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 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) 1, 3-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2019151246) as cited in the US equivalent (US 20210163333) and Anderson et al. (US 20090107182).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, and 13, Mori discloses a method for producing a glass article, the method comprising:
a forming step of forming a glass ribbon from a molten glass [0097] or [0105];
a transport step of transporting the glass ribbon along a transport path as depicted from forming device (17) and discussed in at least [0100],
Mori discloses in the transport step, a first roller and a second roller as depicted in Fig 6 of any of the roller pairs in roller group (20) after the forming device (17) are configured to transport the glass ribbon while in contact with a first end portion and a second end portion of the glass ribbon in a width direction of the glass ribbon Fig 6-8 and [0100],
Mori discloses multiple measuring steps, having first end portions and second end portions from a leading portion to a trailing portion along a target section “S” [0107]-[0109]
the measurement target section being a section along a transport longitudinal direction of the glass ribbon See (S) and 18a-c of Fig 6-8; including each end in the width direction and a measurement in the center.
Mori further discloses the measurement step may be performed in the vertical draw [0107] thus during the transport step.
Mori discloses performing adjusting steps to reduce, differences between speeds at which end portions 18a and 18b of the glass ribbon 18 are cooled and solidified [0098].
In an analogous art Anderson discloses a method for producing a glass ribbon (Fig 1), the method comprising:
a forming step of forming a glass ribbon from a molten glass (326) using the overflow fusion (at least Fig 4E); and
a transport step of transporting the glass ribbon along a transport path (see arrows 448b-c), wherein in the transport step with a pull roll apparatus (640) comprising pull roll assemblies with respective motors and speed measurements sent back to a control device (446) capable to control the speed of the roller pairs on each edge portion [0009]-[0010], [0017], [0018], [0021], [0023], [0026]-[0028]. [0036] indicates the stub rolls as a visco-elastic sheet glass temperatures thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan in overflow fusion that these stub rollers are disposed for the glass ribbon at a temperature within a temperature range of 300°C or higher, alternatively it would be obvious to place the rollers in an area of desired temperature and necessary viscosity.
Anderson discloses a measurement step of measuring, speeds on pull roll assemblies [0026] thus along each of the first end portion and the second end portion of the glass ribbon.
The invention of Mori desires to reduce the speed of difference at which the ends of the glass ribbon enter a cooling state and explicitly states “reduce a difference between speeds at which parts of the glass ribbon 18 are cooled and solidified” means reducing a distance (distance along a vertical direction in this embodiment) [0099] thus it would be obvious to individually adjust the speeds of the rollers as motivated to adjust the speed at which the ends of the ribbon are each cooled and as established by Anderson controlling the speeds of rollers on a glass ribbon based on measurements is known.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori with Anderson to adjust the speed of rollers on the glass ribbon to continuously as motivated to reduce the difference in length at which parts of the glass ribbon are cooled and solidified.
Based on prior art Mori desiring the control in the speed of the glass ribbon a skilled artisan knows this can be done via heating to reduce viscosity and increase draw rate or mechanically increasing the pull rate of the rollers thus a finite number of identified predictable solutions.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses continuing measuring and adjusting until the distance between the lengths is less than 400 microns at least [0112].
Regarding claim 4, Mori [0101] discloses an annealing furnace to cool the glass during the transport step and cooling rollers immediately below the forming wedge (Fig 6)
Regarding claim 8, Mori discloses producing a glass roll downstream of the forming process (Fig 6)
Regarding claim 10, Mori discloses measurement steps done using roller encoders [0090] in abutment with the ribbon [0094], [0111] while measuring but can move based on thickness of the ribbon thus configured to move orthogonal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13 have not been persuasive.
Applicant states:
Claim 1 recites, in part, a measurement step of measuring a length of the first end portion of the glass ribbon from a leading portion to a trailing portion of a measurement target section of the glass ribbon to obtain a first measured length and a length of the second end portion of the glass ribbon from the leading portion to the trailing portion of the measurement target section of the glass ribbon to obtain a second measured length, the measurement target section being a section along a transport direction of the glass ribbon.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, an adjustment step of adjusting the speed difference between the first roller and the second roller, based on a dimension difference between the first measured length and the second measured length, wherein in the adjustment step, an elongation amount of the first end portion and the second end portion of the glass ribbon along the longitudinal direction is adjusted.
Applicant argues page 4, lines 11-22 of the Office Action, the rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Mori and Anderson is provided. However, it is submitted that this rationale is not appropriate, and there is no manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art could be motivated to combine Mori and Anderson to disclose or suggest the feature of an adjustment step of adjusting the speed difference between the first roller and the second roller, based on a dimension difference between the first measured length and the second measured length, recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s rationale that a skilled artisan could not combine features of the disclosures of Mori and Anderson appears to be that: The technical object of Mori is to provide a glass roll in which the occurrence of skew and single slack in a band-shaped glass film can be prevented when a roll-to-roll mode is used. (See paragraphs [0007]-[0009] of Mori).
In response to this particular argument, Mori does discuss an excessive skew may occur in a roll-to-roll method in [0007] however preventing this occurs in the overflow downdraw stage prior to rolling the glass as shown in Fig. 6-8
Applicant also indicates Examiner does not understand the “first adjustment step” in Mori [0098].
