DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 3, 7, 13-16 and 22-35 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12 and 17-21 are pending. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (1) FOURNEL teaches using the gas flow to float the glass substrate and considers causing "artifacts" in the glass surface to be undesirable and therefore, teaches away from applying a glass flow to intention form a pattern of convex lenses; and (2) even if one were to combine GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL, it still would not lead to the invention as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. FOURNEL states: "[t]his can result in the formation of artifacts (e.g., dimples) on the surface of the glass substrate tha[t] may be seen as optical distortion" [0004], but does not say its undesirable. FOURNEL further teaches various gas ejection patterns may be used to affect the shape and/or size of the molten glass (1002) [0293]. In regards to the second argument, the Applicant has not provided any evidence that this would occur other than attorney argument.
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) 1-2, 4-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, in view of HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Fournel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0292221), hereinafter FOURNEL, as evidenced by Glikman et al. (U.S. 4,074,994).
Regarding claim 1, GIBSON teaches: A method of manufacturing large lens arrays from glass (GIBSON teaches a method for manufacturing a glass product [Abstract]), comprising: heating glass to take a form of a glass sheet of viscous liquid glass floating on liquid metal (GIBSON teaches a furnace (101) configured to receive raw materials through a feeder (103) and the raw materials become a molten glass (105) [0020]. GIBSON teaches the molten glass is floated onto the bath of molten tin (115) [0021; Figs. 2-3]), said glass sheet having a lower surface in contact with said liquid metal and an upper surface on an opposite side of said glass sheet away from said liquid metal (GIBSON teaches the glass sheet has a lower surface in contact with the tin bath (115) [0021] and an upper surface away from the liquid metal [Fig. 2]); . . . upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern . . . (GIBSON teaches forming patterns on the upper surface of the glass sheet [Fig. 2; 0025]); and cooling said glass sheet to solidify into a rigid, patterned glass sheet (GIBSON teaches cooling the glass sheet to solidify with a pattern [Figs. 2-4; 0021; 0024].), . . . .
GIBSON is silent as to: applying a gas flow on said upper surface of said glass sheet to cause said upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern of convex lenses in response to local variations in a pressure profile of said gas flow; . . . wherein both said lower and upper surfaces of said patterned glass sheet are locally smooth to have a specular finish ([0013]), and wherein said upper surface of said patterned glass sheet is formed into said pattern of convex lenses, wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures, wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith.
GIBSON is silent as to: GIBSON is silent as to: applying a gas flow on said upper surface of said glass sheet to cause said upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern of convex lenses in response to local variations in a pressure profile of said gas flow; . . . wherein both said lower and upper surfaces of said patterned glass sheet are locally smooth to have a specular finish ([0013]), and wherein said upper surface of said patterned glass sheet is formed into said pattern of convex lenses. In the same field of endeavor, glass, HETTLER teaches while producing a rod lens the interfacial tension of the liquid sealing glass may be influenced for shaping the rod lens by subjecting the liquid sealing glass to an atmosphere of a gas composition suitable to influence the surface tension of the liquid sealing glass [0009]. HETTLER also teaches that the sealing glass forms into a body having a spherical or nearly spherical surface [0008]. HETTLER shows in Figure 11 an array arrangement of rod lenses with the metallic holder and two concave-convex glass bodies of different optical properties and the upper surface of each glass lens in the arrangement/pattern is convex [Fig. 11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, by replacing the rollers with gas composition and form a convex pattern, as suggested by HETTLER, in order to product rod lenses. Furthermore, replacing the rollers with gas jets to the glass surface is a known option in the art to form patterns, as evidenced by Glikman et al. (U.S. 4,074,994) [Col. 1, lines 23-26]. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
GIBSON and HETTLER are silent as to: wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures, wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith. In the same field of endeavor, glass, FOURNEL teaches: wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures (FOURNEL teaches a plurality of outlet ports that eject a stream of gas and are spaced away enough that they do not touch the glass surface [0023]. FOURNEL teaches a plurality of nozzles (1024) and are arranged in a pattern such as an array [Fig. 12], and that pattern may vary [Fig. 12; 0293]. FOURNEL also teaches in another embodiment that there are outlet ports (3057) and vent ports (3055) to move the gas away [0319]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify FOURNEL by also having vent ports, in order to allow gas to escape from other locations besides the sides, especially for larger articles of glass [0320].), wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith (FOURNEL teaches the plurality of nozzles in the gas bearing unit are positioned proximate the upper surface of the glass sheet without coming into contact with it [Fig. 12; 0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON and HETTLER, by having the gas flow not contact the upper surface of the glass article, as suggested by FOURNEL, in order to process the glass ribbon in its softened state [0255] and not have the glass warp [0281].
Regarding claim 2, GIBSON and HETTLER teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but do not explicitly teach: wherein said pattern is formed in said upper surface of said glass sheet in response to said gas flow without any solid contact to said upper surface of said glass sheet. In the same field of endeavor, glass, FOURNEL teaches supplying gas flow to the glass surface [0023] without contacting the upper surface of the glass [Fig. 13; 0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON and HETTLER, by having the gas flow not contact the upper surface of the glass article, as suggested by FOURNEL, in order to process the glass ribbon in its softened state [0255] and not have the glass warp [0281].
Regarding claim 4, FOURNEL further teaches: wherein said gas flow through said plurality of exit apertures and an outward gas flow through said plurality of entrance apertures are substantially equal to provide a substantially zero net gas flow (FOURNEL teaches applying a positive pressure to the glass by ejecting pressure though the outlet ports and applying negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the vents; and flattening the glass without contacting the glass by creating a pressure equilibrium [0120]. The Examiner is interpreting the pressure equilibrium to be a substantially zero net gas flow.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK, by having a zero net gas flow, as suggested by FOURNEL, in order to not contact the glass [0097].
Regarding claim 5, FOURNEL further teaches: wherein a change in pressure on said glass sheet resulting from said gas flow averages to zero (FOURNEL teaches applying a positive pressure to the glass by ejecting pressure though the outlet ports and applying negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the vents; and flattening the glass without contacting the glass by creating a pressure equilibrium [0120]. The Examiner is interpreting the pressure equilibrium to be averaging zero), but is silent as to: wherein an average height of said patterned glass sheet is unchanged from an average height of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass prior to being patterned. GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL are silent as to the average height of the patterned glass sheet is the same as the average height of the liquid glass sheet; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as the average height for the glass sheets through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been motivated in order to improve the performance of the process. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size.).
Regarding claim 6, GIBSON teaches: wherein prior to said applying said gas flow said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass floating on liquid metal is initially equilibrated to being substantially flat on both said upper and said lower surfaces (GIBSON shows the molten glass (106) is substantially flat on the liquid metal (115) [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, GIBSON teaches: wherein said liquid metal is liquid tin or a tin-based alloy (GIBSON teaches the molten metal is tin [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, HETTLER further teaches: wherein said preselected pattern is an array of convex refractive lenses (HETTLER shows the pattern is an array of convex lenses [Fig. 11]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to change the shape of the pattern of the glass in GIBSON, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL would teach: wherein applying said gas flow is carried out in a continuous process on a production line of a float glass factory (GIBSON teaches a continuous process of a production line of float glass [Fig. 2; 0011]).
Claim(s) 1 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, in view of HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Michalik et al. (U.S. 3,345,149), hereinafter MICHALIK, as evidenced by Glikman et al. (U.S. 4,074,994).
Regarding claim 1, GIBSON teaches: A method of manufacturing large lens arrays from glass (GIBSON teaches a method for manufacturing a glass product [Abstract]), comprising: heating glass to take a form of a glass sheet of viscous liquid glass floating on liquid metal (GIBSON teaches a furnace (101) configured to receive raw materials through a feeder (103) and the raw materials become a molten glass (105) [0020]. GIBSON teaches the molten glass is floated onto the bath of molten tin (115) [0021; Figs. 2-3]), said glass sheet having a lower surface in contact with said liquid metal and an upper surface on an opposite side of said glass sheet away from said liquid metal (GIBSON teaches the glass sheet has a lower surface in contact with the tin bath (115) [0021] and an upper surface away from the liquid metal [Fig. 2]); . . . upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern . . . (GIBSON teaches forming patterns on the upper surface of the glass sheet [Fig. 2; 0025]); and cooling said glass sheet to solidify into a rigid, patterned glass sheet (GIBSON teaches cooling the glass sheet to solidify with a pattern [Figs. 2-4; 0021; 0024].), . . . .
GIBSON is silent as to: applying a gas flow on said upper surface of said glass sheet to cause said upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern of convex lenses in response to local variations in a pressure profile of said gas flow; . . . wherein both said lower and upper surfaces of said patterned glass sheet are locally smooth to have a specular finish ([0013]), and wherein said upper surface of said patterned glass sheet is formed into said pattern of convex lenses, wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures, wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith.
GIBSON is silent as to: GIBSON is silent as to: applying a gas flow on said upper surface of said glass sheet to cause said upper surface of said glass sheet to form a pattern of convex lenses in response to local variations in a pressure profile of said gas flow; . . . wherein both said lower and upper surfaces of said patterned glass sheet are locally smooth to have a specular finish ([0013]), and wherein said upper surface of said patterned glass sheet is formed into said pattern of convex lenses. In the same field of endeavor, glass, HETTLER teaches while producing a rod lens the interfacial tension of the liquid sealing glass may be influenced for shaping the rod lens by subjecting the liquid sealing glass to an atmosphere of a gas composition suitable to influence the surface tension of the liquid sealing glass [0009]. HETTLER also teaches that the sealing glass forms into a body having a spherical or nearly spherical surface [0008]. HETTLER shows in Figure 11 an array arrangement of rod lenses with the metallic holder and two concave-convex glass bodies of different optical properties and the upper surface of each glass lens in the arrangement/pattern is convex [Fig. 11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, by replacing the rollers with gas composition and form a convex pattern, as suggested by HETTLER, in order to product rod lenses. Furthermore, replacing the rollers with gas jets to the glass surface is a known option in the art to form patterns, as evidenced by Glikman et al. (U.S. 4,074,994) [Col. 1, lines 23-26]. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
GIBSON and HETTLER are silent as to: wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures, wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith. In the same field of endeavor, glass, MICHALIK teaches a method of manufacturing glass sheets [Col. 1, lines 10-15]. MICHALIK teaches a ribbon of glass (14) is delivered onto an apron arrangement (15) and thence onto the surface of a bath of molten metal (16) contained within a tank (18) [Col. 4, lines 58-66]. MICHALIK teaches the glass sheet (14) has a lower surface in contact with the liquid metal and an upper surface on the opposite side away from liquid metal [Fig. 12]. MICHALIK teaches varying the pressure from the gas flow and thereby vary the thickness at various portions of the ribbon [Col. 11, lines 20-41]. MICHALIK teaches cooling the glass [Col. 5, lines 15-16; Fig. 12]. MICHALIK teaches after the surfaces of the ribbon have improved, the surface has been smoothed out [Col. 2, lines 70-71; Col. 8, lines 54-60; Col. 9, lines 20-23].. MICHALIK teaches: wherein said upper surface of said patterned glass sheet is formed into said pattern of convex lenses, wherein said applying said gas flow comprises applying said gas flow through a plurality of exit apertures that are proximate a plurality of entrance apertures arranged in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures (MICHALIK teaches applying gas flow from a plurality of exit apertures (86, 87) that are proximate to a plurality of entrance apertures (80c, 80d) in a pattern with a continuous forming surface between the adjacent exit apertures and entrance apertures [Figs. 8-9; Col. 6, lines 47-70].), wherein said plurality of exit apertures, said plurality of entrance apertures and said continuous forming surface are positioned proximate said upper surface of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass without coming into contact therewith (MICHALIK teaches the plurality of exit apertures and plurality of entrance apertures that make a forming surface do not come into contact with the upper surface of said glass sheet (14) [Fig. 8].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON and HETTLER, by having gas flow above the liquid glass with a plurality of exit and entrance apertures, as suggested by MICHALIK, in order to control the flow of the gas [Col. 3, lines 15-24].
The Examiner is interpreting the “wherein applying said gas flow on said upper surface of said glass sheet provides a gas pressure profile such that gas pressure of said gas pressure profile locally balances forces of surface tension due to surface curvature and hydrostatic pressure due to heigh variations of said viscous state of said glass sheet thereby causing said glass sheet to form said pattern to be a preselected pattern by asymptoticly approaching an equilibrium causing said glass sheet to settle into and take on said preselected pattern” as an intended result of the method steps positively recited and has not been given patentable weight [see e.g., MPEP 2111.04]. In the alternative, should patentable weight be required, the combination of GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK teach substantially the same process steps and would be expected to produce substantially the same result absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 10, GIBSON teaches: wherein said liquid metal is liquid tin or a tin-based alloy (GIBSON teaches the molten metal is tin [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, HETTLER further teaches: wherein said preselected pattern is an array of convex refractive lenses (HETTLER shows the pattern is an array of convex lenses [Fig. 11]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to change the shape of the pattern of the glass in GIBSON, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK would teach: wherein applying said gas flow is carried out in a continuous process on a production line of a float glass factory (GIBSON teaches a continuous process of a production line of float glass [Fig. 2; 0011]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Fournel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0292221), hereinafter FOURNEL, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walters (U.S. 3,506,422), hereinafter WALTERS.
Regarding claim 9, GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein said glass sheet has a chemical composition of soda-lime float glass (GIBSON teaches the glass sheet has a composition of soda-lime [0020]), but are silent as to: wherein said gas flow is a flow of a mixture of nitrogen gas with up to 20% hydrogen gas. In the same field of endeavor, glass, WALTERS teaches a gas flow mixture of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen [Col. 4, lines 38-42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL, by having the gas flow mixture be of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen, as suggested by WALTERS, in order to beneficially treat the surface [Col. 4, lines 38-42].
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Michalik et al. (U.S. 3,345,149), hereinafter MICHALIK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fournel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0292221), hereinafter FOURNEL.
