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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the Pre-Appeal Conference request filed September 8, 2025. Examiner regrets the untimely reopening of the case and withdraws the previous rejections to further prosecute the claimed invention. Claims 1-7 are pending in this case.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enicks et al (KR 20160002911).
Enicks discloses glass substrates having a thickness of less than about 100 microns (paragraph 35) where a brush may be used to scrub the surface of the glass substrate (paragraph 39) where Table 1 of the instant specification discloses using brush cleaning. Because Enicks discloses a glass substrate with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the glass of Enicks will inherently possess the number of deposited contaminants, as in claims 1-4 and 6.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4130514 (JP ‘514).
JP ‘514 discloses a cleaned glass substrate, such as Corning 7059 (paragraph 36) where the instant specification discloses using commercially available thin glass including “7059” manufacturing by Corning in paragraph 20 of the published specification. JP ‘514 includes brush scrub cleaning (paragraph 40) where Table 1 of the instant specification discloses using brush cleaning. Although JP ‘514 does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the glass film, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
JP ‘514 does not appear to explicitly teach the number of deposited contaminants on a surface of the glass or flexibility, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the glass layer No. 7059 manufactured by Corning is carried out using material (glass) and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the glass discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed number of deposited contaminants on a surface of the glass and flexibility, as in claims 1-4.
Concerning claim 5, JP ‘514 discloses a cleaned glass substrate, such as Corning 7059 (paragraph 36) where the instant specification discloses using commercially available thin glass including “7059” manufacturing by Corning in paragraph 20 of the published specification. JP ‘514 includes brush scrub cleaning (paragraph 40) where Table 1 of the instant specification discloses using brush cleaning. Although JP ‘514 does not explicitly disclose the length of the glass sheet, length modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 6, JP ‘514 discloses a cleaned glass substrate, such as Corning 7059 (paragraph 36) where the instant specification discloses using commercially available thin glass including “7059” manufacturing by Corning in paragraph 20 of the published specification. JP ‘514 includes brush scrub cleaning (paragraph 40) where Table 1 of the instant specification discloses using brush cleaning. Although JP ‘514 does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the glass film, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
JP ‘514 does not appear to explicitly teach the number of deposited contaminants on a surface of the glass or flexibility, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the glass layer No. 7059 manufactured by Corning is carried out using material (glass) and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the glass discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed number of deposited contaminants on a surface of the glass and flexibility.
Concerning claim 7, JP ‘514 discloses a cleaned glass substrate, such as Corning 7059 (paragraph 36) where the instant specification discloses using commercially available thin glass including “7059” manufacturing by Corning in paragraph 20 of the published specification. JP ‘514 includes brush scrub cleaning (paragraph 40) where Table 1 of the instant specification discloses using brush cleaning. Although JP ‘514 does not explicitly disclose the length of the glass sheet, length modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enicks et al (KR 20160002911).
Enicks is taken as above. Enicks discloses glass substrates having a thickness of less than about 100 microns (paragraph 35) where a brush may be used to scrub the surface of the glass substrate (paragraph 39). Although Enicks does not explicitly disclose the length of the glass sheet, length modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claims 5 and 7.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments of the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsukane et al. (U.S. 4,831,608) are moot based on grounds of new rejection.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights