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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16, 19-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12NOV2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10, 17-18 in the reply filed on 12NOV2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that , for example, the lifting/lowering mechanism is not related to the glass being broken. This is not found persuasive because the claims are drawn to an apparatus for breaking glass, not a method for breaking glass, and therefore, all limitations in dependent claims dependent upon an independent claim must be related to that independent claim. In the instant case, the independent claim is drawn to a bend breaking "system" for breaking glass plate, and therefore every limitation recited in the independent claim must be related to that system.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations
"supports the glass plate" (Ln 6); Examiner suggests "configured to support the glass plate";
"that presses" (Ln 9/11); Examiner suggests "configured to press";
"that raises and lowers the bend-breaking cutter wheel in an up-down direction" (Ln 13-14); Examiner suggests "configured to raise and lower the bend-breaking cutter wheel in an up-down direction";
"that raises and lowers the first pressing member in the up-down direction" (Ln 14-15); Examiner suggests "configured to raise and lower the first pressing member in the up-down direction";
"that raises and lowers the second pressing member in the up-down direction" (Ln 16-17); Examiner suggests "configured to raise and lower the second pressing member in the up-down direction";
"that supports" (Ln 17-19); Examiner suggests "configured to support";
"that raises and lowers the second support member in the up-down direction" (Ln 20-21); Examiner suggests "configured to raise and lower the second support member in the up-down direction;
"cutter wheel raising means that raises the bend-breaking cutter wheel in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism after the bend-breaking cutter wheel lowered in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism forms an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate" (Ln 22-26); Examiner suggests "configured to raise the bend-breaking cutter wheel in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism after any time in which the bend-breaking cutter wheel has been lowered in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism having been configured to form an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion);
"glass plate sandwiching means that lowers the first pressing member in the up-down direction by the second raising/lowering mechanism so that the first pressing member and the first and second support members sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion of the glass plate (Ln 26-30); Examiner suggests "configured to lower the first pressing member in the up-down direction by the second raising/lowering mechanism so that the first pressing member and the first and second support members are configured to sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion of the glass plate" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion);
"second support member lowering means that lowers the second support member in the up-down direction by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism after the first pressing member and the first and second support members sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion"; Examiner suggests "configured to lower the second support member in the up-down direction by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism after any time in which the first pressing member and the first and second support members having been configured to sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion);
"edge portion bend-breaking means that lowers the second pressing member in the up-down direction by the third raising/lowering mechanism and presses the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the outer side of the contour cutting line downward while maintaining the sandwiching of the main body portion by the first pressing member and the first support member and bend-breaks the edge portion of the glass plate"; Examiner suggests "configured to lower the second pressing member in the up-down direction by the third raising/lowering mechanism and configured to press the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the outer side of the contour cutting line downward while maintaining the sandwiching of the main body portion by the first pressing member and the first support member and having been configured to bend-break the edge portion of the glass plate" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations "the glass plate sandwiching means", "edge portion bend-breaking means" are objected to as stated above. Further, the limitations "when the first pressing member is lowered by the second raising/lowering mechanism, the first pressing member abuts on an upper surface of the edge portion of the glass " and "when the second pressing member is lowered by the third raising/lowering means" are similarly objected to as being dependent upon limitations previously objected to since they cannot be understood outside of the context of the previously objected limitations.
Regarding Claim 3:
Ln 9-14, the limitation "when the first pressing member is lowered by the second raising/lowering mechanism, the first pressing surface formed in the semi-annular shape abuts on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line across the contour cutting line and the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the inner side of the contour cutting line". Examiner suggests "at a time when…" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion);
Ln 16-18, the limitation "when the second pressing member is lowered by the third raising/lowering mechanism, the second pressing surface formed in the annular shape abuts on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line". Examiner suggests "at a time when…" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion).
Regarding Claim 4, Ln 4-9, the limitation "when the second support member is raised by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism, the second support member supports a lower surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to a vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line and a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to a vicinity of an inner side of the contour cutting line". Examiner suggests "at a time when…" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion).
