DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 13 (line 15), the phrase should recite “a non-zero lead-in angle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008087975 to Sato in view of US Patent No. 11,591,251 to Bando and in further view of US Patent No. 4,285,451 to Ferranio or US Patent No. 4,489,870 to Prange et al. and evidentiary reference to US Patent No. 4,136,807 to DeTorre.
In re claim 1, Sato teaches a method of separating an edge portion from a glass substrate comprising: applying a scoring tool (15a) of a scoring apparatus to the glass substrate (11) to cause the scoring tool to score the glass substrate along a score line as the glass substrate moves relative to the scoring apparatus; and
applying a breaker bar (18b) of a breaking apparatus (18) to the glass substrate as the glass substrate moves in a conveyance direction relative to the breaker bar to separate the edge portion from the glass substrate along the score line (Para 0025), wherein the breaker bar (18b) defines a body extending along the length of the body, wherein the length is defined between a first end and a second end, when the breaker bar is being applied to a top surface of the glass substrate, the length of breaker bar (18b) is positioned at an angle relative to a top surface of the glass substrate (11) with the second end being at a position relative to the conveyance direction of the glass substrate, such that the breaker bar is applied to the top surface o the glass substrate at an a lead-in angle, wherein the breaker bar (18b) remains at the lead-in angle relative to the glass substrate during application to the glass substrate and separation of the edge portion.
In re claim 3, further comprising applying a score stabilization force to the glass substrate with a push roll unit (18a).
In re claim 4, further comprising moving the glass substrate (11) relative to the scoring apparatus with a scoring conveyor (12, 13).
In re claim 8, wherein the step of applying the breaker bar (18n) to the glass substrate comprises moving the breaker bar toward the edge portion of the glass substrate while the glass substrate moves relative to the breaker bar (Para 0025).
In re claim 9, wherein the breaker bar (18b) moves in a breaking direction that is different from the movement of the glass substrate relative to the breaker bar (Fig. 5).
In re claim 10, further comprising moving the glass substrate (11) relative to the breaker bar with a breaker conveyor (12, 13).
In re claim 13, Sato teaches an edge separation apparatus comprising:
a scoring apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a scoring tool (15a) configured to score a glass substrate (11) along a score line;
a scoring conveyor (12, 13) configured to move the glass substrate relative to the scoring apparatus when the scoring tool scores the glass substrate (Para 0024);
a breaker apparatus (18) comprising a breaker bar (18b) configured to separate an edge portion from the glass substrate along the score line, wherein the breaker bar defines a body and, wherein the length is defined between a first end and a second end; and
a breaker conveyor (12, 13) configured to move the glass substrate in a conveyance direction relative to the breaker apparatus when the breaker bar separates the edge portion from the glass substrate, wherein the breaker apparatus is configured to apply the breaker bar (18b) to a top surface of the glass substrate at a lead-in angle relative to the top surface of the glass substrate such that the length of the breaker bar is angled relative to the top surface of the glass substrate with the second end being downstream at a vertical position relative to the conveyance direction, wherein the breaker bar (18b) remains at the lead-in angle relative to the glass substrate during application to the glass substrate and separation of the edge portion.
In re claim 18, wherein the breaker apparatus further comprises a breaker actuator (18d) connected to the breaker bar (18b), the breaker actuator configured to move the breaker bar in a breaking direction that is different from the conveyance direction of the breaker conveyor (Para 0025).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Sato teaches a breaker bar defining a body, but does not teach the body having a plurality of holder wheels extending along the length of the body.
Bando teaches a breaker bar having a plurality of holder wheels (108,109) extending along the length of the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Sato with a breaker bar having a plurality of holder wheels as taught by Bando which is advantageous in that wheels distribute wear over a greater surface area for an increased surface life while maintaining uniform pressure across the breaking area.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Sato teaches wherein the breaker bar is positioned at an angle relative to a top surface of the glass substrate, but does not teach a second end downstream of the breaker bar at a higher vertical position than the first end relative to the conveyance direction of the glass substrate such that the breaker bar is applied to the top surface of the glass substrate at a non-zero lead-in angle, wherein the breaker bar remains at the non-zero lead-in angle relative to the glass substrate during application to the glass substrate and separation of the edge portion.
Ferraino teaches a breaker bar (52) positioned at an angle relative to a top surface of the glass substrate (22) with a second end downstream of the breaker bar at higher vertical position than the first end relative to the conveyance direction of the glass substrate such that the breaker bar is applied to the tops surface of the glass substrate at a non-zero lead-in angle, where the breaker bar remains at a non-zero lead-in angle relative to the glass substrate during application to the glass substrate and separation. Ferranio teaches the breaker bar is disposed at an oblique angle to aid in opening the score lines while the glass ribbon is moving.
Prange teaches a breaker bar (31) positioned at an angle relative to a top surface of the glass substrate (23) with a second end downstream of the breaker bar at higher vertical position than a first end of the breaker bar relative to the conveyance direction of the glass substrate (Fig. 8 and Col. 5, lines 48-68, Col. 6, lines 1-18) relative to the conveyance direction of the glass substrate such that the breaker bar is applied to the tops surface of the glass substrate at a non-zero lead-in angle, where the breaker bar remains at a non-zero lead-in angle relative to the glass substrate during application to the glass substrate and separation.
DeTorre is evidence that in the art of glass breaking that a pressing wheel (102,104) can be positioned relative to a top surface of a glass surface to apply a bending moment with either side of the breaking bar (in other words, the breaking bar can be positioned with a first end at a vertical position higher or lower with respect to the second end and the top of the glass substrate (as shown in figures 10b and 10c, Col. 8, lines 47-68, Col. 9, lines 1-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the breaking bar of modified second end Sato having a downstream end at a higher vertical position than an upstream end relative to the conveyance direction as taught by Ferraino or Prange to maintain opening of score lines while preventing edge damage. Angling the bar breaker of Sato at an oblique angle as taught by Ferraino or Prange is an obvious (orientation) design variant. Ferraino and Prange provide a teaching and as evidenced by DeTorrie a breaker bar can be oriented at an oblique angle relative to the top surface of the substrate in the direction of conveyance to apply a bending moment to open a score line.
In re claim 6, modified Sato teaches further contacting the edge portion of the glass substrate with a breaker bar (108,109, Bando), wherein the breaker bar comprises a plurality of breaker wheels (108,109, Bando) that contacts the edge portion of the glass substrate.
It has been interpreted that the term holder wheels and breaker wheels are interchangeable and perform the same function of breaking.
In re claim 7, modified Sato teaches wherein further comprising applying a break stabilization force to the glass substrate with a plurality of holder wheels (108,109, Bando).
Claims 2, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Bando and in further view of Ferranio or Prange and in further view of evidentiary reference to DeTorre, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US 20150299021 to Itoh et al.
In re claims 2, modified Sato teaches a method of separating an edge portion from a glass substrate, but does not teach further comprising contacting the glass substrate with the scoring tool after an edge sensor detects that a leading edge of the glass substrate has passed the scoring tool.
Itoh teaches the user of a sensor which detects that a front edge part of a glass ribbon has passed below an axis of rotation and subsequently lowers the scoring tool (4, Para 0088).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Sato with a sensor to detect the glass substrate as taught by Itoh to place the scoring wheel at a desired position on the glass based on the desired final shape of the glass product.
In re claim 5, modified Sato teaches wherein the step of applying the scoring tool to the glass substrate (11, Sato) comprises applying a first scoring tool (15a, Sato) at a first edge portion of the glass substrate and applying a second scoring tool (15a, Sato) at a second edge portion of the glass substrate after an edge sensor (4, Itoh) detects that a leading edge of the glass substrate has passed the first scoring tool and the second scoring tool, the first edge portion disposed opposite to the second edge portion on the glass substrate.
In re claim 14, Sato teaches an edge separation apparatus wherein the scoring apparatus comprises a scoring actuator (18d) connected to the scoring tool (18b) and is (capable of being) operable to move the scoring tool in contact with the glass substrate after the edge sensor detects that the leading edge of the glass substrate has moved past the scoring tool.
Sato does not teach an edge sensor configured to detect a leading edge of the glass substrate when the glass substrate moves toward the scoring apparatus.
Itoh teaches the user of a sensor which detects that a front edge part of a glass ribbon has passed below an axis of rotation and subsequently lowers the scoring tool (4, Para 0088).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Sato with a sensor to detect the glass substrate as taught by Itoh which is advantageous for precisely positioning the scoring wheel on the glass based on the desired final shape of the glass product. This modification would lead to the scoring tool being operable to move in contact with glass substrate after the edge sensor detects that the leading edge of the glass substrate has moved past the scoring tool.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view Bando and in further view of Ferranio or Prange and in further view of evidentiary reference to DeTorre, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 4,018,372 to Insolio.
In re claim 15, Sato teaches an edge separation apparatus having a breaking bar, but does not teach wherein the scoring apparatus further comprises a push roll unit comprising a plurality of push rollers configured to apply a score stabilization force to the glass substrate (claim 15).
Insolio teaches a scoring apparatus further comprises a push roll unit comprising a plurality of push rollers (16,20) configured to apply a score stabilization force to the glass substrate and).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the breaker of modified Sato with a scoring arrangement with a plurality push rollers as taught by Insolio to apply prestress to the glass during scoring to reduce residual compressive stresses in the area being scored (Col. 1, lines 48-67, Col. 2, lines 1-2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view Bando and in further view of Ferranio or Prange and in further view of evidentiary reference to DeTorre, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of KR 1020090092132 to Ryu.
In re claim 11, modified Sato teaches wherein the breaker conveyor (12,13) supports the glass substrate adjacent to the score line, but does not teach the breaker conveyor is operable to adjust in a direction toward and away from the score line.
Ryu teaches a conveyor (10) operable to adjust in a direction toward and away the workpiece (12) via handwheel (28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Sato with an adjusting device as taught by Ryu to accommodate and support workpieces of various widths.
Claims 12, 19, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view Bando and in further view of Ferranio or Prange and in further view of evidentiary reference to DeTorre, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,005,318 to Shafir.
In re claim 12, modified Sato teaches a breaker apparatus, but does not teach further comprising changing a conveyance direction of the glass substrate in a transfer zone from a first conveyance direction to a second conveyance direction, wherein the glass substrate is supported by a first conveyor when moving in the first conveyance direction and is supported by a second conveyor when moving in the second conveyance direction; and the glass substrate is disposed at different vertical positions when supported by the first conveyor and the second conveyor in the transfer zone.
Shafir teaches changing a conveyance direction of the substrate in a transfer zone from a first conveyance direction (2) to a second conveyance direction (8), wherein the glass substrate is supported by a first conveyor (67) when moving in the first conveyance direction and is supported by a second conveyor (42) when moving in the second conveyance direction; and the substrate is disposed at different vertical positions when supported by the first conveyor and the second conveyor in the transfer zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Sato with a plurality of conveyors and arrange the conveyors in different vertical positions as taught by Shafir to transfer the glass for subsequent processing and prevent interfering with a prior process.
In re claim 19, Sato teaches a breaker apparatus, but does not teach further comprising a transfer conveyor positioned downstream of the breaker conveyor and overlapping a portion of the breaker conveyor in a transfer zone, wherein:
the transfer conveyor is configured to move the glass substrate in a second conveyance direction different from a first conveyance direction of the breaker conveyor; and the transfer conveyor supports the glass substrate at a different vertical position than the breaker conveyor in the transfer zone.
Shafir teaches comprising a transfer conveyor (8,42,46) positioned downstream of the breaker conveyor and overlapping a portion of the breaker conveyor in a transfer zone, wherein:
the transfer conveyor (8,42,46) is configured to move the substrate in a second conveyance direction different from a first conveyance direction of the breaker conveyor; and
the transfer conveyor (8,42,46) supports the substrate at a different vertical position than the breaker conveyor in the transfer zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Sato with a plurality of conveyors and arrange the conveyors in different vertical positions as taught by Shafir to transfer the glass for subsequent processing while preventing interference with a prior process.
In re claim 31, modified Sato teaches wherein the transfer zone (as shown in Figure 1 and 2) is configured such that a first glass substrate at a position on the second conveyor (42) and a second glass substrate at a position of the first conveyor (67) are simultaneously present in the transfer zone without interfering with one another.
Note, per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term “zone” is defined as a region or area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts. It has been interpreted, the first glass substrate on the second conveyor (42) and the second glass substrate positioned on the first conveyor (67) can be in the same (vertical) plane (or transfer zone) without interfering with one another.
In re claim 32, modified Sato teaches wherein the transfer zone (as shown in Figure 1 and 2) is (capable of being) configured such that a first glass substrate at a position on the transfer conveyor (8, 42, 46) and a second glass substrate at a position on the breaker conveyor (67) are (capable of being) simultaneously present in the transfer zone at different vertical positions without interfering with one another.
Note, per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term “zone” is defined as a region or area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts. It has been interpreted, the first glass substrate on the second conveyor (42) and the second glass substrate positioned on the first conveyor (67) can be in the same (vertical) plane (or transfer zone) without interfering with one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 18, 19, 31, and 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of the rejection.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights