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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 15-27 are pending, claims 15-27 are new and claim 1 is currently amended.
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 1-3, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9,000,402), herein referred to as Kuwabara.
In regards to claim 1, Abramov discloses a method, comprising:
supporting a source glass sheet (glass sheet 20) of 0.3 millimeters (0.1 mm; paragraph [0040) or less in thickness;
scoring the glass sheet at an initiation line using a mechanical scoring device or a laser ablation process (“score wheel” paragraph [0042]);
applying a carbon monoxide (CO) laser beam
(60; “The source of laser power 64 may be implemented using CO2 laser mechanisms, however, other implementations are possible, for example a fiber laser, an Nd:YAG laser, or other laser systems; paragraph [0036] )
to the glass sheet starting at the initiation line and continuously moving the laser beam relative to the glass sheet along a cutting line to elevate a temperature of the glass sheet to provide stress at the cutting line sufficient to cut the glass sheet along the cutting line; and separating waste glass from the glass sheet to obtain a desired shape (see paragraphs [0029 and 0048].
Wherein a diameter of the CO laser beam is less than 1 mm (1-4 mm; paragraph [0035]) wherein the cutting line comprises one or more straight sections and one or more curved sections (“a rectangular shape with three round corners” paragraph [0040]) comprising radii of less than about 10 mm (2 mm radius; paragraph [0040]) and separating waste glass from the glass sheet to obtain a desired shape (e.g. rectangle Fig. 2).
Abramov discloses the claimed invention except for the highlight recitations in which the laser beam is a CO laser with a diameter less than 1 mm, and rather teaches the use of CO2 laser with a beam diameter of 1-4mm. Kuwabara teaches that the diameter of the light collecting point produced by a laser corresponds approximately to the wavelength of the laser beam and explains that a CO laser produces a small diameter than a CO2 laser, and further teaches that it is desirable to use a CO laser rather than a CO2 laser in order to obtain a smaller light collecting diameter and improved energy concentration at the target (Kuwabara col. 6, lines 24-34). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the CO laser of Kuwabara for the CO2 laser of Abramov in order to obtain the known benefits of smaller beam diameter and increased energy density at the interaction point, as expressly suggested by Kuwabara. Abramov already teaches the laser beam diameter as a design parameter of 1-4mm. As Kuwabara teaches that reducing the diameter improves energy concentration, the beam diameter is a results effective variable. It would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the beam diameter, including reducing the bam diameter to less than 1 mm, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the known benefits of increased negeri concentration. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not invention. In re Aller, 220 F 2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Abramov discloses the method of applying a cooling fluid 62) simultaneously with the application of the laser beam, such that the cooling fluid at least reduces the temperature of the glass sheet sufficiently to provide stress that propagates a fracture in the glass sheet along the cutting line (paragraph [0047]).
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Abramov wherein the laser beam emits light energy at a wavelength of from about 4 to about 6 um and rather disclose that the laser beam emits light energy at a wavelength of about (Abramov CO2 laser 10.6um; paragraph [0036] / Kuwabara CO2 laser 10.0 um; paragraph [0036] and a CO laser 5mu; col. 5, lines 46-52).
In regards to claims 15-17, the claims further limit the diameter of the laser beam to 0.85mm. However, since Abramov already teaches a beam diameter parameter of 1-4 mm and Kuwabara teaches that smaller beam diameters are desirable, selecting a value of 0.85mm represents merely a further optimization of a known parameter. The claimed value represents a predictable reduction of the beam diameter in order to improve energy concentration and does not reflect a change in the principle of operation of the device.
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Abramov discloses wherein a speed of the laser beam (around corners) is less than 1 m/sec (“about 0.2-0.4 m/min for corner cuts” Abramov paragraph [0040]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9000402), herein referred to as Kuwabara and in further view of AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Abramov discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that wherein characteristics of the glass sheet and the laser beam are such that at least one of:(i) an absorption percentage of light energy of the laser beam by the glass sheet is about 80% or less, at least for thicknesses of about 0.1 mm or less; (ii) a transmission percentage of light energy of the laser beam through the glass sheet is about 20% or more, at least for thicknesses of about 0.1 mm or less; (iii) an absorption percentage of light energy of the laser beam by the glass sheet is about 90% or less, at least for thicknesses of about 0.2 mm or less; (iv) a transmission percentage of light energy of the laser beam through the glass sheet is about 10% or more, at least for thicknesses of about 0.2 mm or less; (v) an absorption percentage of light energy of the laser beam by the glass sheet is about 95% or less, at least for thicknesses of about 0.3 mm or less; and (vi) a transmission percentage of light energy of the laser beam through the glass sheet is about 5% or more, at least for thicknesses of about 0.3 mm or less.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9,000,402), herein referred to as Kuwabara.
In regards to claim 20, Abramov discloses scoring the glass sheet at an initiation line using a mechanical scoring device or a laser ablation process (“score wheel” paragraph [0042]); wherein the glass sheet has thickness of 0.3mm or less (Corning.RTM. Eagle XG.RTM. glass (of 0.1 mm thickness) paragraph [0040]);
continuously moving a laser beam relative to the glass sheet along a cutting line to elevate a temperature of the glass sheet to provide stress at the cutting line sufficient to cut the glass sheet along the cutting line, wherein, while the laser beam (CO2 laser 60) is applied to the glass sheet, at least one of: (a) a substantially constant speed of movement of the laser beam relative to the glass sheet is maintained over an entirety of the cutting line; or (b) a substantially constant power level of the laser beam during the movement of the laser beam relative to the glass sheet is maintained over an entirety of the cutting line,
wherein the laser beam is from a carbon monoxide laser (Co2 laser) and the cutting line comprises a straight section and a curved section (rectangle; Fig. 2) comprising a radius of less than about 10 mm (corners 2mm; paragraph [0040]; and separating waste glass from the glass sheet along the cutting line to obtain a desired shape (cutting out the finished rectangular substrate 10; fig. 2).
Abramov does not disclose the highlighted recitations in which the laser beam is a CO laser that is either moved at a constant speed or a constant power level during the entirety of the cut. Kuwabara teaches that the diameter of the light collecting point produced by a laser corresponds approximately to the wavelength of the laser beam and explains that a CO laser produces a small diameter than a CO2 laser, and further teaches that it is desirable to use a CO laser rather than a CO2 laser in order to obtain a smaller light collecting diameter and improved energy concentration at the target (Kuwabara col. 6, lines 24-34). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the CO laser of Kuwabara for the CO2 laser of Abramov in order to obtain the known benefits of smaller beam diameter and increased energy density at the interaction point, as expressly suggested by Kuwabara. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not invention. In re Aller, 220 F 2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
The modified device of Abramov still does not disclose that the cut is made with a CO laser that is either moved at a constant speed or a constant power level during the entirety of the cut and rather discloses that the cutting speed is reduced when negotiating corners, and further teaches that the laser power is reduced when the cutting speed is reduced in order to maintain cutting quality (see paragraph [0040]). Thus, Abramov discloses controlling both cutting speed and laser power during cutting operations. Abramov further teaches reducing the laser speed to 0.2-.04 m/s when negotiating the curved cuts, thereby establishing the cutting speeds within the claimed range were known to be suitable for the cutting process. The difference between Abramov and the claimed invention therefore amounts to maintaining the lower known speed during the straight portions of the cut rather than increasing the speed, which represents merely selecting and maintaining a known workable operating speed.
In view of Abramov’s teaching that cutting speed and power are parameters used to control the cutting process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain either the cutting speed constant or the laser power constant over the cutting line while adjusting other parameters as needed, as a matter of routine optimization, since such approaches represent alternative and predictable methods for controlling energy delivery during a laser cutting operation. See In re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9000402), herein referred to as Kuwabara.
In regards to claim 21, Abramov discloses scoring the glass sheet at an initiation line using a mechanical scoring device or a laser ablation process (“score wheel” paragraph [0042]); wherein the glass sheet has thickness of 0.3mm or less (Corning.RTM. Eagle XG.RTM. glass (of 0.1 mm thickness) paragraph [0040]);
continuously moving a laser beam relative to the glass sheet along a cutting line to elevate a temperature of the glass sheet to provide stress at the cutting line sufficient to cut the glass sheet along the cutting line, wherein, while the laser beam (CO2 laser 60) is applied to the glass sheet, at least one of: (a) a substantially constant speed of movement of the laser beam relative to the glass sheet is maintained over an entirety of the cutting line; or (b) a substantially constant power level of the laser beam during the movement of the laser beam relative to the glass sheet is maintained over an entirety of the cutting line,
wherein the diameter of the laser beam is less than 1mm (1-4 mm; paragraph [0040]), the laser beam is from a carbon monoxide laser (Co2 laser) and the cutting line comprises a straight section and a curved section (rectangle; Fig. 2) comprising a radius of less than about 10 mm (corners 2mm; paragraph [0040]; and separating waste glass from the glass sheet along the cutting line to obtain a desired shape (cutting out the finished rectangular substrate 10; fig. 2).
Abramov does not disclose the highlighted recitations in which the laser beam is a CO laser with a diameter that is either moved at a constant speed or a constant power level during the entirety of the cut. Kuwabara teaches that the diameter of the light collecting point produced by a laser corresponds approximately to the wavelength of the laser beam and explains that a CO laser produces a small diameter than a CO2 laser, and further teaches that it is desirable to use a CO laser rather than a CO2 laser in order to obtain a smaller light collecting diameter and improved energy concentration at the target (Kuwabara col. 6, lines 24-34). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the CO laser of Kuwabara for the CO2 laser of Abramov in order to obtain the known benefits of smaller beam diameter and increased energy density at the interaction point, as expressly suggested by Kuwabara. Abramov already teaches the laser beam diameter as a design parameter of 1-4mm. As Kuwabara teaches that reducing the diameter improves energy concentration, the beam diameter is a results effective variable. It would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the beam diameter, including reducing the bam diameter to less than 1 mm, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the known benefits of increased negeri concentration. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation is not invention. In re Aller, 220 F 2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
The modified device of Abramov still does not disclose that the cut is made with a CO laser that is either moved at a constant speed or a constant power level during the entirety of the cut and rather discloses that the cutting speed is reduced when negotiating corners, and further teaches that the laser power is reduced when the cutting speed is reduced in order to maintain cutting quality (see paragraph [0040]). Thus, Abramov discloses controlling both cutting speed and laser power during cutting operations. Abramov further teaches reducing the laser speed to 0.2-.04 m/s when negotiating the curved cuts, thereby establishing the cutting speeds within the claimed range were known to be suitable for the cutting process. The difference between Abramov and the claimed invention therefore amounts to maintaining the lower known speed during the straight portions of the cut rather than increasing the speed, which represents merely selecting and maintaining a known workable operating speed.
In view of Abramov’s teaching that cutting speed and power are parameters used to control the cutting process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain either the cutting speed constant or the laser power constant over the cutting line while adjusting other parameters as needed, as a matter of routine optimization, since such approaches represent alternative and predictable methods for controlling energy delivery during a laser cutting operation. See In re Aller 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 21-23, the claims further limit the diameter of the laser beam of 0.8-.09, 0.9 or 0.85mm. However, since Abramov already teaches a beam diameter parameter of 1-4 mm and Kuwabara teaches that smaller beam diameters are desirable, selecting a value of 0.8-.09, 0.9 or 0.85 mm represents merely a further optimization of a known parameter. The claimed value represents a predictable reduction of the beam diameter in order to improve energy concentration and does not reflect a change in the principle of operation of the device.
Claim 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9,000,402), herein referred to as Kuwabara.
In regards to claim 24 and 27, the claims further limit that the laser beam is 0.85 or 0.9 mm and the speed of movement of the laser beam is less than 1 or 0.2 m/s. However, since Abramov already teaches a beam diameter parameter of 1-4 mm and Kuwabara teaches that smaller beam diameters are desirable, selecting a value of 0.8-.09, 0.9 or 0.85 mm represents merely a further optimization of a known parameter. The claimed value represents a predictable reduction of the beam diameter in order to improve energy concentration and does not reflect a change in the principle of operation of the device.
The Applicant’s own specification further indicates that the claimed speed is not critical. Paragraph [0062] discloses numerous alternative speed thresholds including less than 1.0m/s, 0.9m/s, 0.8m/s, 0.7m/s….to 0.2m/s and less than 0.2 m/s, indicating that a wide range of cutting speeds are suitable for the process. This disclosure demonstrates that the claimed value does not represent a critical threshold but merely one of many workable operating speeds, further supporting that selecting a cutting speed less the 0.2 m/s represents a predictable optimization of known operating parameters.
Further, Abramov teaches reducing the cutting speed to 0.2-0.4m/s when negotiating corners, thereby establishing that cutting speeds within this range are known workable operating speeds for the cutting process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the cutting process at the constant lower speed within this known range, including a speed less than 0.2 m/s, since this merely represents selecting and maintaining a known operating point already taught by Abramov.
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0191388), herein referred to as Abramov in view of Kuwabara et al (U.S. Patent 9000402), herein referred to as Kuwabara and in further view of Schillinger et al. (U.S. Patent 10,421,683), herein referred to as Schillinger.
The modified device of Abramov does not disclose wherein moving the laser comprises using a duo-axis optical scanner comprising rotating optical mirrors. Schillinger teaches moving the focal length using a galvoscanner such that the focal line is move in the x and y coordinates and tilted by angles theta and phi (see col. 7, lines 40-53). A galvoscanner is a known optical scanning device that rotates about orthogonal axes to steer the laser beam across a work surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the galvoscanner of Schillinger into the laser cutting system of Abramov in order to move the laser beam across the workpiece using optical scanning rather than mechanical translation, thereby providing rapid and previse positioning of the beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724