Regarding Claim 5, Ln 5-7, the limitation "when the second support member is raised by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism, the second support surface formed in the annular shape supports the lower surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line across the contour cutting line and the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the inner side of the contour cutting line". Examiner suggests "at a time when…" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion).
Regarding Claim 7:
Ln 2-6, the limitation "bend-breaking device moving means that moves the bend-breaking device in a horizontal direction on the side of the upper surface of the glass plate after the bend breaking cutter wheel and the first and second pressing members are raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms". Examiner suggests "bend-breaking device moving means that is configured to move the bend-breaking device in a horizontal direction on the side of the upper surface of the glass plate after the bend breaking cutter wheel and the first and second pressing members, having been previously configured to be raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms, are raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion);
Ln 5-6, the limitation "the first and second pressing members are raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms". Examiner suggests first and third in order to distinguish between 1st, 2nd & 3rd, and 1st & 3rd;
the limitations "glass plate sandwiching means" and "edge portion bend-breaking means" are objected to as stated above. Further, the limitations "that moves the bend-breaking device in a horizontal direction on the side of the upper surface of the glass plate after the bend breaking cutter wheel and the first and second pressing members are raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms", "and the support device moving means, the bend-breaking device and the support device cooperate with each other to perform the glass plate sandwiching means and the edge portion bend-breaking means" are similarly objected to as being dependent upon limitations previously objected to since they cannot be understood outside of the context of the previously objected limitations.
Ln 6, 11-12, the limitation "support device moving means" is
Regarding Claim 9:
Ln 3-4, the limitation "holds the bend-breaking cutter wheel". Examiner suggests "configured to hold the bend-breaking cutter wheel";
Ln 10-14, the limitation "causes the bend-breaking device to travel slightly in a predetermined direction on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in parallel to the upper surface, rotates the bend-breaking cutter wheel abutting on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in the direction around the cutter wheel axis". Examiner suggests "is configured to cause the bend-breaking device to travel slightly in a predetermined direction on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in parallel to the upper surface, and configured to rotate the bend-breaking cutter wheel having been previously configured to abut on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in the direction around the cutter wheel axis" (Italics added by Examiner for identification of suggestion).
Regarding Claim 10:
The limitations "end cutting line forming means", "rolling direction changing means" are objected to as stated above. Further, the limitations "after the bend-breaking device is caused to slightly travel in a predetermined direction", "to make the rolling direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel the same as the traveling direction of the bend-breaking device" are similarly objected to as being dependent upon limitations previously objected to since they cannot be understood outside of the context of the previously objected limitations;
the limitation "travels in a predetermined direction so that the bend-breaking cutter wheel forms an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate along the traveling direction of the bend-breaking device". Examiner suggests is configured to travel in a predetermined direction so that the bend-breaking cutter wheel having been previously configured to form an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate along the traveling direction of the bend-breaking device".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
cutter wheel raising means (lacks definition); and
glass plate sandwiching means (lacks definition); and
second support member lowering means (lacks definition); and
edge portion bend-breaking means (lacks definition), in Claim 1;
bend-breaking device moving means (Para [0206]; and
support device moving means (lacks definition) in Claim 7;
end cutting line forming means (Para [0203] in Claim 8;
rolling direction changing means (Para [0198], [0199], [0203]: multiple definitions) in Claims 9, 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, excepting in the cases wherein no definition is provided.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 17-18 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.
