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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/27/2026 in which claims 1-4, 15-30 are pending, claims 1 and 20 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites, “The method of claim 20claims 20” and should be -- The method of claim 20--
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 1-3, 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 and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486).
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 between 0.8mm to 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 between 0.8mm to 1 mm. Rather Abramov discloses employing a CO2 laser beam having with a beam diameter of about 1mm to about 4mm. Abramov further teaches that other laser systems may be employed and that smaller beam diameters minimize edge imperfections associated with crack initiation and permit propagation of the crack closer to the edge of the glass sheet.
Kuwabara teaches that a CO laser having a wavelength of about 5 um is a known alternative to a CO2 laser and that using the CO laser achieves a smaller achievable light collecting diameter (Kuwabara col. 6, lines 24-34). Kuwabara separately identifies the laser oscillator and the light collecting lens, thereby indicating that the light collecting point diameter is produced by the particular focusing arrangement rather than being an inherent beam diameter of the CO laser.
Eerkens further teaches that the approximately 5 um designation refers to the operating wavelength of the CO laser and separately teaches that such a CO laser typically operates with beam diameter between 1mm and 15 mm (col. 18, lines 6-20).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a CO laser, as taught by Kuwabara and Eerkens, for the CO2 laser of Abramov as a predictable substitution of one known laser source for another, while retaining the beam configuration and approximately 1 mm diameter taught by Abramov for its glass cutting operation. Eerkens confirms that CO lasers were known to operate at a beam diameter of 1 mm and therefore provides a reasonable expectation that the substituted CO laser could be configured to provide Abramov’s approximately 1 mm glass cutting diameter. The resulting 1 mm diameter falls within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1mm.
In regards to claim 2, the modified method 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 method of Abramov wherein the laser beam emits light energy at a wavelength of from about 4 to about 6 um (Kuwabara CO2 laser CO laser 5mu; col. 5, lines 46-52; Eerkens 5um (col. 18, lines 6-20). ).
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
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.
Abramov teaches cutting a Corning Eagle XG glass sheet having a thickness of about 0.1mm. As modified by Kuwarbara and Eerkens the glass sheet is irradiated with light energy emitted by a CO laser at a wavelength of about 5um. The transmission percentage through the glass sheet is an inherent optical property resulting from the composition and thickness of the glass sheet and the wavelength of the incident laser light. Because the modified prior art process employs the same material, glass thickness and CO laser wavelength as identified by Applicant as producing a transmission percentage of about 20% or more, the modified process necessarily satisfies at least limitation (ii) of claim 4.
Claims 15-17 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 and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486). Regards claims 15-17, Abramov teaches that the smaller the beam diameter, the smaller the unstable crack propagation zone and the associated imperfections. Abarmov therefore recognizes beam diameter as a results effective variable and provides an express reason to reduce its approximately 1 mm beam diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter from 0.8 mm to 0.9 mm through routine optimization to reduce the unstable crack propagation zone and associated edge imperfections. Applicant has not established that the claimed subrange is critical or produces unexpected results related to Abramov’s approximately 1 mm beam diameter.
Claims 19, 25 and 30 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 and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486) 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.
Claims 20 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 9,000,402), herein referred to as Kuwabara and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486).
In regards to claim 20 and 26, 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).
wherein a diameter of the laser beam is from 0.8 mm to 1mm (claim 20) or less than 1mm (claim 26).
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, not that the diameter is from 0.8 mm to 1mm. Rather Abramov discloses employing a CO2 laser beam having with a beam diameter of about 1mm to about 4mm. Abramov further teaches that other laser systems may be employed and that smaller beam diameters minimize edge imperfections associated with crack initiation and permit propagation of the crack closer to the edge of the glass sheet.
Kuwabara teaches that a CO laser having a wavelength of about 5 um is a known alternative to a CO2 laser and that using the CO laser achieves a smaller achievable light collecting diameter (Kuwabara col. 6, lines 24-34). Kuwabara separately identifies the laser oscillator and the light collecting lens, thereby indicating that the light collecting point diameter is produced by the particular focusing arrangement rather than being an inherent beam diameter of the CO laser.
