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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 12-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 08/19/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka et al., JP2007284270 A (hereafter Yutaka), and further in view of Cormont et al., US 9138859 (hereafter Cormont).
Regarding claim 1,
“A window defect removal method, the method comprising:” (Abstract teaches “a new method for flattening a surface flaw part of a glass substrate to be used for a flat panel display”. Here glass substrate corresponds to window.)
…“providing a laser beam generator on the defective window;” (Abstract teaches “This method for flattening the surface flaw part of the glass plate comprises melting and flattening the surface by irradiating carbon dioxide gas laser to the surface flaw part of the glass plate”)
“irradiating a scratch of the defective window with a laser beam to remove the scratch; and” (Page 3, paragraph 8 teaches “The present invention is a method for melting and smoothing a surface by irradiating a surface scratch portion of a glass plate with a pulsed laser beam by a carbon dioxide laser”)
“inspecting to determine whether or not the scratch irradiated with the laser beam to be removed is visible on a location to which the laser beam is radiated,” (Page 7, paragraph 2 teaches “The glass surface after irradiation was observed with an optical microscope (magnification 100 times), and the smoothing effect was examined.”)
“ wherein no polishing is performed on the defective window after the irradiating and prior to the inspecting,” (Paragraph [63] of the original disclosure describes “In comparison with a conventional processing method in which a polishing agent and a polishing brush are used to polish the window WIN, embodiments of the invention may reduce not only damage to the window WIN but also time spent to process the window WIN.” Based on this the claim is interpreted as the defective window is treated by laser beam only.
Page 7, paragraph 2 teaches “The glass surface was irradiated with a carbon dioxide laser under the conditions shown in Table 1. The glass surface after irradiation was observed with an optical microscope (magnification 100 times), and the smoothing effect was examined.” Page 7, paragraph 2 further teaches “when the conditions of the present invention were used, scratches were smoothed only at the laser irradiated portion and disappeared “ Thus, it is understood that scratch on glass is treated by laser beam only in Yutaka.)
“wherein the laser beam generator generates the laser beam in a wavelength range from about 780 nm to about 100,000 nm.” ( Page 4, paragraph 8 teaches a wavelength of 10.6 micron. The claimed range of about 780 nm to about 100,000 nm overlaps the range 10.6 micron disclosed in Yutaka. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Yutaka is silent about “inspecting a plurality of windows to select a defective window among the windows by allowing an optical tool to capture images of the windows;”, “and whether or not the scratch is visible is determined by a naked eye,”.
Cormont teaches “inspecting a plurality of windows to select a defective window among the windows;”. (Cormont teaches an inspection step 30’ in Figure 3. Column 7, lines 5-10 teaches “The finality of the inspection step 30' is to determine the position and the size (length and width) of the surface defects 120 on the smoothed optical surface.” It is implied that the inspection is done on plurality of windows during manufacturing.)
allowing an optical tool to capture images of the windows;” (Cormont teaches in column 6, line 65- column 7, line 2 “The inspection step 30' may be a step of visual inspection, or a step of automatic inspection, for example an optical inspection by means of a camera or a microscope and a suitable lighting.” It is understood that a camera would capture images.)
..and whether or not the scratch is visible is determined by a naked eye. (Cormont teaches an inspection step 70’ before delivery in Fig. 3.
Column 6, line 65- column 7, line 2 in Cormont teaches “The inspection step 30' may be a step of visual inspection, or a step of automatic inspection, for example an optical inspection by means of a camera or a microscope and a suitable lighting.” It is implied that inspection step 70’ is similar to step 30’ comprising visual inspection or automatic inspection.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of inspecting the glass surfaces for defects as taught in Cormont to the method in Yutaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “eliminate the surface defects of unacceptable size for the final use of the optical component, whatever the shape of this optical surface” as taught in column 1, lines 10-15 in Cormont.
Regarding claim 2,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the inspecting the windows to select the defective window includes selecting a window on which the scratch exits as the defective window.” (Yutaka is silent about this limitation.