In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean
Regarding Claim 1:
Ln 2, the limitation "glass plate" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the glass plate is a required element of the claimed invention or not. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the glass plate is intended use of the bend-breaking system and not a required structural element. Examiner notes all references to "glass plate" in Claims 1-10, 17-18 have been similarly interpreted as intended use of the bend-breaking system and not a required structural element;
Ln 4-5, the limitation "bend-breaking device…bend-breaks the edge portion of the glass plate" is indefinite for claiming a method step in an apparatus claim. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the bend-breaking device…is configured to bend-break the edge portion of the glass plate and therefore not a required structural element (Italics added by Examiner);
Ln 5, 11-12, 19, the limitation "the edge portion of the glass plate" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what part of a whole constitutes a portion of the glass plate, the metes and bounds of the claims thus being unclear. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of the whole;
Ln 9-10, 18, the limitation "the main body portion of the glass plate" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what part of a whole constitutes a portion of the glass plate, the metes and bounds of the claims thus being unclear. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any part of the whole;
Ln 22, the limitation "cutter wheel raising means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether this means is different from or the same as the previously recited first raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the bend-breaking cutter wheel in an up-down direction. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the first raising/lowering mechanism is the same as the cutter wheel raising means;
Ln 22, the limitation "cutter wheel raising means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the raising means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed;
Ln 26, the limitation "glass plate sandwiching means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the means is different from or the same as the previously recited second raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the first pressing member in the up-down direction. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the second raising/lowering mechanism is the same as the glass plate sandwiching means;
Ln 30, the limitation "second support member lowering means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the means is different from or the same as the previously recited fourth raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the second support member in the up-down direction. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the second support member lowering means is the same as the fourth raising/lowering mechanism;
Ln 34, the limitation "edge portion bend-breaking means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the means is different from or the same as the previously recited third raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the second pressing member in the up-down direction. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the edge portion bend-breaking means is the same as the third raising/lowering mechanism.
Regarding Claims 1-7:
the limitation "glass plate sandwiching means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the sandwiching means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed;
the limitation "second support member lowering means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the lowering means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claims 1-3 the limitation "edge portion bend-breaking means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the bend-breaking means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claims 3, 5-6, the limitation "predetermined area" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what determines the area claimed. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any area of contact of the pressing surfaces, which may be configured to satisfy the requirements of the claims.
Regarding Claim 7:
Ln 6, the limitation "support device moving means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the moving means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed;
Ln 6-7, the limitation "that moves the support device in the horizontal direction" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the support device is distinct from the previously recited support devices in Claim 1, or the same, and if the same, which is being referred to in the claims. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any support device;
Ln 3-6, the limitation "a bend-breaking device moving means that moves the bend-breaking device in a horizontal direction on the side of the upper surface of the glass plate after the bendbreaking cutter wheel" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what is meant by "after", whether the action should occur at a point in time, or at a preferred place. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the intended use of the moving means is for use after a cut has been made.
Regarding Claims 9, 10, the limitation "rolling direction changing means" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim exactly what constitutes the rolling direction changing means, the metes and bounds of the claims being unclear and thus indefinite with respect to the prior art. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean any element, structure or assembly capable of being configured to satisfy the requirements of the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 17, is indefinite for claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, the limitation "bend-breaking processing method" also lacking antecedent basis in the claims renders the claim indefinite for lacking clear metes and bounds. Therefore this claim will not be examined at this time. The claim may examined at a later time, if amended to overcome these rejections.
Regarding Claim 18, is indefinite for claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, the limitation "bend-breaking processing method" also lacking antecedent basis in the claims renders the claim indefinite for lacking clear metes and bounds. Therefore this claim will not be examined at this time. The claim may examined at a later time, if amended to overcome these rejections.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtze, et alia (US 3,424,357), hereinafter Curtze, in view of Owen (US 1,946,356), hereinafter Owen.
Regarding Claim 1, Curtze discloses a bend-breaking system that bend-breaks an edge portion of a glass plate to be processed (Col 1, 13-15; as illustrated in at least Fig 1),
wherein the bend-breaking system includes a bend-breaking device (16) (Col 2, Ln 27) that is positioned on a side of an upper surface of the glass plate as illustrated in at last Fig 2) and bend-breaks the edge portion of the glass plate (Col 5, Ln 19-26), and a support device (11) (Col 1, ln 65; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) that is positioned on a side of a lower surface of the glass plate and supports the glass plate,
the bend-breaking device includes a bend-breaking cutter (28) that forms an end cutting line on an outer side of a contour cutting line formed at the edge portion of the glass plate. Curtze is silent to a cutter wheel, however alternative cutters are known in the art, as evidenced by Owen (Col 6, Ln 86-89). Examiner notes the use of a wheel is not critically recited and Examiner has interpreted the use of a wheel as a matter of convenience, any suitable cutter being able to perform a similar function being acceptable, again, as evidenced by Owen.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as disclosed by Curtze, to include a cutter wheel, as evidenced by Owen, in order to provide a movable cutter.