In response to the above, Mori discloses:
[0097]
A measurement step of section S as indicated in Fig 7
[0098]
An adjusting step is to reduce the difference in cooling, based on the result of the measurement step (discussed above), a difference between speeds at which both one side end portion 18a and another side end portion 18b in the width direction of the glass ribbon 18 may yield this reduction in cooling
[0099]
Here, the phrase “reduce a difference between speeds at which parts of the glass ribbon 18 are cooled and solidified” means reducing a distance (distance along a vertical direction in this embodiment) along a path between a point at which one part is cooled and solidified and a point at which another part is cooled
Applicant argues Figure 8 of Mori, the path through which the glass ribbon 18 passes extends in a vertical direction and the vertical direction of a point at which the one side end portion 18a of the glass ribbon 18 is cooled and solidified and the position in the vertical direction of a point at which the other side end portion 18b of the glass ribbon 18 is cooled and solidified to reduce the distance between the two solidified positions in the vertical direction in Mori is done only by heaters 21 (See paragraph [0101] of Mori).
In response to this argument Mori clearly states that the heaters 21 are placed below the downdraw device (Mori, Fig 8 [0100]-[0100]). The heater group (21) can change the heat applied across the ribbon independently at a specific point vertically and horizontally across the ribbon (see Fig. 8, [0100]) Mori then indicates the ribbon being measured at measurement position X [0106], [0108], the offset of the measurement section from a parallel “rectangle” yields the creases in the roll forming [0110] this is all reduced by the imbalance by the difference in speed in which the sides of the ribbon are cooled and solidified [0114]. Nowhere does Mori indicate the heaters are the sole solution to reducing the difference between the speed of the sides of the ribbon being cooled and solidified.
In an analogous art Anderson discloses a method for producing a glass ribbon (Fig 1), the method comprising: a forming step of forming a glass ribbon from a molten glass (326) using the overflow fusion (at least Fig 4E); and a pull roll apparatus [0022] to control down draw of the glass sheet from a visco-elastic portion to a setting zone where the glass sheet is cooled and solidified and improving flatness (at least [0022], [0024]. Anderson specifically discloses controlling and adjusting the down draw tension while drawing the glass sheet and operating individual motors to process any asymmetries and prevents undesirable variations(at least [0028]).
A skilled artisan knows that the cooled-solidified zone is downstream of the heated glass ribbon from the heater in Mori and/or visc
o-elastic zone of Anderson to a zone. The glass ribbon necessarily cools as it is pulled down by rollers (20) in Mori and the pull roll apparatus (440) in Anderson.
Both references are concerned with reducing asymmetries and prevents undesirable variations, Mori suggests doing so by reducing a difference in cooling across the ribbon as it travels downstream (as indicated by the remarks of the applicant filed 03/16/2026 and the above further explanation of Mori). Anderson discloses reducing asymmetries and prevents undesirable variations by controlling the downward velocity of each pull roll individually including from a visco-elastic zone to the setting zone, or cooled and solidified zone.
It appears Applicant argues the operation of Mori only allows for the heaters to be adjusted to adjust cooling across the ribbon and thus the motivation is not supported by the disclosure of Mori. Examiner disagrees for the reasons provided above.
Applicant further argues that Anderson does not disclose or suggest any individual adjustment of the speed of a roller on one side end portion and the speed of a roller on another side end portion based on a difference between a length measured along the one side end portion in the width direction of the glass ribbon and a length measured along the other side end portion thereof. Paragraph [0028] of Anderson does state, "If desired, the device 446 can have the motors 454a and 454b on one side operating at a different velocity then the motors 456a and 456b located on the other side to take into account any process asymmetries". However, Anderson does not specifically disclose what is meant by "process asymmetries". Anderson does not need to be more specific. A skilled artisan would consider a skew in the ribbon, offset in temperature, creases, all asymmetries. Th motivation and common sense is there. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” /Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Mori and Andertson, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Applicant argues further, the adjustment step of claim 1 is not merely a general technique for controlling roller speeds. The adjustment step performs a feedback control in which "the dimension difference" between the lengths measured along the first end portion and the second end portion of the glass ribbon Mori does not include any disclosure or suggestion of using the difference in length as an input to adjust the roller speed difference.
Examiner recognizes the claim given the broadest reasonable interpretation requires the adjustment step of the roller speeds “based on” the measurement step without further calculations provided. Examiner has recognized Mori discloses adjusting the cooling of the ribbon “based on” the measurement to reduce asymmetries and creases. Examiner recognizes analogous art, Anderson, discloses controlling the velocities of each roller to control the down draw from a visco-elastic zone to a setting zone, thus cooled, to reduce asymmetries and creases. Both prior art references address the same problems of reducing asymmetries and creases.
In Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court found motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention in the "nature of the problem to be solved" because each reference was directed "to precisely the same problem of underpinning slumping foundations." Id. at 1276, 69 USPQ2d at 1690. The court also rejected the notion that "an express written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references…." Id. at 1276, 69 USPQ2d at 1690.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190010072 [0033], [0043] fusion process drive rollers [0045] /[0048] accommodate path length differences
US 20180141848 [0062] the flexible glass ribbon 46 can track toward the roller pair 164, 166 having a greater speed. Once the desired lateral position (or within a predetermined tolerance) is determined by the global control device 70
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights