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) 1-11, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 10-2021-0143356) referred to as ‘356 herein after cited in the machine translation as filed and Fujikawa (US 5704493).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8-10 and 21-27, ‘356 discloses a cassette for loading glass, the cassette comprising:
a first frame (141/142) extending in a first direction;
a second frame (143/144) spaced apart from the first frame in a second direction intersecting the first direction; in Fig below.
a first support (132A/132B) coupled to the first frame; and a second support (134A/134B) coupled to the second frame
the first support bar comprising a support bar (130A/B) defining a first plurality of grooves
the second support bar comprising a support bar defining a second plurality of grooves (130B1) facing the first plurality of grooves as shown in Fig 1 and 3.
The figure of ‘356 included below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DR1- first direction, DR2- second direction, DR3- third direction
PNG
media_image3.png
474
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the plurality of grooves are spaced apart from each other in the first direction as depicted in Fig 1
the plurality of first grooves extends in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction as shown in Fig 3 the support grooves having first and second surfaces.
‘356 has a flat bottom of the groove with angled side portions of the groove and ‘356 does not show or discuss the support has a plurality of protrusions on the inner surfaces of the grooves.
In an analogous art of a holder having support grooves for holding glass substrates Fujikawa discloses the support grooves (22) that are curved U-shaped grooves as depicted in Fig. 7A-7B
PNG
media_image4.png
382
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and discusses grooves may have adjacent projections (25) on the inner surfaces of said grooves to secure and support the substrates being held. (Fig 11A Col 7; lines 26-39)
PNG
media_image5.png
334
702
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to change the groove shape of ‘356 with the curved groove taught in analogous art Fujikawa as a known groove shape for holding a flat glass substrate. MPEP2144.04 indicates In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. The curved bottom in place of the flat bottom does not appear to have significance in holding the glass substrate.
It would be further obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the holder grooves of ‘356 as motivated to secure and support the substrates within the grooves and provide additional projections facing any direction within the groove because a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and a skilled artisan would be motivated to have the direction of the projection facing the substrate, including the claimed third direction, from any location in the groove as motivated to secure said substrate.
Regarding claim 2, ‘356 discloses a fluoride resin of Teflon for contacting the glass (claim 7), it would be obvious to make the modification with protrusions of the same material.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 11, the combined teachings of ‘356 and disclose grooves with protrusions for securely holding glass substrates in a holder. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the protrusion any of the shapes recited in claims 4-6 because it has been held obvious the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed protrusion was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Alternatively a skilled artisan would be motivated to try a variety of shaped protrusions with an expectation protrusions of any shape can put necessary force against a substrate and secure it withing the groove.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2011235963) referred to as ‘963 herein after cited in the machine translation provided herein and Fujikawa (US 5704493).
Regarding claims 1, 8-10 and 26, ‘963 discloses a cassette for loading glass, the cassette comprising:
a first frame (14a) extending in a first direction indicated by Y in the Figures 1-2 included below;
a second frame (14b) spaced apart from the first frame in a second direction intersecting the first direction, said second direction labeled by the double arrow in the annotated Fig 2 below;
PNG
media_image6.png
704
1042
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Slot plates (20), comprising a first support coupled to the first frame; and a second support coupled to the second frame as depicted in ‘963 Figure 4.
‘963 discloses a plurality of first grooves (22 or 22’) are defined in the first support, the plurality of first grooves (22 or 22’) are spaced apart from each other in the first direction [0032]-[0034], [0037], labeled as X, each of the plurality of first grooves extends in a third direction, labeled as Y, in the annotated Figure 2 above intersecting the first direction, labeled as X, and the second direction depicted by the double arrow, in Figure 2 above. A close up on the support is depicted in Fig 3a-b included below:
PNG
media_image7.png
286
492
media_image7.png
Greyscale
‘963 discloses fixing protrusions 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d, as depicted in Fig 10. Claimed protrusions referred to as embossments in the translation of ‘963 to minimize contact between the groove surfaces and the substrate thus reduce degradation of the substrate. ‘963 further states the protrusions may be facing each other within the groove, offset and various configurations [0071].
