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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (s) (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, and 7 are amended. Claims 11 and 12 are added. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 12/22/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 103, pages 6-11 in regard to Amended Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5 and 7.
New Claim 11, page 12.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
the process of Bookbinder to fabricate the glass item is a “relatively low forming temperature”
in contrast to conventional methods of forming a glass item that are “high temperature”.
the process of Bookbinder occurs at ambient temperature and the glass item temperature is not
100°C.
the method of Bookbinder may work without rotation of the glass with the laser rotating and,
in this scenario, would require a “soft gripping material” (such as rubber) , and that such a soft
gripping material cannot withstand “high temperatures”. The Bookbinder process can only work
at low temperatures where the glass is rotated for separation. Bookbinder either rotates a glass
around a glass item or the gripping equipment required will not withstand “high temperature”
Additionally, in the glass rotating option described in Bookbinder does not disclose or suggest
the claimed:
" moving a mobile equipment at a substantially constant distance from said glass item,
" regulating the distance between the mobile equipment and an edge of said
glass item as said glass item is rotating,
The substantially constant distance from the glass item is recited neither in [0033], nor in
[0034], "account for the simultaneous motion of the glass article" indicates a kind of
synchronization but neither constant distance, nor regulation.
the process of Bookbinder, with a glass item above 100°C, fails to teach firing a laser beam ...
towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature
filamentation of said glass item edge is performed."
the claimed filamentation method works at high temperature with a fixed laser accompanying a
rotating glass item.
The proposed combination of the teachings of Noguchi is antithetical with Bookbinder,
Noguchi teaching the glass piece is preheated to a temperature above 200 °C, and the PHOSITA would not have taken from Noguchi the temperature of 200°C since it is in straight contradiction with Bookbinder and it would require to redesign all the steps of Bookbinder.
The glass piece is rotated and then irradiated with CO2 laser beams; a flame jet is sent to the focus site of the laser beams for heat at the same time a localized site of the glass part; the device of Noguchi has a high energy consumption
"It would have been obvious.... to preheat the moil of Bookbinder per Noguchi to reduce the potential of the glass article from rapidly heating and cracking". The assertion neglects (1) the fact that Bookbinder requires a cold cutting, (2) that the application is looking for high quality products as indicated in [2]: "A second alternative is to cut the glass cold using a high-power CO2 laser beam performing glass cutting-off. Cutting-off leaves defects on the cut surface, in particular flaking.
The Applicant further outlines the benefits of the application post separation.
With respect to Lesche,
Lesche does not disclose or suggest "a glass item... at a temperature above 100°C" and "firing a
laser beam ... towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature filamentation of said glass item edge is performed" as defined by amended claim 1. Lesche specifically teaches separation being cold according to Par. [0071].
Fails to teach or suggest the claimed "moving a mobile equipment at a substantially constant distance from said glass item".
teaches a two-steps laser glass cutting process. Amended claim 1 defines is a single step of "firing a laser beam ... towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature filamentation of said glass item edge is performed."
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
a), b) Bookbinder uses the terms “high temperature” and “low temperature” in a relative
sense, without specificity, only alluding to not using a “high temperature” for glass forming in
the Bookbinder process and therefore boron is not substantially volatilized; boron in glass
volatilizes between 200°C and 500°C depending on total glass composition. Further, while the
Bookbinder process takes place at ambient temperature, Bookbinder states it would be
advantageous to laser cut the glass article immediately after rough cutting station 130 to “take
advantage of the elevated temperature of the glass article after draw from glass synthesis
station 110 to allow for separation” as the glass article cools to room temperature [0053], which
suggests the glass article itself is not as room temperature, which provides a nexus to the 200°C
pre-heating of Noguchi. Hence the argument is moot.
c) Bookbinder is not relied upon to teach gripping options of the glass article. Bookbinder is relied
upon to teach aspects of the laser system. The features upon which applicant relies (the
gripping options as related to temperature) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). As noted
above, Bookbinder uses the terms “high temperature” and “low temperature” in a relative
sense, without specificity. There are many different types of rubber which may be temperature
resistant. As well, Bookbinder notes the use of polytetrafluoroethylene.
Polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE) is a common material used it in the glass industry with
continuous service temperatures of ~260°C. The Examiner would also like to note the Applicant
has misquoted Bookbinder, in that Bookbinder cites the use of “compliant gripping material”
not “soft gripping material”. “Compliant” and “soft” are not necessarily synonymous. Example:
a thin metal strip is compliant (can bend easily) but is not soft. Bookbinder also cites the
possible use of an air-bearing for the spindle to hold the glass article, eliminating any contact
with the glass item with another material [0046]. Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply
with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or
she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or
the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or
objections. Hence the argument is moot.
d) The item relied upon by the Applicant, “the substantially constant distance from the glass item”
is not recited in this portion of the claim. The Claim recites the glass and mobile equipment are
moving jointly, and a BRI of “jointly” is moving at the same moment in time. Bookbinder
teaches the glass items and laser assembly may be moving at the same time. Further Lesche is
relied upon for teaching constant distance between the laser assembly and the glass item.
Hence the argument is moot.
e), f) the Examiner is in agreement as this is the basis for amended claim 1. Yet, the claimed
filamentation method works at “high temperature” is a relative term which provides a level of
indefiniteness to the claim that needs to be addressed by the Applicant. As well, the
combination of Noguchi (200°C moil) and Lesche (filamentation) does teach high temperature
filamentation. Hence the argument is moot.
g)
i) As noted above, Bookbinder cites taking advantage of the elevated temperature of the glass
article after draw from glass synthesis station 110 to allow for separation [0053], which is not in contraction to Noguchi. Further, the Examiner wished to remind the Applicant that , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in anyone or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hence the argument is moot.
ii) The features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). ]. Further,
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because
they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in
view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further,
they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence the
argument is moot.
iii) As noted above, Bookbinder (1) does not require cold cutting, as Bookbinder cites taking
advantage of the elevated temperature of the glass article after draw from glass synthesis
station 110 to allow for separation [0053]. Further, in (2), although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence the argument is moot.
iv) Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence the argument is moot.
Lesche is relied upon to teach a relative position of the mobile equipment with respect to an
edge of said glass item. Lesche does not teach separation being cold; , “the cap 32 can be
separated from the drinking glass 12 in a next processing station. In order to reliably loosen the
cap 32 from the glass, energy is preferably injected specifically in the form of heat at the
separation surface or separation line 24 (filament line)( [0071], lines 2-15). Further, Lesche can
be relied upon to teach filamentation , as Lesche cites “ After filaments (perforations) have been
introduced in particular along the entire periphery of the glass..” ([0071, line 1). Hence the
argument is moot.
Lesche is not relied upon to teach "moving a mobile equipment at a substantially constant
distance from said glass item". Hence the argument is moot.
While the single step of the amended claim exists as the Applicant states, The Examiner wishes
to remind the applicant that in general, no invention is involved in the broad concept of
performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re
Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125. Further, the step of separating the moil, as it is written in the claim,
may come from the laser filamentation or could be a separate operation from the laser
filamentation.
As the combination of Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche combined teach the amended Claim 1,
the Claim 1 rejection is maintained. As argument for Claims 2-5 and Claim 7 are the same as
Claim 1, the Examiner response to arguments for Claims 2-5 and Claim 7 are same as Claim 1.
Hence the rejection for Claims 2-5 and Claim 7 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 11 the Applicant argues that,
None of the cited references mention ovalization.
The example machine has as sensor that measures ovalization, spec paragraphs [0034], [0041].
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
respectfully disagree. Lesche teaches the processing of the hollow glass product by means of
the laser beam involves a tracking of a focus point of the laser beam such that the tracking
involves: a determining of an ovality and/or residual eccentricity of the hollow glass product
along the separation line; and a displacement of an optical unit in a direction perpendicular to
the rotational axis during a rotation of the glass in order to guide the focus point of the laser
beam on the determined ovality and/or residual eccentricity (Claim 5).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained as well as the additional below.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Regarding Claim 12 – “uniformity of laser energy distribution” is a structural limitation, as it is an outcome of the method “to adjust and ensure”.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claims 12: the surface of the curvature of the item/ a surface of glass item.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 is/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 1 - The term “high temperature” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature ” 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. “High temperature filamentation” is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12 – it is unclear the meaning of the term “normal tracking”, rendering the claim indefinite. The word “normal” could mean “usual” or “perpendicular to”. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner may use either meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20160009586A1 by Bookbinder et. al (herein “Bookbinder”) and in further view of JPS6126530A
(as in the IDS dated 06/14/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith)
by Noguchi et. al (herein “Noguchi”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20190016623A1 by Lesche et. al.