Column 6, line 65- column 7, line 8 in Cormont teaches “A step 30' of inspection of the smoothed optical surface is then performed…... The finality of the inspection step 30' is to determine the position and the size (length and width) of the surface defects 120 on the smoothed optical surface.” It is implied that the window with defects is selected as defective window.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of inspecting the glass surfaces to select a defective window as taught in Cormont to the method in Yutaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The more the optical component progresses in the manufacturing, the more severe is the criterion, i.e. the acceptable defects are smaller and smaller. If the input criterion of the step is fulfilled, the component can perform the step and, if not, it must be verified that the component responds to the input criterion of the previous step” as taught in column 5, lines 48-53.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam generator moves from one lateral surface of the scratch toward another lateral surface of the scratch along an extending direction of the scratch such that the laser beam is radiated to an entirety of the scratch.” (Yutaka is silent about this limitation.
Abstract in Cormont teaches “for each surface defect, applying a laser beam to an area encompassing the defect, so as to produce a local remelting of the fusible material, and to form, at the location of the defect, an area of material remelted;”. Cormont further teaches in column 8, lines 25-29 “the local remelting is combined to a spatial sweep of the laser beam over the surface of the optical component along the surface defect to be eliminated.” It is understood that applying the beam to an area encompassing the defect corresponds to the laser beam moving from one lateral surface of the scratch toward another lateral surface of the scratch as in the instant claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to move the laser generator in Yutaka such that the laser beam is radiated on the entirety of scratch as taught in Cormont. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain “an optical component whose optical surface has no unacceptable defects, i.e. an optical component with no defects having transverse dimensions higher than a predetermined criterion, which is function of the intended use of the optical component” as taught in column 6, lines 54-60 in Cormont.)
Regarding claim 4,
“The method of claim 3, wherein the irradiating the scratch of the defective window with the laser beam to remove the scratch includes allowing the laser beam to liquefy the scratch and surroundings thereof and then solidifying the liquefied scratch and the liquefied surroundings thereof.” (Page 5, paragraph 4 in Yutaka teaches “It becomes possible to soften only the vicinity of the surface and immediately cool it. This makes it possible to smooth the scratches on the surface of the glass substrate and at the same time to reduce the residual stress”. It is implied that once laser energy is removed, the defect and surrounding melted area cools down and is solidified.)
Regarding claim 5,
“The method of claim 1, wherein a width of the laser beam is set to be a width of the scratch, the width of the scratch is defined in a direction orthogonal to a traveling direction of the laser beam.” (Yutaka is silent about this limitation.
Abstract in Cormont teaches “for each surface defect, applying a laser beam to an area encompassing the defect, so as to produce a local remelting of the fusible material, and to form, at the location of the defect, an area of material remelted;”. Cormont further teaches in column 8, lines 25-29 “the local remelting is combined to a spatial sweep of the laser beam over the surface of the optical component along the surface defect to be eliminated.” It is implied that applying the beam to an area encompassing the defect corresponds to the width of the beam set to be a width of the scratch in the instant claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the width of the laser beam equal to the width of the scratch as taught in Cormont to the method in Yutaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain “an optical component whose optical surface has no unacceptable defects, i.e. an optical component with no defects having transverse dimensions higher than a predetermined criterion, which is function of the intended use of the optical component” as taught in column 6, lines 54-60 in Cormont.)
Regarding claim 6,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is a spot type laser beam, a surface type laser beam, or a line type laser beam.” (Yutaka is silent about this limitation.
Fig. 4 in Cormont teaches laser beam 230 radiating surface 110. It is implied from Fig. 4 that lens 220 is converging the beam 230 at a spot on the surface 110.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a spot type laser beam as taught in Cormont to the method in Yutaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The more the optical component progresses in the manufacturing, the more severe is the criterion, i.e. the acceptable defects are smaller and smaller” as taught in column 5, lines 48-53 in Cormont.)
PNG
media_image1.png
282
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Cormont
Regarding claim 7,
“The method of claim 1, wherein a radiation time of the laser beam is equal to or less than about 1 minute.” (Paragraph [62] of the original disclosure describes “An irradiation time of the laser beam LB to the scratch SCR may be equal to or less than about 1 minute. The invention, however, is not limited thereto, and the irradiation time of the laser beam LB may be variously changed depending on an area of the scratch SCR that occurs on the window WIN.” Thus, the claimed time of about 1 minute depends on the area of the scratch.
