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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-19, 21, 23, 26-28, 30, 32-33, 36-39 are pending
Claims 2-3, 5, 15, 28, 30, 32-33 are withdrawn
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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because it is a method claim which has passive recitations.
A method claim is defined by active steps.
As stated in MPEP 2111.04 Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Claim 1 is directed to a method for erasing a laser-induced marking from glass sheets and then recites:
“wherein the marking is erased by means of laser radiation”
“wherein the marking is an ultra-fine engraved surface marking on a glass sheet surface of the glass sheet having a penetration depth <10 µm”
“wherein the surface marking is erased by means of laser polishing”
“wherein smoothing is achieved by remelting, not by material removal, such that the surface marking is erased at least to such an extent that information in the surface marking can no longer be readable”
Examiner has previously given weight to every wherein clause. Using wherein clauses in a method claim is not best U.S. practice. In claim 1 presently filed they recite passive features where the only active step is erasing a laser induced marking from a glass sheet.
As presently amended claim 1 further recites the phrase “wherein smoothing is achieved by remelting, not by material removal” This phrase recites smoothing with a lack of antecedent basis. It is unclear if there is a smoothing step or if the Applicant intends the laser polishing to yield smoothing, or if the laser polishing is the active step and a smooth surface is an the intended result of a process step positively recited which may be considered smoothing, or laser polishing Claim 1 further recites "such that the surface marking is erased at least to such an extent that information in the surface marking can no longer be readable" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.04 and 2173.05(d).
The term “ultra-fine” in claims 1 and 14 a is also a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification indicates an ultra-fine engraving multiple times however does not indicate any dimensions for “ultra-fine”. It is not clear how this specific term of “ultra-fine” actually distinguishes any engraving in a glass surface from another engraving.
Ther term “smoothing” in claims 1 and 14 is unclear for at least the reasons indicated above it lacks antecedent basis and it is a relative term. It is unclear, is it an active step or the result of some step? And the term “smooth” is not clearly defined as a specific roughness.
Claims 8, 10-13 are indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, claims 27 and 37 depend from claim 14. Claim 14 requires a step of making and unmarking glass sheets. Claims 27 and 37 the glass sheets being unmarked as an optional limitation. It is unclear how both can be true simultaneously.
Regarding claim14, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 37 recites where the float glass sheets are marked or unmarked and depends from claim 14 which suggests a float glass sheet which may not be marked, being marked then the marking being erased leaving it again unmarked depending on which timing in the steps of claim 14 claim 37 is attempting to limit it appears that this is already occurring in claim 14 and claim 37 does not further limit claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, 10-14, 16-19, 21, 23, 26-27 and 36-39, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) and Witzman (CN 1081784696).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 36, Ozanam discloses a method of marking a glass plate via laser etching [0005] to obtain a machine readable code on a float glass sheet Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] considered ultrashort pulsed and Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Therefore Ozanam discloses the claimed ultra-fine engraved surface marking on a glass sheet having a depth less than 10 microns.
Ozanam does not disclose erasing the marking.
A skilled artisan is motivated for various common-sense reasons to erase the surface engraving code taught by Ozanam. A skilled artisan would be motivated to erase a pre-existing marking on a glass sheet surface:
As motivated to commit fraud Kupisiewicz [0009]
as motivated to remove a mark indicating a defect for reprocessing of the product - Witzman,
in the event of a defective engraving/code that needs to be re-engraved properly
as motivated for using the glass product for a different purpose- thus saving the overall manufacture of the glass product,
in the event the glass is to be reused and necessitating a different marking,
a company’s desire for a different type of machine readable code such as a QR code versus a barcode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the available glass art for known methods to smooth, and thus remove, engravings of Ozanam.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
In analogous art of laser operating on glass, Rainer discloses
Laser polishing workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece even on rough surfaces (Claims 1-7 of Rainer), i.e. Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground, or engraved/ roughed surfaces which would be equivalent to a marking sight of Ozanam.
A skilled artisan desiring to remove the superficial engraved code of Ozanam for the common sense reasons stated above would be motivated to use the method of Rainer to do so.
This is all of the active steps of claims 1 and 14 and remelting and reflowing the glass into the engraved site will make at some point such that the marking can no longer be read.