Curtze further discloses a first pressing member (17) (Col 2, Ln 51-52) that presses a main body portion of the glass plate extending to an inner side of the contour cutting line downwards (Examiner notes the locations inner/outer have been recited without reference to any fixed point/plane/object and have therefore been interpreted as a matter of convenience, distinguishing one side of the cut to be made from the other), a second pressing member (17) (Examiner notes that, as illustrated in Fig 1, pressing members are located over the entirety of the glass surface) that presses the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the outer side of the contour cutting line downward (Examiner notes the mechanism which raises and lower the pressing members may easily be configured to apply a pressure while lowering, thus meeting the requirements of the limitation), a first raising/lowering mechanism (air cylinder, Col 3, Ln 75) that raises and lowers the bend-breaking cutter wheel in an up-down direction, a second raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the first pressing member in the up-down direction (two–pressure longitudinal head, Col 4, Ln 9-15), and
a third raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the second pressing member in the up-down direction (Examiner notes the pressing mechanisms and raising and lowering means are typical for all locations on the device, the utility of reuse being realized throughout the device, for like mechanisms performing like functions), the support device includes a first support member (13) that supports the main body portion of the glass plate, a second support member (13) that supports the edge portion of the glass plate (Col 2, Ln 13; as illustrated in at least Fig 1) (Examiner again notes the reuse of like mechanisms performing like functions).
Curtze is not explicit to raises and lowers the second support member in the up-down direction, however, Owen teaches glass cutting device (Col 1, Ln 1-2) and further teaches lifting the glass in order to produce a crack cut (34) a fourth raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the second support member in the up-down direction (Col 3, Ln 56-62).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as taught by combined Curtze/Owen to include a fourth raising/lowering mechanism that raises and lowers the second support member in the up-down direction, in order to provide a means to break the scored glass.
Examiner notes the limitations , respectively and can be seen as stated above to be configured to perform the required functions as recited below:
the bend-breaking system includes
1. a cutter wheel raising means that raises the bend-breaking cutter wheel in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism after the bend-breaking cutter wheel lowered in the up-down direction by the first raising/lowering mechanism forms an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate,
2. a glass plate sandwiching means that lowers the first pressing member in the up-down direction by the second raising/lowering mechanism so that the first pressing member and the first and second support members sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion of the glass plate,
3. a second support member lowering means that lowers the second support member in the up-down direction by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism after the first pressing member and the first and second support members sandwich the main body portion and the edge portion by the glass plate sandwiching means, and
4. an edge portion bend-breaking means that lowers the second pressing member in the up-down direction by the third raising/lowering mechanism and presses the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the outer side of the contour cutting line downward while maintaining the sandwiching of the main body portion by the first pressing member and the first support member and bend-breaks the edge portion of the glass plate,
The above limitations 1-4 having been restatements of the previously recited limitations and the actions assigned to them intended use.
Examiner notes the limitation "that bend-breaks an edge portion of a glass plate to be processed" has been interpreted as intended use, and not a specific structural limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses the second pressing member is located in a vicinity of an outer side of the bendbreaking cutter wheel and extends in a direction around the bend-breaking cutter wheel (Examiner notes the pressing member [17] would be recognized by a skilled Artisan to be positioned where it could perform the required function, and as such would be located in a vicinity of an outer side of the bendbreaking cutter wheel, as illustrated in both Curtze, Fig 1 and Owen, Fig 1), and
the first pressing member is located in a vicinity of an outer side of the second pressing member and extends in a direction around the second pressing member (as illustrated in Curtze, Fig 1), and, in the glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted to be the second raising/lowering mechanism), when the first pressing member is lowered by the second raising/lowering mechanism (Examiner notes this limitation and configuration is stated above in Claim 1), the first pressing member (17) abuts on an upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate (Examiner notes that the pressing member, being required to lift the glass plate would necessarily contact the upper surface) extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line across the contour cutting line and an upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to a vicinity of an inner side of the contour cutting line (Examiner notes the first pressing member would necessarily be located where it could both press and support the glass on one side of the cut, as near as routine engineering and experimentation indicated was prudent), and
in the edge portion bend-breaking means (interpreted as the fourth raising/lowering mechanism), when the second pressing member is lowered by the third raising/lowering mechanism, the second pressing member abuts on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line (Examiner notes that similarly as the first pressing member, the second pressing member, being required to lift the glass plate would necessarily contact the upper surface).
Examiner notes Claim 2 has been interpreted to lack specific, positively recited structural limitations, containing only intended use descriptions.
Regarding Claim 3, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses the first pressing member has a first pressing surface (the contact surface facing the glass) having a predetermined area that abuts on the upper surface of the glass plate (Examiner notes that the limitation has no definition and has been interpreted to mean any area of contact between the pressing member and the glass), the second pressing member has a second pressing surface having a predetermined area that abuts on the upper surface of the glass plate (similar to the first pressing member, for the same reason), the second pressing surface of the second pressing member is formed in an annular shape (Examiner notes that cups would be expected to be round) surrounding the bend-breaking cutter wheel (Examiner notes that the cups [17] are variously placed on the table and thus meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of "surrounding", the limitation "surrounding" lacking any definitive description or requirement in the claims), and a first pressing surface of the first pressing member is formed in a semi-annular shape surrounding the second pressing member (the cups variously place don the support table, being similar in order to perform similar function, would be expected to be similar in form and disposition), and,
in the glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted to be the second raising/lowering mechanism), when the first pressing member is lowered by the second raising/lowering mechanism, the first pressing surface formed in the semiannular shape abuts on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line across the contour cutting line and the upper surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the inner side of the contour cutting line (Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean the cups touch the top surface of the glass, as has been stated above), and
in the edge portion bend-breaking means (interpreted as the third raising/lowering mechanism), when the second pressing member is lowered by the third raising/lowering mechanism, the second pressing surface formed in the annular shape abuts on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line (Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean the cups touch the top surface of the glass, as has been stated above).
Examiner notes Claim 3 has been interpreted to lack specific, positively recited structural limitations, containing only intended use descriptions.
Regarding Claim 4, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze is silent to the position of the second support member, however Owen teaches the second support member is positioned in a vicinity of an outer side of the first support member and extends in a direction around the first support member (bars [34] being interspersed between rolls [3], Col 3, Ln 48-49; as illustrated in Owen Fig 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as taught by combined Curtze/Owen to include the second support member is positioned in a vicinity of an outer side of the first support member and extends in a direction around the first support member, as taught by Owen, in order to provide support for the cut glass.
Curtze further discloses, in the glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted as the second raising/lowering mechanism), when the second support member is raised by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism, the second support member supports a lower surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to a vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line and a lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to a vicinity of an inner side of the contour cutting line (Examiner notes, as stated above in Claim 1, the second support member provides exactly this function; Owen, Col 3, Ln 56-62).
Examiner notes Claim 4 has been interpreted to lack specific, positively recited structural limitations, containing only intended use descriptions.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze is silent to details of the second support member, however Owen teaches the second support member has a second support surface (the outer surface of the roll) having a predetermined area (Examiner notes that the limitation has no definition and has been interpreted to mean any area of contact between the support member and the glass) for supporting the lower surface of the glass plate.
Curtze is silent to the second support surface of the second support member is formed in an annular shape surrounding the first support member, however Examiner notes this configuration is recited without criticality and has been interpreted as a results affected variable, having been determined by routine engineering and experimentation to result in the configuration claimed. Examiner further notes a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility of a support arrangement which best suits the size and shape of material to be cut and that which results from the cutting, in order to best support the glass and prevent unwanted breakage.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as taught by combined Curtze/Owen to include the second support surface of the second support member is formed in an annular shape surrounding the first support member, in order to best support the glass and prevent unwanted breakage.
Curtze further discloses, in the glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted as the second raising/lowering mechanism), when the second support member is raised by the fourth raising/lowering mechanism, the second support surface formed in the annular shape supports the lower surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line across the contour cutting line and the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the inner side of the contour cutting line. Examiner notes the modification above is capable of producing the required configuration as recited.
Examiner has interpreted the limitation "for supporting the lower surface of the glass plate" as intended use and not a structural limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses the first support member has a first support surface having a predetermined area (Examiner notes that the limitation has no definition and has been interpreted to mean any area of contact between the pressing member and the glass) for supporting the lower surface of the glass plate. Curtze is not explicit to the first support surface of the first support member is formed in a perfect circle shape, however the cup disclosed would be recognized by a skilled Artisan as typical in a round shape, thus a perfect circle shape.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as taught by combined Curtze/Owen to include the first support surface of the first support member is formed in a perfect circle shape, in order to utilize industry standard components and maximize the efficiency of the design of the device. Examiner notes the limitation "perfect circle" is recited without regard to a method of measuring or any other determination of "perfect' and has therefore interpreted the adjective "perfect" as having been used to distinguish a circular form from any other geometric figure.
Curtze further discloses, in the glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted as the second raising/lowering mechanism), the first support surface formed in the perfect circle shape supports the lower surface of the main body portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the inner side of the contour cutting line, and a vicinity of an outer peripheral edge of the first support surface supports the lower surface of the edge portion of the glass plate extending to the vicinity of the outer side of the contour cutting line. Examiner notes this limitation has been interpreted to mean the glass is supported by the supports, a limitation previously recited in claim1.
Examiner has interpreted the limitation "for supporting the lower surface of the glass plate" as intended use and not a structural limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses the bend-breaking system includes a bend-breaking device moving means (precise rack and pinion gear arrangement, Col 2, Ln 29-32; as illustrated in Fig 2) that moves the bend-breaking device in a horizontal direction on the side of the upper surface of the glass plate after the bendbreaking cutter wheel (Examiner notes, as stated above, the limitation "after" has been interpreted to mean a point in time, to wit, "after" the cut has been made, and further notes the moving bridge could easily be configured to move in any direction at any time, as required by the cutting operation) and the first and second pressing members are raised by the first to third raising/lowering mechanisms (Examiner notes this limitation has been previously stated in Claim 1).
Curtze is silent to a support device moving means, however Owen teaches a support device moving means (5) (Col 2, Ln 90) that moves the support device in the horizontal direction in synchronization with the bend-breaking device on the side of the lower surface of the glass plate.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bend-breaking system as taught by combined Curtze/Owen to include a support device moving means that moves the support device in the horizontal direction in synchronization with the bend-breaking device on the side of the lower surface of the glass plate, as taught by Owen, in order to move the glass after cutting.
Curtze further discloses after the bend-breaking device and the support device are moved in synchronization by the bend-breaking device moving means and the support device moving means, the bend-breaking device and the support device cooperate with each other to perform the glass plate sandwiching means and the edge portion bend-breaking means. Examiner notes bridge (16) performs both glass plate sandwiching means (interpreted as the second raising/lowering mechanism) and edge portion bend-breaking means (interpreted as the third raising/lowering mechanism) by use of similar mechanisms to effect motion of similar elements (cups [17]) similarly attached to the overhead bridge.
Examiner notes Claim 7 has been interpreted to lack specific, positively recited structural limitations, containing only intended use descriptions.
Examiner further notes the limitation "bend-breaking device moving means" has been interpreted as "actuator", consistent with Para.s [0096] & [0097] of the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION, as stated in the OBJECTIONS above. Examiner further notes the limitation "actuator" is defined in the art as a device which moves or controls an element, device or assembly (Source: NIST/Computer Security Resource Center, Glossary https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/actuator, site accessed 09JAN2026).