Eerkens further teaches that the approximately 5 um designation refers to the operating wavelength of the CO laser and separately teaches that such a CO laser typically operates with beam diameter between 1mm and 15 mm (col. 18, lines 6-20).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a CO laser, as taught by Kuwabara and Eerkens, for the CO2 laser of Abramov as a predictable substitution of one known laser source for another, while retaining the beam configuration and approximately 1 mm diameter taught by Abramov for its glass cutting operation. Eerkens confirms that CO lasers were known to operate at a beam diameter of 1 mm and therefore provides a reasonable expectation that the substituted CO laser could be configured to provide Abramov’s approximately 1 mm glass cutting diameter. The resulting 1 mm diameter falls within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1mm.
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).
Claims 21-22 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 and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486). Regards claims 21-22, Abramov teaches that the smaller the beam diameter, the smaller the unstable crack propagation zone and the associated imperfections. Abarmov therefore recognizes beam diameter as a results effective variable and provides an express reason to reduce its approximately 1 mm beam diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter from 0.8 mm to 0.9 mm through routine optimization to reduce the unstable crack propagation zone and associated edge imperfections. Applicant has not established that the claimed subrange is critical or produces unexpected results related to Abramov’s approximately 1 mm beam diameter.
Claims 23, 24 and 27-29 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 and Eerkens (U.S. Patent 10,319,486).
In regards to claim 23, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kuwabara teaches away from the claimed invention because Kuwabara describes focusing a CO laser to light collecting point diameter of approximately 5-10 um. Applicant further argues that incorporating such a diameter into Abramov would provide insufficient thermal energy and thermal gradients to perform Abramov’s glass cutting operation, thereby rendering Abramov unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
These arguments are based on bodily incorporating Kuwabara’s particular light collecting point diameter into Abramov. However, the rejection does not propose replacing Abramov’s glass cutting beam diameter with Kuwabara 5-10 um plasma generating focal point diameter. Rather, Kuwabara is relied upon for teaching that a CO laser having a wavelength of approximate 5 um is a known alternative for a CO2 laser, while Abramov is relied upon for the beam configuration and approximately 1 mm diameter for cutting the glass sheet.
Kuwabara separately identifies the laser oscillator and the light collecting lens thereby indicating that its light collecting point diameter results from the particular focusing arrangement employed for plasma generation and is not an inherent beam diameter of a CO laser. Eerkens further confirms this distinction by teaching that the approximately 5 um designation refers to the operating wavelength of the CO laser and that such a CO laser typically has a beam diameter between 1 and 15 mm.
Accordingly, the proposed modification substitutes the CO laser source taught by Kuwabara and Eerkens for the CO2 laser source of Abramov while retaining Abramov’s beam configuration and approximately 1 mm glass cutting diameter. Kuwabara’s preference for a small focal point for its plasma generating application does not criticize, discredit or discourage using a CO laser with an approximately 1mm beam diameter in Abramov’s different glass cutting application. Moreover, because the proposed modification retains Abramov’s 1 mm beam diameter it does not require operation at the 5-10 um diameter that Applicant alleges would provide insufficient thermal energy. Applicant’s arguments therefore address a modification not proposed by the Office and does not establish that the actual proposed combination would render Abramov unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Regards Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 15-17, Abramov expressly teaches that decreasing the beam diameter reduces the unstable crack propagation zone and associated edge imperfections. Abramov therefore recognizes beam diameter as a results effective variable and provides reason to reduce its approximately 1mm beam diameter. Selecting a diameter from 0.8 mm to 0.9 mm, including approximate 0.85 mm would have constituted routine optimization of a known parameter to obtain the taught benefit . Applicant has not presented evidence establishing that the claimed subrange is critical or produces unexpected results relative to Abramov’s approximately 1 mm diameter.
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 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
Prosecution Insights