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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (9,932,259), hereinafter Hasegawa, in view of Boeker et al. (2018/0186678), hereinafter Boeker.
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches a method for separating glass sheets substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
providing a glass sheet with a thickness of at most 300 μm;
irradiating the glass sheet is irradiated with a laser beam (5a) of an ultra-short pulse laser, the laser beam having a wavelength for which glass of the glass sheet is transparent and an intensity inside the glass sheet that leaves a filamentary damage along a laser path through the glass sheet;
moving, during the irradiating step, the laser beam and the glass sheet relative to one another in a separation path so that, due to pulses of the laser beam, the filamentary damage comprises a plurality of damages next to one another along the separation path; and
applying, during the irradiating and moving steps, a tensile stress 20 on a least one surface of the glass sheet at the plurality of damages in a direction transverse to the separation path so that the glass sheet separates along the separation path.
See Figs. 11-12.
Hasegawa does not teach what type of laser is used for cutting the glass sheets.
Boeker teaches using an ultra-short pulse laser for cutting thin transparent glass sheets. See para. [0005].
Hasegawa cuts thin glass sheets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an ultra-short pulse laser as taught by Boeker for cutting the thin glass sheets in Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 2, Boeker teaches filament damage caused by the ultra-short pulse laser.
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa teaches applying a tensile stress by a body 20 transverse the separation path. See Figs. 11-12.
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa teaches placing the glass sheet on a rod 20. See Fig. 12.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hasegawa teaches hot forming a continuous glass ribbon (G) and separating the glass sheet from the ribbon. See Figs. 1, 11, and 12.
Regarding claims 8-10, Hasegawa teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tensile stress in the range of 75-750 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the tensile stress in Hasegawa in the range of 75-750 MPa 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.
Regarding claims 11-12, Hasegawa teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tensile stress at least 75 MPa and1/2-2/3 of the mean breaking stress.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the tensile stress in Hasegawa in at least 75 MPa and1/2-2/3 of the mean breaking stress 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.
Regarding claim 13, two opposite edges (at line 5x) of the glass sheet are best seen in Fig. 11 in Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 14, since the laser device is an ultra-short pulse laser which generate a laser beam during a time interval, a start point is spaced from all edges of the glass sheet.
Regarding claim 15, Hasegawa teaches a beam profile 5x in Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 16, the glass sheet is separated from a thickened portion (Gx) is best seen in Fig. 12 in Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 18. Hasegawa teaches an apparatus for separating a glass sheet substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
an ultrashort pulse laser (5a) configured to irradiate the glass sheet with a pulsed laser beam, wherein the ultrashort pulse laser generates the pulsed laser beam with a wavelength for which glass of the glass sheet is transparent so that the laser beam traverses the glass sheet;
a focusing optics (inherent in a laser device) configured to focus the laser beam so that a light intensity of the laser beam inside the glass sheet is sufficient to leave filamentary damages along a laser path through the glass sheet;
a moving device 4 configured to generate relative movement between the laser beam and the glass sheet such that the pulses of the laser beam insert the filamentary damages next to one another along a separation path on the glass sheet;
a tensile stress 20 inducing device configured to exerting a tensile stress on the glass sheet during the insertion of the filamentary damages and in a direction transverse to the separation path so as to separate the glass sheet along the separation path.
See Figs. 1, 11, and 12.
Hasegawa does not teach what type of laser is used for cutting the glass sheets.
Boeker teaches using an ultra-short pulse laser for cutting thin glass sheets. See para. [0005].
Hasegawa cuts thin glass sheets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an ultra-short pulse laser as taught by Boeker for cutting the thin glass sheets in Hasegawa.
It is noted that a laser device inherently has a focusing optics for concentrating the laser beam.
Regarding claim 19, Hasegawa teaches a tensile stress 20 in Fig. 12.
Regarding claim 20, a laser beam profile (5x) is best seen in Fig. 11 in Hasegawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/08/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Boeker is not suitable for use with Hasegawa since Hasegawa teaches the laser device being used with a cooling device and the laser device in Boeker does not require a cooling device. This argument is not persuasive.
Hasegawa sets forth a method of cutting glass sheets having a thickness of less than 300 μm. Boeker teaches ultra short pulse laser being a better use for cutting glass sheets having a thickness of less than 0.1mm (100 μm) which is within the claimed range in Hasegawa and the ultra short pulse laser does not require a cooling device. When one cuts glass sheets having a thickness of less than 100 μm, it would be obvious for him/her to apply the laser device of Boeker for better cutting the glass sheet. When the laser device of Boeker is used in the system of Hasegawa, the cooling device for use with the laser device in Hasegawa is not needed. Therefore, the laser device of Boeker will replace the pair of the laser device and the cooling device of Hasegawa instead of using with the cooling device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ultra short pulsed laser devices of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571)270-3818. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724