Regarding Claim 8, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses the bend-breaking system includes an end cutting line forming means (Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean the cutter moves in a linear path, and further notes Curtze discloses this capability in that the bridge is configured to move along the length of the glass sheet, as illustrated in Fig.s 1/2) in which the bend-breaking cutter wheel forms an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate in a state where the first and second support members support the lower surface of the edge portion extending to the outer side of the contour cutting line of the glass plate while the bend-breaking device and the support device move in synchronization.
Examiner notes Claim 8 has been interpreted to lack specific, positively recited structural limitations, containing only intended use descriptions.
Examiner further notes the limitation "end cutting line forming means" has been interpreted as "jig" consistent with Para [0096] of the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION, as stated in the OBJECTIONS above. Examiner further notes the limitation "jig" has no accepted single, preferred definition in the art.
Examiner notes the limitation "that makes a rolling direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel the same as a traveling direction of the bend-breaking device" has been interpreted as intended use and not a structural limitation.
Examiner further notes the limitation "rolling direction changing means" has been interpreted as "cutter holder" consistent with Para [0098] of the SPECIFICATION of the INSTANT APPLICATION, as stated in the OBJECTIONS above. Examiner further notes the limitation "cutter holder" has no accepted single, preferred definition in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, combined Curtze/Owen teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Curtze further discloses in the end cutting line forming means, after the bend-breaking device is caused to slightly travel in a predetermined direction by the rolling direction changing means to make the rolling direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel the same as the traveling direction of the bend-breaking device, the bend-breaking device travels in a predetermined direction so that the bend-breaking cutter wheel forms an end cutting line at the edge portion of the glass plate along the traveling direction of the bend-breaking device (Col 4, Ln 72-75 through Col 5, Ln 26 discloses this operation sequence).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112(b) or USC § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, and/or 35 USC § 103, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that broadening amendments outside the bounds of correcting the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112(b) or USC § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, and/or 35 USC § 103 may render the claims not allowable.
Regarding Claim 9, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
It is the opinion of the Examiner that the art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious
"the bend-breaking device includes a bend-breaking cutter holder that is located above the bend-breaking cutter wheel and holds the bend-breaking cutter wheel, a cutter wheel axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel is eccentric radially outward with respect to a cutter holder center axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter holder, and the bend-breaking cutter wheel is rotatable by 360° in a direction around the cutter wheel axis with respect to the bend-breaking cutter holder".
Searching by the Examiner yielded prior art as cited below:
The closest prior art, US 3,424,357 to Curtze, et alia, hereinafter Curtze, discloses a bend-breaking device, having a cutter. Curtze is silent to
"the bend-breaking device includes a bend-breaking cutter holder that is located above the bend-breaking cutter wheel and holds the bend-breaking cutter wheel, a cutter wheel axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel is eccentric radially outward with respect to a cutter holder center axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter holder, and the bend-breaking cutter wheel is rotatable by 360° in a direction around the cutter wheel axis with respect to the bend-breaking cutter holder", as required by Claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
the bend-breaking device includes a bend-breaking cutter holder that is located above the bend-breaking cutter wheel and holds the bend-breaking cutter wheel, a cutter wheel axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel is eccentric radially outward with respect to a cutter holder center axis extending in an up-down direction of the bend-breaking cutter holder, and the bend-breaking cutter wheel is rotatable by 360° in a direction around the cutter wheel axis with respect to the bend-breaking cutter holder, and the bend-breaking system causes the bend-breaking device to travel slightly in a predetermined direction on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in parallel to the upper surface, rotates the bend-breaking cutter wheel abutting on the upper surface of the edge portion of the glass plate in the direction around the cutter wheel axis, and further includes a rolling direction changing means that makes a rolling direction of the bend-breaking cutter wheel the same as a traveling direction of the bend-breaking device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2,793,471 to Kurata, et alia teaches a glass sheet cutting apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724