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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 5/1/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected glass plate, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 5/1/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to drawing objections for claims 4 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 7/16/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 4 and 6 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 7/16/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 for claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 7/16/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the 112(b) rejection of claim 9, the examiner remains unclear as to where in the method the grinding process takes place. The recitation of a “crack” is disclosed after the first step of “forming a crack that extends from the separation line diagonally with respect to the main surface”, as part of forming the modified portion in a cross section, and after the modified portion is formed in claim 1 of which claim 9 depends. The examiner is unclear after which step the grinding process occurs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of a first laser beam having a first photon density that primarily causes linear absorption in the glass plate and a second laser beam having a second photon density that primarily causes non-linear absorption in the glass plate is unclear as to the structure and thresholds required to meet the limitations of a laser beam causing linear and non-linear absorption in a workpiece because this is not sufficiently recited in the specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if such absorption is occurring. Further, according to Marjanovic the characteristics of creating linear and non-linear absorption are a product of laser wavelength and energy density, and the working material’s properties, in particular band gap which determines the material’s excitation states in column 6 lines 33 to 67 and column 7 lines 1 to 37. The examiner is unclear what method, laser wavelength and energy density, the applicant is using to accomplish linear and nonlinear absorption as well as the working materials properties the applicant is using because such items are not disclosed in the specification.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of a first laser beam having a first photon density that primarily causes linear absorption in the glass plate and a second laser beam having a second photon density that primarily causes non-linear absorption in the glass plate is unclear as to the structure and thresholds required to meet the limitations of a laser beam causing linear and non-linear absorption in a workpiece because this is not sufficiently recited in the specification to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if such absorption is occurring. Further, according to Marjanovic the characteristics of creating linear and non-linear absorption are a product of laser wavelength and energy density, and the working material’s properties, in particular band gap which determines the material’s excitation states in column 6 lines 33 to 67 and column 7 lines 1 to 37. The examiner is unclear what method, laser wavelength and energy density, the applicant is using to accomplish linear and nonlinear absorption as well as the working materials properties the applicant is using because such items are not disclosed in the specification.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “forming a plurality of modified portions on only one side of a center of a thickness of the glass plate by using the second laser beam; and grinding, with the grindstone, an inclined surface created by the crack on the one side of the center of the thickness of the glass plate” is unclear if this happens before or after the grinding method of claim 8 of which claim 9 depends. The examiner interprets that the forming a plurality of modified portions occurs before the grinding of claim 8. The recitation of a “crack” is disclosed after the first step of “forming a crack that extends from the separation line diagonally with respect to the main surface”, as part of forming the modified portion in a cross section, and after the modified portion is formed in claim 1 of which claim 9 depends. The examiner is unclear after which step the grinding process occurs.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The examiner finds no motivation to modify the art of US 10442719 B2 Marjanovic to reverse the laser irradiation steps such that “irradiating a laser of the steps of fig. 7a “apply defocused co2 laser to separate along defect lines” and the irradiation of fig. 7b2” occurs before the step of irradiation with a first laser beam when irradiating a laser of the steps of fig. 7a “form angled defect lines with picosecond laser process” and the irradiation of fig. 7b1 without using the applicant’s invention as a roadmap. Further, the state of the art for cutting transparent and semitransparent workpieces focuses on inducing multi-photon, aka non-linear, absorption as a first laser irradiation process.
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761