polishing (Fig. 20A, B; [0151]). --Claims 11, 12, 14: Ozeki further teaches cutting the glass substrate into a plurality of rectangular pieces after the polishing ([0210, 0224-0228]), then chamfering the outer edge of the plurality of rectangular pieces ([0277]). Ozeki further teaches to form a mask on the glass substrate and etching through the mask to form a plurality of concave portions prior to the polishing ([0210-0216]). Ozeki is silent about a shape of the substrate and but fails to teach chamfering the blank glass substrate prior to the polishing. --Claims 5, 6, 9,13: Although Ozeki is silent about a parallelism between the two main surface of each glass substrate, since Ozeki describes a glass substrate that has a uniform thickness (Fig. 1, 3-7,18-19; [0220]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the optimal parallelism between the two main surface of the disk, such as less than 1.0 µm or 0.05-0.95 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 15, none of the cited prior arts teaches the feature “stacking the cutout glass substrate on each other” in the context of claim 15;
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 24 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended features, this arguments is not persuasive, as explained above.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that it would be unnatural to use a chamfer width taught by Azuma in the invention of Isono, it is noted that the substrate is thinner in Azuma than in Isono, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, in routine experimentations, to use such chamfer width in the invention of Isono.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713