(herein “Lesche”).
Regarding Claim 1 -
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
A method for manufacturing a hollow item made of glass; Fig. 1A, element 10, [0027], claim 21.
the method comprising:
receiving a glass item associated with a moil; See annotated Fig. 7B below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
setting a glass article in a conveying direction; [0033], Fig. 6, “specifically as shown in Fig. 6 it is
contemplated that the glass article 10 may be moved translationally, for example by a conveyor
120…”
and rotating about an axis of the glass item; [0032], “...the glass article may be
supported on a spindle 230 which is rotated by a chuck 240 member. The glass article 10
rotates with the rotating spindle 230.”
moving a mobile equipment at a substantially constant distance from said glass item;
[0034], Fig. 8A], “As stated above and as depicted in FIGS. 8A and 8B, the pulsed laser assembly
210 may comprises a rotational arm 205 configured to rotate the laser focal line 220 about the
glass article 10. As shown, the pulsed laser assembly comprises one or more mirrors 215 A-C
couple to and rotating with the rotational arm 205.” Here, the mechanical rotation of the
rotational arm 205 would provide a substantially constant distance from the glass item 20.
regulating the distance between the mobile equipment and an edge of said glass item; [0033],
“…because the pulse laser assembly must account for the simultaneous motion of the
glass article 10. As a result, the pulse laser assembly may rotate on a non-circular path, for
example, a helical path”, suggesting the distance between the pulse laser assembly and the
glass article is regulated due to the rotation of the glass article.
as said glass item is rotating and the mobile equipment and said glass item are jointly moving;
[0032],[0033], “..the glass article may be supported on a spindle which is rotated by a
chuck…the glass article rotates and moves relative to the pulsed laser assembly. Alternatively,
the pulsed laser assembly 210 may rotate about the glass article 10”, “ Furthermore while FIGS
1A-2B depict motion of either the glass article 10 relative to the pulsed laser assembly 210 or
conversely motion of the pulsed laser assembly 210 relative to the article 10, both components
may be moving at the same time”.
and firing a laser beam from an optics supported by the mobile equipment; [0034], “As stated
above and as depicted in FIGS. 8A and 8B, the pulsed laser assembly 210 may comprises a
rotational arm 205 configured to rotate the laser focal line 220 about the glass article 10. As
shown, the pulsed laser assembly comprises one or more mirrors 215 A-C couple to and
rotating with the rotational arm 205.”
towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature filamentation
of said glass item edge is performed, and separating the moil from the glass
item. ; [0029], [0048], FIGS. 3A/B,[0053], FIG. 7B “As shown, the perforation line 20 includes a
plurality of spaced perforations 22, which are glass defects, recesses, indents, or holes carved
into the glass by the pulsed laser”, “Referring to FIGS. 3A and 3B, with suitable laser
intensity along the laser bean focal line 220b of focus length 1, the extended laser beam focal
line 220b produces perforations in the glass article 10”, “Further as shown in FIG. 5, the glass
separation station 140 may include…an addition thermal treatment or additional laser
treatment”. See annotated FIG. 7B above.
While Bookbinder states it would be advantageous to laser cut the glass article immediately after rough
cutting station 130 to take advantage of the elevated temperature of the glass article after draw from
glass synthesis station 110 to allow for separation[0053], Bookbinder fails to teach a specific
temperature in that,
receiving a glass item associated with a moil at a temperature above 100°C
In the same field of endeavor as laser cutting hollow glass articles, Noguchi teaches a moil that, before
cutting, is preheated by a gas burner to 200°C or above, and below the softening temperature of the
glass; [0001], lines 24-32. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preheat the moil of Bookbinder per Noguchi to
reduce the potential of the glass article from rapidly heating and cracking by the irradiation of the laser
beam in the next process, as noted by Noguchi ([0001], lines 32-34).
