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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 25, 29, and 30 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 25, the claim newly requires that the ink fixation apparatus comprises “a blue light and a laser irradiation device configured to irradiate the fixation-dependent ink with both the blue light and the laser irradiation device to cause a reactive etch.” However, support in the specification for the scenario where both blue light and a laser are used to cause a reactive etch could not be found. The specification indicates that irradiation with a laser or application of a surface chemical deposition can cause a reactive etch, and that blue light causes a resin cure (paragraph 32 of Applicant’s specification). Applicant’s paragraph 44 further states that the “fixation technique used will depend on the choice of glazing … and the choice of stamp ink.” Therefore, the type of ink used for a reactive etch caused by a laser and the type of ink used for a resin cure would be different. Indeed, to best of Examiner’s knowledge, a blue light exposure is not known to cause a reactive etch. Applicant does not contemplate or disclose using two types of stamp ink. Therefore, it is deemed that Applicant’s specification does not support the presently claimed embodiment.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 25, 29, and 30 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 25, the claim newly requires that the ink fixation apparatus comprises “a blue light and a laser irradiation device configured to irradiate the fixation-dependent ink with both the blue light and the laser irradiation device to cause a reactive etch.” The specification indicates that irradiation with a laser or application of a surface chemical deposition can cause a reactive etch, and that blue light causes a resin cure (paragraph 32 of Applicant’s specification). Applicant’s paragraph 44 further states that the “fixation technique used will depend on the choice of glazing … and the choice of stamp ink.” Therefore, the type of ink used for a reactive etch caused by a laser and the type of ink used for a resin cure would be different. Indeed, to best of Examiner’s knowledge, a blue light exposure is not known to cause a reactive etch. It appears as though Applicant is relying on the language “or a combination thereof” found in paragraph 32 to support the mixing and matching of separately disclosed fixation techniques; however, it is not clear how a fixation ink which uses blue light to cause a resin cure can be made to undergo a reactive etch, as required in the newly amended claim 25.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvel Marking Products (www.marvelmarking.com/ink-based-stamping.html, retrieved from the Wayback Machine archive, dated 10/30/2018), hereinafter referred to as ‘Marvel,’ in view of StampMaker (www.thestampmaker.com/rubber-stamps/self-inking-rubber-stamps.aspx, retrieved from the Wayback Machine archive, dated 10/26/2020 through 11/25/2020), further in view of Walp (US 2012/0207952). Regarding claim 14, Marvel discloses “a system adapted for use in marking a glazing with safety glazing identification (page 1, paragraph 1: marking SGCC certification requirements), the system comprising: a stamp head apparatus (page 1, second paragraph, page 4: self-inking stamp) adapted for use in marking safety glazing identification (page 1, paragraph 1: marking SGCC certification requirements), the apparatus comprising: a frame housing (see the handstamp), a raised-print image retained in the frame housing (see the handstamp) corresponding to stamped marking information comprising the safety glazing identification (page 1, second paragraph: adhesive backed stamp, stamp on page 4); wherein the stamp head apparatus is adapted to transfer the stamped marking information to a glazing (the stamp head of Marvel is more than capable of performing this intended use; regardless, page 1, paragraph 1); wherein the stamp head apparatus is adapted to use a fixation-dependent ink to print the stamped marking information on the glazing (page 1, third paragraph); and wherein the fixation-dependent ink is adapted to be affixed permanently to the glazing upon application of a fixation technique to the stamped marking information on the glazing (page 1, third paragraph); an ink fixation apparatus” to permanently affix “the stamped marking information comprising the safety glazing identification to the glazing (page 1, third paragraph: tempering oven).” Marvel fails to disclose that the ink fixation apparatus comprises “a laser irradiation device configured to irradiate the fixation-dependent ink with laser energy to cause a reactive etch.” However, Walp teaches fusing frit inks to a glass substrate via laser (abstract, paragraph 28) instead of oven firing (paragraph 2) in order to have a more efficient process (paragraph 7). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a laser to fuse the frit ink of Marvel in order to have a more efficient process. Marvel fails to specifically teach “wherein the stamp head apparatus is configured to apply the stamped marking information in a left-to-right mirrored-image configuration, which when read through the glazing causes information text so read to appear correctly and readable.” However, logic dictates that, in the event of the information being stamped from the opposite side of the viewing side, the stamp should be made with the logo or other information in mirror-reverse so that the image would be readily readable. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the marking information on the stamp head of Marvel in mirror-reverse so that the marking can be readable from the desired perspective. Marvel also fails to disclose “a frame housing with an alignment mechanism comprising: a first opening located at a first side wall of the frame housing forming a first pair of calipers; and a second opening located at a second side wall of the frame housing forming a second pair of calipers, the first pair of calipers opposes the second pair of calipers to align an edge of a glazing between the first pair of calipers and the second pair of calipers.” However, StampMaker discloses Trodat self inking date stamps having structure identical or similar to that of Marvel (see “Trodat Self Inking Date Stamps” link on page 1, and the stamp structures shown by following the link, on page 2) and Colop stamps (see 2000 Plus self-inking date stamps on page 1, and the stamps shown by following those links on pages 3 and 4). Thus, StampMaker discloses, essentially, that the two types of self-inking stamps are equivalent structures that “offer a quick and clean way to leave a mark on any form, document, or product” (page 1). It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute a Colop stamp for the Trodat stamp of Marvel because they have been shown to be equivalent structures for quick and clean marking of a product. The structures shown of the Colop stamps are at least substantially identical to that shown by Applicant’s Fig. 4D. Therefore, since the structures are at least substantially identical, the recited alignment mechanism is deemed to be met by the structure of the Colop stamps. Regarding claim 15, Marvel further disclose “wherein the glazing comprises glass to be tempered (page 1, third paragraph), the fixation technique comprises tempering the glass (page 1, third paragraph), and the ink fixation apparatus comprises a tempering apparatus (page 1, third paragraph).”
Regarding claim 16, Marvel further disclose “the system further comprising the fixation- dependent ink (page 1, third paragraph), and, wherein the stamp apparatus further comprises: an ink reservoir adapted to contain the fixation-dependent ink (page 1, second paragraph: ink pad); wherein the stamp head apparatus is adapted to contact the ink reservoir (page 1, second paragraph and the stamp shown on page 4).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853