Regarding claim 8 and 10, Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers (claim 9 of Rainer) thus an infrared laser .
Regarding claim 11, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and furthermore a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the depth within said disclosed range based on the desired marking.
Regarding claim 12, Rainer discloses the laser polishing with a CO2 laser that is continuous.
Regarding claim 13, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034]
Regarding claim 16, Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] considered ultrashort pulsed and
Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of between approximately 8.5 and 11 micrometers (claims 1-7 of Rainer)
Regarding claim 17, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Regarding claim 18, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claims 19 and 36, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] thus marking while the ribbon is moving in the feed direction as a typical float glass does.
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an. automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves 'With wheel, was held to be obvious.
Ozanam discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the laser being reversed and moving relative to the sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser since it have been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser for the purpose of etching the code on a desired location of the glass.
Regarding claim 21, Ozanam discloses generating the marking a wavelength of 100-400 nm[0018], and picosecond pulse [0024]-[0025] thus overlapping the claimed ranges
Regarding claim 23, Ozanam discloses an example of a beam yielding etched spots of diameters of 50-120 microns thus a skilled artisan would readily expect the diameter of the focused beam to overlap the claimed range of 10-100 microns
Regarding claim 26, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034].
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam discloses the float sheets formed on molten tin [0009], given its broadest reasonable interpretation this is a coating.
Regarding claim 37, The combination of Ozanam and Rainer make obvious float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] and laser polish smoothing analogous to erasing said marking (Rainer- see rejection of claim 1)
Regarding 38-39, Rainer discloses laser polishing of a wavelength of 10.6
Claim(s) 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) and Witzman (CN 1081784696) as applied above and further in view of Kutilek (US 20010007698)
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam does not clearly indicate the coated glass sheets being marked by the laser etching.
In an analogous art of forming glass for vehicles (Fig 8) via the float method (claim 16), Kutilek discloses coating with a metal oxide [0046].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Ozanam and Rainer with a coating of Kutilek on the atmosphere face as motivated to provide a fade zone or privacy zone on the glass [0051]
Claim(s) 1, 11-14, 17-19, 21, 23, 26-27 and 36-37, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Zhao Formation mechanism of a smooth, defect free surface of fused silica optics using rapid CO2 laser polishing International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing 2019 and Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) and Witzman (CN 1081784696).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 36, Ozanam discloses a method of marking a glass plate via laser etching [0005] to obtain a machine readable code on a float glass sheet Ozanam discloses the laser is preferably pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] considered ultrashort pulsed and Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Therefore Ozanam discloses the claimed ultra-fine engraved surface marking on a glass sheet having a depth less than 10 microns.
Ozanam does not disclose erasing the marking.
A skilled artisan is motivated for various common-sense reasons to erase the surface engraving code taught by Ozanam. A skilled artisan would be motivated to erase a pre-existing marking on a glass sheet surface:
As motivated to commit fraud Kupisiewicz [0009]
as motivated to remove a mark indicating a defect for reprocessing of the product - Witzman,
in the event of a defective engraving/code that needs to be re-engraved properly
as motivated for using the glass product for a different purpose- thus saving the overall manufacture of the glass product,
in the event the glass is to be reused and necessitating a different marking,
a company’s desire for a different type of machine readable code such as a QR code versus a barcode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the available glass art for known methods to smooth, and thus remove, engravings of Ozanam.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
In analogous art of laser operating on glass, Zhao discloses reducing a roughness/ equivalent to the engraved features from microroughness 100 to .1 nm and microcracks, and microfluidic channelswhich overlaps with the engraving depth of Ozanam of less than 50 microns. (Zhang, I. ¶2 and Zang Fig. 4)
Laser polishing workpieces made of glass, in which the surface to be treated is selectively and successively applied with a laser beam and thereby specifically with the beam of a CO₂ laser, so as to punctually melt the glass of the workpiece on rough, defective, cracked surfaces, pits (Zhang 2. ¶6 and Zhang 3. ¶1) , i.e. Maintaining a smooth surface structure, especially on pre-ground, or engraved/ roughed surfaces which would be equivalent to a marking sight of Ozanam.
A skilled artisan desiring to remove the superficial engraved code of Ozanam for the common sense reasons stated above would be motivated to use the method of Rainer to do so.
This is all of the active steps of claims 1 and 14 and remelting and reflowing the glass into the engraved site will make at some point such that the marking can no longer be read.
Regarding claim 11, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and furthermore a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the depth within said disclosed range based on the desired marking.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the laser polishing with a CO2 laser that is continuous (Zhang 2. ¶6).
Regarding claim 13, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034]
Regarding claim 17, Ozanam discloses the symbol is less than 50 microns in depth thus overlapping the claimed ranges [0032]
Regarding claim 18, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014].
Regarding claims 19 and 36, Ozanam discloses marking is carried out on the endless float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] thus marking while the ribbon is moving in the feed direction as a typical float glass does.
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an. automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves 'With wheel, was held to be obvious.
Ozanam discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the laser being reversed and moving relative to the sheet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser since it have been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to reverse the relative movement of the sheet and the laser for the purpose of etching the code on a desired location of the glass.
Regarding claim 21, Ozanam discloses generating the marking a wavelength of 100-400 nm[0018], and picosecond pulse [0024]-[0025] thus overlapping the claimed ranges
Regarding claim 23, Ozanam discloses an example of a beam yielding etched spots of diameters of 50-120 microns thus a skilled artisan would readily expect the diameter of the focused beam to overlap the claimed range of 10-100 microns
Regarding claim 26, Ozanam discloses the code is a QR code, barcode, and machine readable [0034].
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam discloses the float sheets formed on molten tin [0009], given its broadest reasonable interpretation this is a coating.
Regarding claim 37, The combination of Ozanam and Zhang make obvious float glass ribbon before or after cutting and separating [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017] and laser polish smoothing analogous to erasing said marking
Claim(s) 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) and Witzman (CN 1081784696) as applied above and further in view of Kutilek (US 20010007698)
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam does not clearly indicate the coated glass sheets being marked by the laser etching.
In an analogous art of forming glass for vehicles (Fig 8) via the float method (claim 16), Kutilek discloses coating with a metal oxide [0046].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Ozanam and Rainer with a coating of Kutilek on the atmosphere face as motivated to provide a fade zone or privacy zone on the glass [0051]
Claim(s) 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozanam (US 20190389767) and Rainer (EP 0535620) and Kupisiewicz (US 20080304525) and Witzman (CN 1081784696) as applied above and further in view of Araki et al. (US 20120061020)
Regarding claim 27, Ozanam does not clearly indicate the coated glass sheets being marked by the laser etching.
In an analogous art of forming glass for vehicles via the float method [0017] Araki discloses coating with a ceramic to yield superior wind blast strength, impact strength, heat cracking resistance [0017].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Ozanam on the atmosphere face with a coating of Araki as motivated to provide superior wind blast strength, impact strength, heat cracking resistance known in the art. It follows that the laser polishing, or unmarking, taught by Rainer would be on the atmosphere side where the marking of Ozanam resides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has removed the term “superficial” thus a previous U.S.C 112(b) rejection is overcome however there are still many issues with the present claims as noted above.
Applicant has stated the ultra-fine engraved surface marking on the glass sheet surface of the glass sheet having a penetration depth of less the 10 microns however this does not clearly redefine “ultra-fine engraved surface” as a depth of less than 10 microns thus there are still indefinite issues.
The support for the amendment of smoothing is in the specification however is written without clarity in the claims and the specification is not brough into the claims.
Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art sheet Ozanam discloses the laser is pulsed, including nanosecond and femtosecond [0024]-[0025] to produce a marking with overlapping depth as claim 14 and discloses laser polishing by remelting as taught in Rainer. It is actually unclear what specific “technical relationship” applicant is arguing above. Applicant appears to be referring to Ozanam not disclosing forming the ultra-fine engraving with an ultrashort pulsed laser and a depth less than 10 microns. Ozanman discloses all of these features as indicated in the rejections above thus discloses the claimed engraving.
In the event the “technical relationship” applicant is arguing is the motivation to remove the engraving Examiner has provided even more reasons and art that would motivate a skilled artisan to erase the engraving repeated herein below.