While Bookbinder teaches a movement of the mobile equipment with respect to the edge of the
glass (rotation arm 205 rotating the pulsed laser assembly around the glass article 10, fig. 8A),
Bookbinder fails to teach wherein,
identifying a relative position of the mobile equipment with respect to an edge of said glass
item.
In the similar endeavor of using a laser to separate excess glass (puffer cap) from a rotating hollow
glass article, Lesche teaches a tracking of a focus point of a laser beam which involves a determining of
an ovality and/or residual eccentricity of the hollow glass product along the separation line
([0020]). This is accomplished by having the optical unit 40 of the laser on a traveling slide system 42
([0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the traveling slide system for tracking the
laser focus point in relation to the glass ovality (glass edge) of Lesche into the
laser in the pulsed laser assembly of Bookbinder, being motivated to do so to ensure the
the separation line ultimately also lies in a plane parallel to the glass bottom, as noted by Lesche ([0020],
lines 21-22).
While Bookbinder teaches using a laser to create glass defects, recesses, indents, or holes carved
into the glass by the pulsed laser ([0029]), Bookbinder fails to teach,
towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature filamentation
of said glass item edge is performed, and separating the moil from the glass item
In the same field of endeavor as laser cutting hollow glass articles, Noguchi teaches a moil that, before
cutting, is preheated by a gas burner to 200°C or above, and below the softening temperature of the
glass; [0001], lines 24-32. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preheat the moil of Bookbinder per Noguchi to
reduce the potential of the glass article from rapidly heating and cracking by the irradiation of the laser
beam in the next process, as noted by Noguchi ([0001], lines 32-34).
While Noguchi teaches a “high temperature “ of the moil (200°C) during laser cutting, Noguchi fails to
teach,
towards said edge of said glass item to generate holes whereby high temperature filamentation
of said glass item edge is performed, and separating the moil from the glass item
Lesche further teaches using a pulsed laser for filamentation in a method for separating the excess glass
in the production of hollow glass products. This method comprises a centering of a hollow glass product
in a receiving device, which is designed to hold the hollow glass product and to rotate about a rotational
axis. The method involves a processing of the hollow glass product in a plurality of positions along the
separation line by means of a laser beam in order to generate local filaments with a weakened (or
altered/damaged) glass structure during a rotation of the hollow glass product about the rotational axis
([0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to create filaments by the pulsed laser cutting process of Lesche in the
pulsed laser cutting process of Bookbinder, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of processing
glasses with thicker walls, for which it is advantageous to bring about the filament formation, as noted
by Lesche ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 2 – Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
a tiltable portion of the movable equipment is tilted; [ 0035], [0039], “…the laser beam
is...directed to the moving mirrors 215A and the optical assembly 211, which thereby enables
the pulsed laser beam focal line 220 to travel rotationally”, “ the laser beam focal line 220 may
be delivered to the lateral surface at an angle of incidence…foe example the angle of incidence
may be perpendicular to the lateral surface…”
so that the laser beam is perpendicular to a zone of said glass item receiving said laser beam.
Regarding Claim 3 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
the laser beam has a power of between 0.1mJ and 1 mJ; [0040], “In one or more embodiments ,
the laser beam can have an average laser energy measured at the material of less than…500uJ
“. 500 microjoules = 0.5millijoules, or 0.5mJ, converted.
Regarding Claim 4 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
the laser beam has a frequency greater than 50 kHz; [0037], “For example, the pulse repetition
frequency can in a range of between 10kHz and 1000kHz”.
Regarding Claim 5 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
a pulse duration of laser firing is between 10-15 and 10-12 s.; [0037], “For example, a laser beam
pulse duration may be…less than 10 picoseconds”. The instant claim is a pulse duration
between 1 femtosecond ( 10-15 s) and 1 picosecond (10-12 s). Overlapping ranges are prima facie
evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior
to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Bookbinders
pulse duration temperature that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One
would have been motivated to do so as part of an effort to hinder ablation or melting, as noted
by Bookbinder ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 7 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches wherein,
the mobile equipment is moved laterally to accompany the glass item; [0032], “Alternatively, as
shown in FIG. 2A, it is contemplated that the pulsed laser assembly may rotate about the glass
article to achieve the relative motion that facilitates the formation of the perforation
line…while the relative motion in FIGS. 1A-2B is rotational, translation or other modes of
relative motion are also considered…
and to move on to a next rim in a production line; [0033], “Without being bound by theory, in
glass manufacturing where parts are produced in rapid succession, embodiments where the
glass article 10 and pulsed laser assembly 210 are simultaneously in motion may increase glass
production…”
Regarding Claim 11 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder fails to teach,
in conjunction with the firing the laser beam, an ovalization measurement system measures a
distance as rotating glass items pass and corrects position of a focal point over an entire
periphery of the glass items.
Lesche teaches the processing of the hollow glass product by means of the laser beam that involves a
tracking of a focus point of the laser beam such that the tracking involves: a determining of an ovality
and/or residual eccentricity of the hollow glass product along the separation line…this ovality is
preferably detected individually for each glass and the focus point is guided accordingly in a plane
perpendicular to the rotational axis [0020]. Further, by means of this…ovality measurement (cam disk),
the optical unit of the laser being used can thus follow the glass surface (even when the ovality of the
drinking glass 12 is large) over the entire periphery. A predetermined offset value defines the spacing
between the optics and the glass. In order for the optical unit to move in linear manner, it must be
secured to a traveling slide system. The slide system with the optics secured to it is preferably motor
operated. FIG. 6A shows a sample optical unit 40 of a laser for the processing of the glass 12. By a slide
system 42, the optical unit 40 can track an ovality of the glass 12 upon rotation [0064].
Lesche specifically uses the term “ovality” and the laser beam focus point is guided on this ovality of the
glass item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ovalization measurement/tracking system of
Lesche into the method of Bookbinder, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of ensuring the
focal point of the laser is changed in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the rotation unit and
that the separation line being produced is parallel to the glass bottom, as noted by Lesche ([0064], lines
15-17).
While Lesche teaches obtaining the ovality of the glass item first, then laser cutting the glass
(two separate operations), no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously
operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20160009586A1 by Bookbinder et. al (herein “Bookbinder”) and in further view of JPS6126530A
(as in the IDS dated 06/14/2023) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith)
by Noguchi et. al (herein “Noguchi”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20190016623A1 by Lesche et. al.
(herein “Lesche”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,839, 005 by Meyer (herein “Meyer”).
Regarding Claim 6 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches laser separation for a rotated glass article ([0032]) using a pulse laser technique
using a laser that is transparent to soda lime glass and borosilicate glass, like an Nd:YAG laser ([0038], to
create a perforation line on the glass article for a wide range of glass products (including bowls, beakers,
cannisters, jars, flasks, tubes, pharmaceutical) [0027], wherein the intensity of the laser (power) induces
localized heating along the beam focal line which leads to crack formation due to thermal stress in the
material [0040].
But Bookbinder fails to teach a rotational speed of the glass article wherein,
the rotational speed of said glass item is greater than 50 revolutions per minute.
In the similar endeavor of using a laser to severe hollow glass articles (rod, tumblers, tubing) Meyer
teaches using a laser to severe high coefficient of expansion glasses (soda lime) by rotating the glass
article on its axis (Col 1 lines 34-46, Col 4 lines 43-46) using a concentrated CO2 laser beam that
repeatedly traces a linear pattern around the glass article while rotated, until stresses caused by
temperature differential of adjacent regions cause the glass article to crack cleanly along the laser line
(Col 1 lines 44-50). An example is a footed goblet with a moil containing rim (Col 3 lines 20-23). This
article was severed successfully, at the laser power used, at rotational speeds of 200 rpm (revolutions
per minute) (Col 4 lines 33-36). Further, Meyer states “ As a rule, higher speeds are preferred for higher
power lasers…to rotate the article sufficiently rapidly to prevent energy build-up…from reaching the
point where the beam would burn through the wall” [Col 4 lines 38-43]. As such, rotational speed is
results-effective variable. Meyer discloses the claimed invention except for rotational speeds for other
types of lasers and different laser power used for laser separation. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize
a rotation speed for the laser type and laser power of Bookbinder, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize the rotations speed for the purpose of obtaining a rotation
speed in relationship to the power of the laser unit to avoid a burning of the edge of the glass article
with a lower count of glass particles, as noted by Meyer (Col 4 lines 15-22). It is well settled that
determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within
the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20160009586A1 by
Bookbinder et. al (herein “Bookbinder”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20150166395A1 by
Marjanovic et. al. (herein “Marjanovic”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20060191883A1 by Wessner
(herein “Wessner”).
Regarding Claim 12 - Bookbinder, Noguchi and Lesche teach all of the limitations in Claim 1 in the
rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches,
the laser beam is deflected until it reaches an exit lens; Fig. 5, elements 215A-C mirrors deflect
the beam from the bean device 218 until it reaches and exits the optical assembly 211 [0034],
where the optical assembly contains a focusing optical element 215 which can be a convex lens
[0047]. Also, the laser beam is deflected between optical elements 216 and 219 before exiting
optical element 219 in Fig. 3A.
While Bookbinder teaches the potential for “other optics” for the optical element 219, such as an
axicon, Bookbinder fails to teach all of the following,
a Bessel-type annular beam on which uniformity of laser energy distribution depends.
In a similar endeavor as cutting glass articles with pulsed laser assembly, Marjanovic teaches a system
for laser cutting at least one glass sheet article is provided. Further, the generation of a line focus may
be performed by sending a Gaussian laser beam into an axicon lens, in which case a beam profile known
as a Gauss-Bessel beam is created [0071]. “ The spot diameter D of a Bessel beam can be written
as…”[0076], indicating an annular beam. Marjanovic teaches the claimed invention except for use on a
hollow glass item. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Bessel-type annular beam of Marjanovic in the
pulse laser system of Bookbinder, with one being motivated to do so in that such a beam diffracts much
more slowly (e.g. may maintain single micron spot sizes for ranges of hundreds of microns or millimeters
as opposed to few tens of microns or less) than a Gaussian beam. Hence the depth of focus or length of
intense interaction with the material may be much larger than when using a Gaussian beam only, as
noted by Marjanovic [0071].
Marjanovic teaches delivery beam optics used with galvo mirrors/scanners allow for rapid adjustment of
the laser beam in an x/y direction, by deflecting the beam parallel and perpendicular to the scan axis,
[0133], but fails to teach,
the exit lens comprises two mirrors enabling a nosepiece of the optics to be rotated for normal
tracking on the surface of the curvature of the item
In an analogous endeavor of rotating lasers to perform work on a curved surface, Wessner teaches
a method, for example, for laser welding three-dimensional components [0002]. The laser head of the
laser beam has a deflecting mirror (beam divider) and a focusing mirror (beam focuser( which can be
moved via two axis of rotation in three directions to optimally process a weld seem, which would
suggest rotation around the component the component normal to the surface of the component. See
Fig.2, Fig. 3., [0008], [0009], [0022].
Wessner teaches the claimed invention except for the mirrors comprising part of an exit lens. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention add the mirrors and two-axis nosepiece of Wessner to after the exit lens of
Bookbinder, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of varying the output direction of the laser
head while maintaining focus of the laser, as noted by Wessner [0007].
and using a two-axis adjustment system of the nosepiece to adjust and ensure homogeneity of
a Bessel-type annular beam.
Wessner further teaches that the laser head has two rotatable housings [0022] where the housings
being rotatable with respect to the beam guidance system about a positioning axis not only varies the
output direction of the laser head but also maintains focus of the beam, which one skilled on the art
could understand to mean maintaining homogeneity of the beam.
Wessner teaches the claimed invention except for use for laser cutting hollow (three-dimensional) glass
articles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention add the two-axis nosepiece for homogeneity adjustment of Wessner
to after the exit lens of Bookbinder, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of beam
homogeneity. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or
possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present. In re Sernaker,
217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
on which uniformity of laser energy distribution depends. See Claim Interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent 10,047,001 by West teaches Bessel beams, pulse laser assembly, micro-mirror arrays
USPGPUB 20170259375A1 by Kumkar et. al teaches Bessel beams, laser beam shaping, intensity profile, mirrors, elongated propagation direction.
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 Hindenlang can be reached on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741