Regarding claim 2, GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but do not explicitly teach: wherein said pattern is formed in said upper surface of said glass sheet in response to said gas flow without any solid contact to said upper surface of said glass sheet. In the same field of endeavor, glass, FOURNEL teaches supplying gas flow to the glass surface [0023] without contacting the upper surface of the glass [Fig. 13; 0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK, by having the gas flow not contact the upper surface of the glass article, as suggested by FOURNEL, in order to process the glass ribbon in its softened state [0255] and not have the glass warp [0281].
Regarding claim 4, FOURNEL further teaches: wherein said gas flow through said plurality of exit apertures and an outward gas flow through said plurality of entrance apertures are substantially equal to provide a substantially zero net gas flow (FOURNEL teaches applying a positive pressure to the glass by ejecting pressure though the outlet ports and applying negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the vents; and flattening the glass without contacting the glass by creating a pressure equilibrium [0120]. The Examiner is interpreting the pressure equilibrium to be a substantially zero net gas flow.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK, by having a zero net gas flow, as suggested by FOURNEL, in order to not contact the glass [0097].
Regarding claim 5, FOURNEL further teaches: wherein a change in pressure on said glass sheet resulting from said gas flow averages to zero (FOURNEL teaches applying a positive pressure to the glass by ejecting pressure though the outlet ports and applying negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the vents; and flattening the glass without contacting the glass by creating a pressure equilibrium [0120]. The Examiner is interpreting the pressure equilibrium to be averaging zero), but is silent as to: wherein an average height of said patterned glass sheet is unchanged from an average height of said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass prior to being patterned. GIBSON, HETTLER, MICHALIK and FOURNEL are silent as to the average height of the patterned glass sheet is the same as the average height of the liquid glass sheet; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as the average height for the glass sheets through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been motivated in order to improve the performance of the process. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size.).
Regarding claim 6, GIBSON teaches: wherein prior to said applying said gas flow said glass sheet of viscous liquid glass floating on liquid metal is initially equilibrated to being substantially flat on both said upper and said lower surfaces (GIBSON shows the molten glass (106) is substantially flat on the liquid metal (115) [0021]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Fournel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0292221), hereinafter FOURNEL, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirai et al. (U.S. 9,944,555), hereinafter SHIRAI.
Regarding claim 8, GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein during said applying said gas flow said glass sheet, said liquid metal and gas in said gas flow are all substantially isothermal. In the same field of endeavor, glass, SHIRAI teaches when a gas flow is applied, the total flow rate is constant [Col. 15, lines 37-38]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL, by having the total gas flow be constant, as suggested by SHIRAI, in order for warpage after chemical strengthening can be improved [Col. 15, lines 38-47].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER and Michalik et al. (U.S. 3,345,149), hereinafter MICHALIK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirai et al. (U.S. 9,944,555), hereinafter SHIRAI.
Regarding claim 8, GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein during said applying said gas flow said glass sheet, said liquid metal and gas in said gas flow are all substantially isothermal. In the same field of endeavor, glass, SHIRAI teaches when a gas flow is applied, the total flow rate is constant [Col. 15, lines 37-38]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK, by having the total gas flow be constant, as suggested by SHIRAI, in order for warpage after chemical strengthening can be improved [Col. 15, lines 38-47].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER, and Fournel et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0292221), hereinafter FOURNEL, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walters (U.S. 3,506,422), hereinafter WALTERS.
Regarding claim 9, GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein said glass sheet has a chemical composition of soda-lime float glass (GIBSON teaches the glass sheet has a composition of soda-lime [0020]), but are silent as to: wherein said gas flow is a flow of a mixture of nitrogen gas with up to 20% hydrogen gas. In the same field of endeavor, glass, WALTERS teaches a gas flow mixture of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen [Col. 4, lines 38-42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and FOURNEL, by having the gas flow mixture be of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen, as suggested by WALTERS, in order to beneficially treat the surface [Col. 4, lines 38-42].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIBSON (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0038343), hereinafter GIBSON, HETTLER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0016206), hereinafter HETTLER and Michalik et al. (U.S. 3,345,149), hereinafter MICHALIK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walters (U.S. 3,506,422), hereinafter WALTERS.
Regarding claim 9, GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein said glass sheet has a chemical composition of soda-lime float glass (GIBSON teaches the glass sheet has a composition of soda-lime [0020]), but are silent as to: wherein said gas flow is a flow of a mixture of nitrogen gas with up to 20% hydrogen gas. In the same field of endeavor, glass, WALTERS teaches a gas flow mixture of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen [Col. 4, lines 38-42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify GIBSON, HETTLER and MICHALIK, by having the gas flow mixture be of 95% nitrogen and 5% of hydrogen, as suggested by WALTERS, in order to beneficially treat the surface [Col. 4, lines 38-42].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748