A skilled artisan is motivated for various common-sense reasons to erase the surface engraving code taught by Ozanam. A skilled artisan would be motivated to erase a pre-existing marking on a glass sheet surface:
As motivated to commit fraud Kupisiewicz [0009]
as motivated to remove a mark indicating a defect for reprocessing of the product - Witzman,
in the event of a defective engraving/code that needs to be re-engraved properly or for a different purpose- thus saving the overall manufacture of the glass product,
in the event the glass is to be reused and necessitating a different marking,
a company’s desire for a different type of machine readable code such as a QR code versus a barcode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the available glass art for known methods to smooth, and thus remove, engravings of Ozanam.
A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21). These are motivations provided in the rejection that do not use hindsight but both reasons stated in the art and provided by common sense.
The most simple common sense motivation that does not even need the mentality of a skilled artisan recited above: “as motivated for using the glass product for a different purpose- thus saving the overall manufacture of the glass product” this provides a more efficient process to reuse said glass product without needing a machine readable code and can be compared to polishing a glass pickle jar, or etched glass cup or plate o then be used as a paint jar, candle jar, vase, plate to paint or use in a picture frame. Examiner has provided reasons provided in additional prior art references as well.
Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” /In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR /nt’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” /d. at 421.
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, Applicant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of the prior art 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 that the office action does not provide a reasoned explanation tied to the claim invention as a whole (page 14 last ¶ of remarks filed 06/29/2026) Examiner has provided various motivation reasons to reject the claims even when they don’t positively recite the method of claim 1. Applicant is invited to elaborate on this statement in an interview as it appears to be a mere conclusionary statement by the attorney.
Applicant’s statements regarding the amendments that some smoothing is done by re-melting, not by material removal” does not appear relevant to the present rejection because Rainer specifically states melting as indicated in the cited portion of Rainer in the above rejections, and not laser ablation. Thus this argument is moot.
The arguments regarding Yamate are moot in view of the present amendments and responding rejections.
Applicant argues that Rainer is directed to laser polishing of surface by partial remel;ting but does not teach marking. Examiner does not rely on Rainer for marking. Applicant argues that Rainer describes the process as not destroying any surface structures and the cited portion in the rejection is not found in the translation provided applicant is pointed to claims 1-7 as indicated together by Rainer. The portion Applicant cites on page 16 of the remarks filed 06/29/2026:
A multiple treatment in particular makes it possible to preheat the areas to be subsequently treated, thereby ensuring a low-stress treatment. Since the incident laser beam is reflected more strongly from the smooth surfaces of the workpiece than at roughened surface areas, the parameters relevant for the treatment, and in particular the power flux density and / or treatment duration or feed rate, can be set such that a partial melting of the glass of the treated workpiece essentially only takes place on rough or ground surface areas, ie treatment here is carried out by the laser beam only. This also ensures that only a very thin surface layer is heated which flows due to the resulting lower viscosity and gives a smooth surface. Existing cut patterns and structures are fully retained in the shape and in particular also in their angles in the method according to the invention, while sharp cut edges are slightly rounded off.
Refers to the overall shaped of the glass product as distinguished from the discussed “thin surface layer” which Rainer laser polished by remelting thus smoothing which is extremely well-known in the art as provided in additional references of pertinent art cited below.
Applicant argues Kupisiewicz does not disclose the claimed eraser process, Examiner only cited Kupisiewicz as another motivation for one to erase a machine readable code thus this argument is not relevant.
Applicant argues that there are missing claim rationales and limitations on page 19 of the remarks filed 06/29/2026, Examiner disagrees that there are missing limitation because where the laser marking of Ozanam is taught and various reasons for a skilled artisan to be motivated to erase said marking are taught in the art or are common sense a skilled artisan would be motivated for a way to remove said mark on the surface. Rainer discloses laser surface polishing to smooth glass surface and a skilled artisan motivated to remove the ultra-fine engraving on the glass surface would also be motivated to look to Rainer as a method known in the art to smooth a glass surface.
Applicant’s arguments regarding DeRossett is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sohr et al. (CN 215091374) Sohr discloses a method of marking a glass substrate with a laser to obtain a machine readable code, such as a barcode (page 3 ¶2, page 8 last paragraph-page 9 first paragraph) Sohr discloses the marking being engraved in the surface of the substrate the marking made up by cavities having a depth of 1-20 microns (Page 8 ¶3-5, or 1 microns or less see claim 14)
Shao et al. (CN 10951669)
Laser Polishing Method Of Mobile Phone Display Screen Glass- title
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