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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/13/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-8, 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]
A skilled artisan knows that as the glass ribbon flows from a forming device (16 in Mori and 135 in Anderson) it eventually cools to the useable glass. Thus a skilled artisan knows the cooled-solidified zone is downstream of the heated glass ribbon from the heater in Mori and/or visco-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. Mori desires to reduce the difference in the length from one side of the glass ribbon to the other by reducing difference in speed to cooling, and has rollers pulling that glass down until cooled. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the speed difference of the ribbon to be cooled by modifying the method of Mori by modifying Mori with the roller pairs of Anderson and adjusting speed of the roller pairs on each edge side in response to the measurement of difference between the short side and long side.
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 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 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 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 filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant indicates Mori discloses the first adjusting step operates to correct the difference in length by adjusting the difference between the speeds at which both the end portions 18a and 18b of the glass ribbon 18 are cooled and solidified through use of the heaters 21a, 21b, and 21c. (See paragraphs [0101] and [0115] of Mori). Mori indicates using heaters to adjust the difference between the first and second measurement lengths LL1 and LL2, rather than controlling a roller speed difference.
Applicant indicates Anderson discloses a pull roll apparatus configured to control and improve the consistency of the cross-draw tension and/or down-draw sheet tension in the area where the glass sheet 305 is going through a visco-elastic transformation. Applicant indicates Anderson fails to disclose or suggest measuring a length along each of end portions of a glass ribbon, determining a long end portion and a short end portion based on measurement results thereof, and reducing a speed of the roller corresponding to the long end portion and increasing a speed of the roller corresponding to the short end portion based on the result of the determination. In response to this argument Examiner is not disclosing that Anderson teaches this step.
Additionally, even if the speed control of the rollers disclosed in Anderson were adopted as an adjusting means for the difference between speeds at which both end portions of the glass ribbon are cooled and solidified in Mori, Anderson still fails to provide any detail regarding how the speed of the motors (rollers) should be adjusted, Examiner disagrees, and asks for evidence as to why the combined teachings of Mori and Anderson as indicated in the above rejection fail to disclose changing the speed will accomplish the goal of Mori.
Conclusion
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