Page 5, paragraph 4 in Yutaka teaches “the pulse width is shortened with sufficient power, that is, the irradiation time is shortened. It becomes possible to soften only the vicinity of the surface and immediately cool it. This makes it possible to smooth the scratches on the surface of the glass substrate and at the same time to reduce the residual stress”. Yutaka teaches the importance of a short irradiation time optimized for defect removal.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05-II teaches "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)”
Even though Yutaka is silent about the radiation time being equal to or less than 1 minute, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the radiation time to a short period as taught in Yutaka for defect removal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “it is necessary to raise the temperature in order to smooth the scratches. However, if the glass is heated excessively more than necessary, the glass is undesirably deformed or undesirably distorted. Therefore, it is necessary to finish heating in a short time, and it is effective to use pulsed laser light. When the laser is irradiated as a pulse for a short time, the temperature rises only on the glass substrate surface during irradiation, and immediately after the irradiation is finished, the temperature decreases. Therefore, although the surface scratches are smoothed, it becomes possible to suppress the deformation of the glass due to unnecessary melting and the generation of stress due to unnecessary heating” as taught in page 4, paragraph 9 in Yutaka.)
Regarding claim 8,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a wavelength of about 10, 600 nm.” (Page 4, paragraph 8 in Yutaka teaches a laser beam with a wavelength of 10.6 micron.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the window includes at least one selected from glass, ceramic and ceramic glass.” (Abstract in Yutaka teaches “a new method for flattening a surface flaw part of a glass substrate to be used for a flat panel display”.)
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka and Cormont as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sbar et al., US 20120302122 (hereafter Sbar).
Regarding claim 12,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the inspecting the windows to select the defective window includes: allowing a controller to select a defective image among the images of the windows.”(Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Sbar teaches in paragraph [61] “the control unit may perform a machine vision process to detect a defect when the defect appears in a displayed image”.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of allowing a controller to select a defective image as taught in Sbar in the automatic inspection step in Cormont. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the control unit may automatically define a path around or at a defect following detection of the defect using a machine vision function, and then display the path on the display screen” as taught in paragraph [66] in Sbar.
Regarding claim 13,
“The method of claim 12, wherein the controller controls a movement of the laser beam generator to provide the laser beam to the defective window corresponding to the defective image, and” (Paragraph [32] in Sbar teaches “The imaging and repair assembly 20 may be operable to acquire images of the EC product to be repaired, and in particular images including a defect in the electrochromic device of the EC product, and to repair the defect, such as by controlling emission and movement of an ablating laser beam along a path in the EC product to remove portions of the electrochromic device at or surrounding the defect.” Here imaging and repair assembly 20 corresponds to the controller.)
“an operation of selecting the defective window and an operation of removing the scratch of the defective window.” (Paragraph [66] in Sbar teaches “the control unit may automatically define a path around or at a defect following detection of the defect using a machine vision function, and then display the path on the display screen.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of controlling laser beam by a controller as taught in Sbar in the method of Yutaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The apparatus may include an imaging and repair assembly having an optical imaging range and a laser repair range. The assembly may include an optical imaging means for acquiring an image and means for moving the optical imaging means to acquire an image from within the optical imaging range, a laser means for emitting a light beam capable of ablating material of an electronic energy control device and a means for moving the light beam within the repair range” as taught in paragraph [10] in Sbar.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/06/2026 with respect to prior art rejection of claim(s) 1-9, 12-13 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include “inspecting a plurality of windows to select a defective window among the windows by allowing an optical tool to capture images of the windows;”, “and whether or not the scratch is visible is determined by a naked eye,”. The applicant argued on pages 8-10 that Cormont does not teach these limitations.
However, Cormont teaches inspection step 30’ before any laser retouching is done in Fig. 3. Cormont teaches in column 6, line 65- column 7, line 2 “The inspection step 30' may be a step of visual inspection, or a step of automatic inspection, for example an optical inspection by means of a camera or a microscope and a suitable lighting.” It is understood that a camera would capture images.
Cormont further teaches additional inspection 70’ before delivery of the manufactured product in Fig. 3. It is implied that inspection step 70’ has similar options as inspection step 30’ taught in column 6, line 65- column 7, line 2. Thus, inspection step 70’ may be visual inspection performed by naked eye.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761