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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 on 23 June 2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 June 2026 and the claims and arguments filed 22 May 26 have been entered.
Status
This office action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 22 May 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1 and 12 are amended, claim 2 is cancelled and no claims are added. This is a Non- Final Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,511,461 in view of Ikai (Wipo Patent Application Publication WO2019/049646; citations from U.S. equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0361807) and Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,511,461 in view of Ikai (Wipo Patent Application Publication WO2019/049646; citations from U.S. equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0361807) and Teranishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0017642).
Here is a comparison between Patent 11,511,461 and the instant application’s substance of claims 1 and 12.
Application 17/789,277
U.S. Patent 11,511,461
Claim 1. A manufacturing method for a glass film, comprising, while conveying a glass film with an upstream-side conveyor including a plurality of upstream-side belt conveyors, performing cutting on the glass film with a cutting unit, wherein the upstream-side conveyor is located on an upstream side of the cutting unit in a conveyance direction of the glass film, wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors include a first upstream-side belt conveyor having an attraction structure capable of attracting the glass film to a belt of the first upstream- side belt conveyor, the first upstream-side belt conveyor being configured to be capable of attracting and supporting the glass film at a center of the glass film in a width direction of the glass film, wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors also include a plurality of second upstream- side belt conveyors without attraction structures, the second upstream-side belt conveyors being configured to be capable of supporting the glass film at both ends of the glass film in the width direction of the glass film, wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor and the plurality of second upstream-side belt conveyors are positioned adjacent to each other in the width direction of the glass film,
Claim 1. A glass film manufacturing method comprising a cutting step of cutting a glass film with a cutting device while conveying the glass film, wherein, in the cutting step, a belt conveyor having a suction portion only at a position corresponding to a center portion of the glass film in a width direction is arranged on an upstream side of the cutting device, and wherein, in the cutting step, the glass film is supplied to the cutting device by the belt conveyor while the suction portion sucks only the central portion of the glass film in the width direction so that wrinkles of the glass film in the cutting device are suppressed.
Claim 3. The glass film manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the belt conveyor is divided into a plurality of belt conveyors in the width direction, and wherein the suction portion is provided only in a center belt conveyor arranged at a center portion in the width direction among the divided belt conveyors.
and wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film.
[Not disclosed in the Claims]
However, Mitsugi does not claim, “wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film”.
However, Ikai teaches, in his glass cutting apparatus,
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces (¶¶¶0063, 0065,0070, “air is suctioned…can be adjusted) with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film (this is in the conveyance direction, X).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsugi with the teachings of Ikai, to have the suction be changeable and adjustable, in order to prepare it for cutting in a conventional way, while maintaining suction and “adjusting the suction amount of the suction pump 24” in order to make the deformation as small as possible, and this would be a conventional method done in a conventional way and achieving the expected result of maintaining attraction of the glass while preparing it for laser cutting and adjusting the suction according to the need of the sizes and materials being cut.
For claims 10, 11, 13, and 14, the missing elements from the Patent’s claims may be taught as obvious from Teranishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0017642), who teaches a downstream conveyor (15, claim 10) and also a laser cutting device (8, claim 11), and the downstream surface plate configured to suck the glass (15, claims 13 and 14) and these conventional elements and teachings would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to properly cut (with a laser) and control the glass (with a conveyor) as it is being separated into different rollers in a conventional way without unexpected results.
For claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, see the rejection below for how these elements are obvious in view of the combination with Teranishi.
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.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitation is not disclosed by that reference.]
Claim(s) 1, and 10- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsugi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2018-150131, in applicant’s IDS; Citations from sister equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0164545) in view of Ikai (Wipo Patent Application Publication WO2019/049646; citations from U.S. equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0361807).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsugi discloses manufacturing method for a glass film, comprising, while conveying a glass film (G) with a belt an upstream-side conveyor including a plurality of upstream-side belt conveyors (Mitsugi, ¶13) performing cutting on the glass film with a cutting unit (Mitsugi, cutting device, 3)
wherein the upstream-side conveyor is located on an upstream side of the cutting unit in a conveyance direction of the glass film (as seen in figs. 1 and 2, at least part of it is upstream of the laser)
wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors include a first upstream-side belt conveyor (Mitsugi ¶13, describes a plurality of belts with one suction one in the center range, fig. 3) having an attraction structure capable of attracting the glass film to a belt of the first upstream- side belt conveyor, the first upstream-side belt conveyor being configured to be capable of attracting and supporting the glass film at a center of the glass film in a width direction of the glass film (¶13, fig. 3, element 21a),
wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors also include a plurality of second upstream-side belt conveyors without attraction structures (22, fig. 3), the second upstream-side belt conveyors being configured to be capable of supporting the glass film at both ends of the glass film in the width direction of the glass film (supports at the ends, fig. 3), and
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor and the plurality of second upstream-side belt conveyors are positioned adjacent to each other in the width direction of the glass film (Mitsugi, ¶13, the plurality of conveyors but only the center one has the attraction structure, fig. 3, elements 22), and
However, Mitsugi does not disclose
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film.
However, Ikai teaches, in his glass cutting apparatus,
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces (¶¶0063, 0065,0070, “air is suctioned…can be adjusted) with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film (this is in the conveyance direction, X).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsugi with the teachings of Ikai, to have the suction be changeable and adjustable, in order to prepare it for cutting in a conventional way, while maintaining suction and “adjusting the suction amount of the suction pump 24” in order to make the deformation as small as possible, and this would be a conventional method done in a conventional way and achieving the expected result of maintaining attraction of the glass while preparing it for laser cutting and adjusting the suction according to the need of the sizes and materials being cut.
Regarding claim 10, Mitsugi in view of Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein a downstream-side conveyor (Mitsugi, fig. 1, 7 are downstream side conveyors) is arranged on a downstream side in the conveyance direction of the glass film with respect to the upstream-side belt conveyor.
Regarding claim 11, Mitsugi in view of Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein the cutting unit comprises a laser cutting unit (Mitsugi, 9) capable of cutting the glass film along a longitudinal direction of the glass film.
Regarding claim 12, Mitsugi discloses a manufacturing apparatus for a glass film, the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
an upstream-side conveyor including a plurality of upstream-side belt conveyors configured to convey a glass film (¶13, conveyor 13); and
a cutting unit (3) configured to perform cutting on the glass film being conveyed by the upstream-side conveyor,
wherein the upstream-side conveyor is located on an upstream side of the cutting unit in a conveyance direction of the glass film (Mitsugi, half of 13, figs. 1 and 3),
wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors include a first upstream-side belt conveyor (Mitsugi ¶13, describes a plurality of belts with one suction one in the center range, fig. 3) having an attraction structure capable of attracting the glass film to a belt of the first upstream- side belt conveyor, the first upstream-side belt conveyor being configured to be capable of attracting and supporting the glass film at a center of the glass film in a width direction of the glass film (¶13, fig. 3, element 21a),
wherein the upstream-side belt conveyors also include a plurality of second upstream-side belt conveyors without attraction structures (22, fig. 3), the second upstream-side belt conveyors being configured to be capable of supporting the glass film at both ends of the glass film in the width direction of the glass film (supports at the ends, fig. 3), and
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor and the plurality of second upstream-side belt conveyors are positioned adjacent to each other in the width direction of the glass film (Mitsugi, ¶13, the plurality of conveyors but only the center one has the attraction structure, fig. 3, elements 22), and
Mitsugi does not disclose wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film.
However, Ikai teaches, in his glass cutting apparatus,
wherein the first upstream-side belt conveyor is configured to be capable of changing attraction forces (¶¶¶0063, 0065,0070, “air is suctioned…can be adjusted) with respect to the glass film in the conveyance direction of the glass film (this is in the conveyance direction, X).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsugi with the teachings of Ikai, to have the suction be changeable and adjustable, in order to prepare it for cutting in a conventional way, while maintaining suction and “adjusting the suction amount of the suction pump 24” in order to make the deformation as small as possible, and this would be a conventional method done in a conventional way and achieving the expected result of maintaining attraction of the glass while preparing it for laser cutting and adjusting the suction according to the need of the sizes and materials being cut.
Regarding claim 13, Mitsugi in view of Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein at least one surface plate is located on a downstream side in the conveyance direction of the glass film with respect to the upstream-side conveyor (fig. 1, downstream part of 13),
the surface plate (13a) is configured to be capable of attracting and supporting the glass film, and
the cutting unit (3) is configured to be capable of cutting the glass film on the surface plate (it is).
Regarding claim 14, Mitsugi in view of Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further teaches a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein the surface plate comprises a support surface and a suction portion (13, support with suction),
the support surface is configured to support the glass film in a contact manner (Mitsugi, fig. 3)
the suction portion is configured to suck the glass film toward the support surface (¶13), and
the cutting unit (3) is configured to be capable of cutting the glass film being sucked and supported by the surface plate (figs. 1 and 3, cutting the glass being sucked and supported).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsugi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2018-150131, in applicant’s IDS; Citations from sister equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0164545) in view of Ikai (Wipo Patent Application Publication WO2019/049646; citations from U.S. equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0361807) and further in view of Teranishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0017642).
Regarding claim 3, Mitsugi in view of Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein an attraction surface of the belt of the first upstream-side belt conveyor capable of attracting the glass film is divided into a plurality of attraction zones capable of varying attraction forces with respect to the glass film in predetermined regions in the conveyance direction of the glass film. However, Teranishi teaches that a conveyor capable of attracting the glass film “is divided into a plurality of attraction zones” (Teranishi, 14,16, 15, fig. 3a). And in connection with Ikai, who teaches a belt “capable of attracting the glass film” and a conveyor “capable of varying attraction forces with respect to the glass film in predetermined regions in the conveyance direction of the glass film, thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mitsugi in view of Ikai with the teachings of Teranishi, to have different sections with different attraction/suction forces, in order to maintain glass on the conveyor, depending on working conditions and the size and type of glass, and this would have been obvious to one using a conventional method achieving only the expected result of adjusting the force to maintain the glass on the conveyor without warping in different conditions.
Regarding claim 4, Mitsugi in view of Ikai and Teranishi teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, further teaches a method for manufacturing a glass film wherein the attraction surface is divided into two attraction zones in the conveyance direction of the glass film (Teranishi, 14, 16, 15; in light of the combination above, this would have been obvious)
Regarding claim 6, Mitsugi in view of Ikai and Teranishi teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and but does not further teach a manufacturing method for a glass film, wherein the attraction surface is divided into three attraction zones in the conveyance direction of the glass film (Teranishi, would have been obvious in view of the combination above, zones 14,16,15).
Regarding claim 8, Mitsugi in view of Ikai and Teranishi teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches a manufacturing method for a glass film wherein the upstream-side conveyor further comprises a support member having a hollow shape and being configured to support the belt of the first upstream-side belt conveyor (Teranishi, 14, can see they are hollow for suction),
wherein the support member (6) comprises therein an air-discharge space capable of discharging air (Teranishi, ¶0061, blowing a gas), and the air-discharge space is partitioned so as to correspond to the attraction zones in the conveyance direction of the glass film, and wherein the support member and the belt comprise a communication portion configured to allow communication between the air-discharge space and a space defined between the belt and the support member (This would have been all obvious in the combination above).
Regarding claim 9, Mitsugi in view of Ikai and Teranishi teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as above, and further teaches a manufacturing method for a glass film wherein blowers which are independently controllable are connected to partitioned spaces defined by partitioning the air-discharge space, respectively (This would have been obvious in light of the combination above, Teranishi, ¶0061, the blower is independently controllable compared to the suction, as this floats the glass for laser/cutting processing, a completely different purpose).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights