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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“the grooves of the plurality of grooves are spaced apart from each other, and the grooves are formed parallel to each other, or formed with a slant within +10 or -10 degrees from an exactly parallel state” in claim 17;
“wherein a shielding layer is provided along a periphery of the identification mark-bearing glass plate, and a position of the identification mark does not overlap with a position of the shielding layer” in claim 19;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the glass plate comprises an identification mark comprising a roughened area on a glass on a surface of the plate” is lacking support in the specification. The specification discloses the identification mark-bearing glass plate comprising a single glass plate. However, the claim language discloses the glass and the plate are two different structure, which contradict to the specification. Therefore the limitation is a new matter.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “each groove of the plurality of grooves has a linear shape” is lacking support in the specification. The specification does not disclose this claimed limitation. Moreover, the figure 2B of the drawing shows at least one groove has a bent shape.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “each groove of the plurality of grooves has a linear shape” is lacking support in the specification. The figure 2B of the drawing shows at least two grooves intersect to each other. Therefore this claim limitation contradicts to the disclosure.
Regarding claims 10-19, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim as shown above.
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 9-19 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the glass plate comprises an identification mark comprising a roughened area on a glass on a surface of the plate” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the glass and the plate are one single piece or two different structures.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the glass plate comprises an identification mark comprising a roughened area on a glass on a surface of the plate” is interpreted to “the glass plate comprises an identification mark comprising a roughened area on a surface of the glass plate”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “an average length of roughness curve elements of the roughened area, which are measured along a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of each groove of the plurality of grooves, is 50 µm to 150 µm” is indefinite. The definition of “roughness curve elements” is unclear. The definition of “an average length of roughness curve elements” is unclear, and the definition of roughness curve elements is unclear. It is also unclear how to measure the average length of roughness curve elements,
Regarding claims 10-19, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Notsu (US 2019/0263165).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Notsu teaches an identification mark-bearing glass plate (glass plate with an identification mark 100), the glass plate comprises an identification mark comprising a roughened area (the area of identification mark 30) on a glass on a surface of the plate, the roughened area (the area of identification mark 30) being an area where at least part the glass of the surface of the glass plate is roughened (see fig.2, the surface of the area of identification mark 30 is uneven, hence it is roughened.);
the roughened area comprises a plurality of grooves formed within the glass of the surface of the glass plate, the grooves being spaced apart from each other (see figs. 1-2, grooves are formed within glass plate with an identification mark 100, and partial of grooves being spaced apart from each, such as the portions 31a and 31b), and
a transparency of the roughened area is lower than a transparency of an area other than the roughened area (See figures 1-2, partial of the area of identification mark 30 does not have the light-shielding 21 and only have glass plate 10, and non-processed area has light-shielding layer 21 covered glass plate 10. Hence the transparency of the roughened area is lower than a transparency of a non-processed area.)
Regarding claim 17, Notsu teaches the grooves of the plurality of grooves are spaced apart from each other, and the grooves are formed parallel to each other, or formed with a slant within +10 or -10 degrees from an exactly parallel state. (see figs. 1-2, at least two portion grooves are formed parallel to each other.)
Regarding claim 19, Notsu teaches a shielding layer (light-shielding 21) is provided along a periphery of the identification mark-bearing glass plate, and a position of the identification mark does not overlap with a position of the shielding layer (see fig.1, light-shielding 21 is provided along a periphery of the plate, and does not overlap with the identification mark 30.)
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 10-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Notsu (US 2019/0263165).
Regarding claim 10, Notsu does not explicitly teach a width each groove of the plurality of grooves is 5 μm to 30 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the width of the groove of Notsu to be 5 μm to 30 μm, in order to provide desired identification mark, since applicant does not disclose the width of the groove solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the width of the groove is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 11, Notsu teaches a pitch (pitch; see the annotation of fig.2) of the plurality of grooves exceeds the width (See fig.2, pitch exceed the width of the groove).
Regarding claim 13, Notsu does not explicitly teach an average length of roughness curve elements of the roughened area, which are measured along a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of each groove of the plurality of grooves, is 50 µm to 150 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the average length of roughness curve elements of the roughened area of Notsu to be 50 µm to 150 µm, in order to provide desired identification mark, since applicant does not disclose the average length of roughness curve elements of the roughened area to be 50 µm to 150 µm solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the value of the average length of roughness curve elements of the roughened area is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 14, Notsu does not explicitly teach a first arithmetic average roughness of each groove of the plurality of grooves, which are measured along an extending direction of the groove, is 1.5 μm to 3.0 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the first arithmetic average roughness of each groove of the plurality of grooves of Notsu to be 1.5 μm to 3.0 μm, in order to provide desired identification mark, since applicant does not disclose the first arithmetic average roughness of each groove of the plurality of grooves to be1.5 μm to 3.0 μm solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the value of first arithmetic average roughness of each groove of the plurality of grooves is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 15, Notsu does not explicitly teach a first maximum height of each groove of the plurality of grooves, which is measured along an extending direction of the groove, is 10 μm to 40 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the first maximum height of each groove of the plurality of grooves of Notsu to be 10 μm to 40 μm, in order to provide desired identification mark, since applicant does not disclose the first maximum height of each groove of the plurality of grooves to be 10 μm to 40 μm solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the value of first maximum height of each groove of the plurality of is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 16, Notsu teaches a value of a ratio of a second maximum height of each groove of the plurality of grooves to the first maximum height is 1 to 2, wherein the second maximum height of the groove is measured along an orthogonal direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the groove (see fig.2 the groove height are identical in each direction. Hence the ratio of the first and the second maximum height of the groove is 1.).
Regarding claim 18, Notsu does not explicitly teach a pitch of the plurality of grooves is 3 μm or more and 1,000 μm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the pitch of the plurality of grooves of Notsu to be 3 μm or more and 1,000 μm or less., in order to provide desired identification mark, since applicant does not disclose the pitch of the plurality of grooves to be 3 μm or more and 1,000 μm or less solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore the value of pitch of the plurality of grooves is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), applicant amended claims 9 and 12 filed on 03/28/2026, which overcome the claim rejection. Therefore the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Notsu does not teach or suggest "the roughened area [comprising] a plurality of grooves formed within the glass of the surface of the glass plate" as amended claim 9 recites.”
Examiner respectfully disagree. The claim limitation recited “an identification mark comprising a roughened area on a glass on a surface of the plate” and “the roughened area comprises a plurality of grooves formed within the glass of the surface of the glass plate” in claim 9. Examiner interpreted the groove is a part of the plate. Notsu teaches a glass plate with an identification mark 100. and the identification mark 100 comprises a plurality of grooves. Hence the grooves formed with in the glass plate.
Therefore, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
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 CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights