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 .
Note
Applicant’s response along with the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 03/19/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 9 are amended, claims 3 and 5-8 are cancelled, claim 13 is added and claims 1, 2, 4 and 9-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2019/0177104 A1) and in view of Mattos, JR. et al. (WO 2018/053018 A1).
Claim 1: Ishida teaches a glass roll 1 comprises: a winding core 2; a film body F comprising a glass film 3, lead films 4 and 5, a displacement prevention film 6, and a scattering prevention film 7; and a pair of flanges 8 and 8 (Fig. 1 and [0032]). The glass film 3 meets the claimed glass ribbon and the scattering prevention film 7 meets the claimed self-adhesive film. Ishida teaches the scattering prevention film 7 may be interposed so as to be brought into contact with a surface of the glass film 3 to be on an inner peripheral side of the glass roll 1 after the glass film 3 is taken up [0043]. Ishida teaches the scattering prevention film 7 is a member for preventing scattering of broken pieces of the glass film 3 even when the glass film 3 is broken [0054]. Ishida also teaches the scattering prevention film 7 comprises a support layer without a pressure-sensitive adhesive property and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer for attachment to the glass film 3 formed on one surface of the support layer [0054].
Ishida teaches the glass roll 1 wound on the scattering prevention film 7 about the central axis and attached onto the scattering prevention film 7 (Fig. 1). Ishida teaches a cross-section of the glass roll 1 that is parallel to the central axis and along an entire length of the glass roll 1, cross-sections of the scattering prevention film 7 alternate with cross-sections of the glass film 3 (Fig. 1). Ishida teaches when the glass roll 1 is wound, both the upper surface and the lower surface of the scattering prevention film 7 contact the glass film 3 (Fig. 1).
Ishida teaches the thickness of the scattering prevention film 7 is not particularly limited [0055] but does not expressly teach the relative thickness of the scattering prevention film 7. However, Mattos, JR. (‘Mattos’ hereinafter) teaches a glass laminate 100 (FIG. 1) comprising an adhesive 106 between a flexible glass sheet 102 and a non-glass substrate 104 ([0018 and [0019]), wherein the flexible glass sheet 102 and non-glass substrate 104 are from continuous rolls [0042]. Mattos teaches the thickness of the adhesive 106 can be as thin as 75µm [0045] and the thickness of the flexible glass sheet 102 can be 0.2 mm (200µm) [0045]. Ishida and Mattos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the flexible glass art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Mattos (i.e., selecting a relatively thinner adhesive layer/scattering prevention film) with the invention of Ishida, and the motivation for combining would be to control the flexibility of the adhesive backed/coated glass while maintaining adhesion strength.
Ishida teaches acrylic adhesive as one of the materials for the pressure sensitive adhesive layer of the scattering prevention film 7 [0057] but does not teach any of the claimed adhesive material. However, Mattos teaches an acrylic adhesive and an ethylenevinylacetate adhesive are listed as two of the suitable examples of the adhesive 106 [0028]. Mattos shows that the ethylenevinylacetate adhesive is an equivalent adhesive material known in the adhesive coated glass art. Therefore, because these two adhesive materials were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filling date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute ethylenevinylacetate adhesive for acrylic adhesive.
Claim 2: Ishida teaches the thickness of the glass film 3 is 1µm-200µm [0044] wherein this range is within the claimed range.
Claim 4: Ishida teaches the width of the scattering prevention film 7 is smaller than the width of the glass film 3 by from 1 mm to 30 mm [0056] wherein this range overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 9: The lead films 4 and 5 of Ishida meet the claimed leader film and trailer film.
Claim 10: Ishida teaches a portion of the lead film 4 overlaps the scattering prevention film 7 when the film body F was unwound on a plane, and a portion of the lead film 5 overlaps the scattering prevention film 7 when the film body F was unwound on a plane (Fig. 8 and [0075]).
Claim 11: Ishida teaches a portion of the lead film 4 overlaps the scattering prevention film 7 when the film body F was unwound on a plane, and a portion of the lead film 5 overlaps the scattering prevention film 7 when the film body F was unwound on a plane (Fig. 8 and [0075]). Ishida does not teach length of the portion of the lead films 4 and 5 overlapping the scattering prevention film 7. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the overlapping lengths, and the motivation would be to avoid delamination due to stress. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 12: With respect to the claimed friction coefficient value, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the friction coefficient value inside the roll, and the motivation would be to avoid shifting inside the roll. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 13: With respect to the claimed adhesion per unit area, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the adhesion per unit area of the adhesive, and the motivation would be to control adhesion energy of the layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
With respect to the claimed friction coefficient value, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the friction coefficient value inside the roll, and the motivation would be to avoid shifting inside the roll. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4 and 9-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to The Examiner Relies on Improper Hindsight
It must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention; and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, and such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Mattos teaches the thickness of the adhesive 106 can be 75µm and the thickness of the flexible glass sheet 102 can be 0.2 mm (200µm) [0045], in which the thickness of the adhesive 106 is relatively thinner. The reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed relative thickness and adhesive material not to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive layer 106 of Mattos.
Response to A PHOSITA Would not Combine ISHIDA and KANG
The reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed relative thickness not to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive 106 of Mattos. In addition, the specification does not provide sufficient evidence showing that the claimed relative thickness is critical to the claimed invention.
With respect to the relative width of the adhesive 106 of Mattos, the reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed relative thickness and adhesive material not to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive 106 of Mattos. In addition, the width of the self-adhesive film has not been claimed.
Response to The Combination Does Not Teach the Adhesive/Non-Adhesive Surface Limitation
Ishida teaches the scattering prevention film 7 comprises a support layer without a pressure-sensitive adhesive property and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer for attachment to the glass film 3 formed on one surface of the support layer [0054]. Thus, the claimed adhesive/non-adhesive surface limitation is taught by Ishida. The claimed winding core, self-adhesive film and glass ribbon are taught by the reference of Ishida, but Ishida fails to teach the claimed relative thickness. The Examiner introduced the reference of Mattos to teach the claimed relative thickness and adhesive material. Mattos is not introduced to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive 106 of Mattos.
Response to The Combination Does Not Teach the Material Composition Limitation
The reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed adhesive material (i.e., ethylenevinylacetate in [0028] of Mattos).
Response to The Combination Does Not Teach the Carrier Limitation
Ishida teaches the scattering prevention film 7 is a member for preventing scattering of broken pieces of the glass film 3 even when the glass film 3 is broken [0054]. The reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed relative thickness and adhesive material not to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive 106 of Mattos.
Response to The Combination Does Not Teach Both Surfaces Contacting the Glass Ribbon
Ishida teaches when the glass roll 1 is wound, both the upper surface and the lower surface of the scattering prevention film 7 contact the glass film 3 (Fig. 1). The reference of Mattos is introduced to teach the claimed relative thickness and adhesive material not to replace the scattering prevention film 7 of Ishida with the adhesive 106 of Mattos.
For the above reasons claims 1, 2, 4 and 9-12 stand rejected and claim 13 is included in the prior art rejection above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
April 1, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785