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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 12 have been amended. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 9, 10, and 12 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement of 10/03/2023. Claims 1-8, and 13-15 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP 2007136632 A) and MIZUNO (JP H10225853 A).
Referring to Claim 1: Miyamoto teaches a method for machining a glass pane, comprising: machining an edge of the glass pane is machined using at least one grinding tool (Paragraph 0012), which is set in rotation by means of a motor, wherein the glass pane and the at least one grinding tool are moved relative to one another (“a glass plate that is transported
and moved with a polishing wheel.” Paragraph 0013), detecting a variable that is a function of a power consumption of the motor used to drive the grinding tool along at least a section of the edge being machined, and
evaluating the variable to determine an offset of the glass pane with respect to a target position (Paragraphs 0012 and 0013) by calculations performed by a controller (controller which utilizes a display device [0014]), wherein the offset of the glass pane is defined by one or more parameters (offset which is determined via waveforms and time ranges [“when the difference between the trend waveforms of the superimposed current values exceeds a preset value over a predetermined time or more, it is determined that there is an unpolished defect.” 0015]) selected from the group of: a shift along a first linear axis (shift along a linear axis of side edge “detection of unpolished defects at the side edge portions” [0014]; time difference of offset “from the time when the tip position of the glass plate 4 comes to the polishing wheel” [0022]; [0024]); a shift along a second linear axis or a rotation around a rotation axis.
But is silent on an amount of deviation between an actual position of the glass pane and the target position determined by the controller.
MIZUNO in an analogous method teaches an amount of deviation (“the deviation between the two points and the edge position planned after finishing is sufficiently small with respect to the rear curve of the lens.” [0053]) between an actual position of the glass pane and the target position determined by the similar configuration controller (“The controller 600 performs a bevel calculation for obtaining a bevel processing data to be applied to the lens according to a predetermined program based on the edge position information.” [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miyamoto with MIZUNO’s deviation calculation controller for the purpose of having automated process for consistent and accurate results.
Referring to Claim 2: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the edge is machined in two runs, wherein at least one value of the variable detected in the second run are used to calibrate the offset determined in the first run (“the side edge surface of the glass plate is polished while detecting the presence or absence of the glass plate from the front end to the rear end of the glass plate by the sensor”; “If the result is fed back, it is possible to discover factors causing abnormalities such as meandering at an early stage and implement early countermeasures” Paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0015, 0016, and 0019).
Referring to Claim 3: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein evaluating includes performing at least one of the following evaluation steps:
- at least one value of the variable is determined for a state in which the rotating grinding tool is not in contact with the edge (Paragraph 0012);
- values of the variable that result from changes to a direction of the edge of a section of the glass pane by more than a predefined angular value, viewed from a top view of the glass pane, are omitted for the evaluation or are adjusted;
- based on a predefined glass pane shape, at least one weighting function is defined which is applied to the at least one detected value of the variable to obtain the offset in at least one direction.
Referring to Claim 4: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a correction is determined which adjusts an actual position of the glass pane to the target position and which is taken into account during machining of a further glass pane (Paragraph 0017), wherein this procedure is carried out until at least one detected value of the variable is within a predefined tolerance range (Paragraph 0019).
Referring to Claim 5: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the glass pane or another glass pane is subsequently machined, and in each case a check is made as to whether at least one detected value of the variable is within a predefined tolerance range (Paragraph 0017).
Referring to Claim 6: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the glass pane and the at least one grinding tool are moved relative to one another (“a glass plate that is transported and moved with a polishing wheel.” Paragraph 0013) by moving either or both of glass pane and the grinding tool.
Referring to Claim 7: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a check is made as to whether the glass pane is free of locations that are unmachined (Paragraph 0015) and/or only partially machined, by determining whether at least one detected value of the variable is below a predefined threshold value, and if this is not the case, information that the glass pane is not completely ground is associated with the glass pane.
Referring to Claim 8: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the detected variable is an electrical variable (Paragraph 0013).
Referring to Claim 13: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the detected variable corresponds to a current consumed by the motor while driving the grinding tool (Paragraphs 0013, 0016, and 0017).
Referring to Claim 14: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the glass pane (4 Fig. 3) is rotated and/or moved along a linear axis (linear axis of 4 shown in Fig. 3) while the grinding tool (5 Fig. 4) is moved along a linear axis (linear axis of 5 shown in Fig. 4).
Referring to Claim 15: Miyamoto as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determined offset is taken into account in a subsequent cycle of machining. (“detects a polishing abnormality by comparing a current value flowing through a polishing motor with a reference value when polishing a peripheral edge of a glass plate with a polishing wheel.”; “the average current value for polishing one piece of glass… is replaced with a new reference value, and a new reference value + α (where α is a new reference value of 3 to 5) %) Is set as an upper limit set value”) [0006].
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723