In an analogous art of a holder having support grooves for holding glass substrates Fujikawa discloses the support grooves (22) that are curved U-shaped grooves as depicted in Fig. 7A-7B
PNG
media_image4.png
382
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to change the groove shape with the curved groove taught in analogous art Fujikawa as a known groove shape for holding a flat glass substrate. MPEP2144.04 indicates In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration was a matter of choice obvious absent persuasive evidence that the configuration was significant. The curved bottom in place of the flat bottom does not appear to have significance in holding the glass substrate.
It would further be obvious to skilled artisan to modify the direction of the projections 21a-d as motivated to minimize contact between the substrate and groove surface. A different shaped groove or different shaped substrate would require the projection shape and/or direction to be modified to accommodate said substrate perimeter within said groove.
‘963 discloses a plurality of second grooves facing the plurality of first grooves in the second direction are defined in the second support, the plurality of second grooves extends in the third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction having protrusions Fig 1-3 and 10.
Regarding claim 3, ‘963 discloses the plurality of the first protrusions are arranged to be adjacent to each other Fig. 10.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 11, ‘963 depicts the protrusion has a hemispherical shape Fig 10. And suggests a polygonal shape, elliptical shape.
Alternatively a skilled artisan would be motivated to try a variety of shaped protrusions with an expectation protrusions of any shape can prevent the substrate from full contact with the groove surfaces and reduce deterioration due to contact with the groove surface.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the groove of ‘963 with protrusions at the base or apex of the groove extending the third direction to reduce contact between the apex of the groove and the substrate as motivated to reduce deterioration [0071].
Regarding claim 21, the first frame (14a) comprises a first planar portion that defines a first plane including the first and third directions, and the second frame (14b) comprises a second planar portion that defines a second plane parallel to the first plane as depicted in the annotated Fig below.
PNG
media_image6.png
704
1042
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, the first support is coupled directly to a surface of the first frame facing the second frame, and the second support is coupled directly to a surface of the second frame facing the first frame [0037]-[0038].
Regarding claim 23, each of the plurality of first grooves extends continuously from opposite edges of the first support along the third direction, labeled as Y.
Regarding claim 24, depicts the grooves define a space therein, the protrusions are contained entirely within the space (Fig 10).
Regarding claim 25, ‘963 depicts the first protrusions protrude in a direction intersecting the second direction see protrusions in Fig 10 and placement of grooves in Fig 2.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2011235963) referred to as ‘963 herein after cited in the machine translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of (KR 10-2021-0143356) referred to as ‘356 herein after cited in the machine translation as filed previously.
Regarding claim 2, ‘963 discloses various PET resins for the apparatus [0069] however fails to precisely state the material of the protrusions or embossments for contacting a glass substrate.
Analogous art for supporting glass substrates ‘356 discloses a fluoride resin of Teflon for contacting the glass (claim 7), it would be obvious to modify the protrusions of ‘963 with Teflon as motivated that it is a suitable resin material for contacting glass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Choi includes a flat lateral surface at the base and it is specifically shaped with a flat surface at the base such that the edge of the glass is flush with the flat surface and adding a protrusion on the flat surface would not help secure the glass (Applicant remarks filed 02/02/2026 page 7).
This is a mere attorney argument not supported by the teachings of Choi. Choi does not specify the edge must be flush with the flat surface and Applicant fails to indicate how the modification of Choi with pluralities of protrusions indicated by Fujikawa as effective to secure and support the substrate (Fig 11A Col 7; lines 26-39). Applicant’s arguments fail to take into account the rejection as a whole or the motivation and combination of the prior art.
Furthermore, Choi actually discusses minimizing contact with the ultra-thin glass to minimize damage in the description of Fig 3-4 and as indicated in the rejection Fujikawa makes obvious providing protrusions effective to secure and support the substrate and a skilled artisan would further recognize a plurality or protrusions are less contact than the entire edge being flush with the holder.
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 Choi, 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).
This argument is further moot in view of the present rejection as necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument against Moon is moot based on the rejection required by the amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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