DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 110054406 machine translation provided) in view of Wakabayashi (JP 2006/120389 machine translation provided), Matsumoto et al. (JP 2004203690 machine translation provided), and Sakai (CN 103030264 machine translation provided). Bai teaches a method for cutting a corner of a glass sheet for display glass, the method comprising providing a cutting line 11 at a corner of a rectangular glass sheet where a first sideline and a second sideline intersect (2nd passage on page 7, figure 1) and dividing the glass sheet along the cutting line by applying a pressure so as to break the glass sheet along the cutting line (9th passage on page 7, figures 2 and 4). It also appears from figure 1, the corner removed forms approximately 45° angles with respect to each of the sidelines of the glass sheet. Nonetheless, the cut angles would be a matter of design choice that would be obvious to one skilled in the art. For example, Wakabayashi also teaches cutting a corner of a glass sheet for display glass (abstract, “corner portion...obliquely cut off” in top passage on 3rd page, 8th-9th passages on 3rd page, fig. 3), wherein the angles produced by the cut corner are 45° with respect to the sidelines (3rd passage on page 4). Wakabayashi teaches the 45° corner helps prevent cracking and chipping of the glass substrate during heating process or positioning during display panel manufacturing (5th passage on page 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for cut corners having 45° angles with the sidelines, as Wakabayashi teaches this helps prevent cracking and chipping of the glass substrate during heating process or positioning during display panel manufacturing. However, Bai doesn’t specify how the cutting line 11 is formed. In a similar fashion to Bai, Matsumoto teaches a method for cutting a glass sheet comprising providing for a cutting line and applying a breaking force along the cutting line (abstract). Matsumoto teaches providing for the cutting line by scoring the glass sheet (bottom of page 3). Matsumoto also teaches scoring the glass sheet along multiple cutting lines to produce the desire shape, including sidelines and a turn with corners. Matsumoto teaches traditional scoring comprising a continuous cutting line would not produce satisfactory result when trying to produce corners having a wide angle, as the breaking force would produce chips ([0007]-[0009]). For producing corners having wide angle relative to the sideline, Matsumoto suggests instead to provide for discontinuous cutting lines. More specifically, Matsumoto teaches scoring a C-cut line segment that does not intersect any sideline and dividing the glass sheet along the C-cut line segment and an extension of the C-cut line segment ([0012], [0018]), wherein the C-cut line segment or an extension of the C-cut line segment and the sideline are connected at an interior angle wider than 90° but narrower than 140°, i.e. 115° (from 180°-60°). Matsumoto teaches providing for a gap between the cutting lines allows for easier breaking of the glass sheet along the cutting lines without damage and chipping ([0016]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly provided for the cutting line of Bai by scoring the glass sheet at the core with a C-cut line segment that does not intersect with either of the sidelines, so as to prevent damage and chipping when applying the breaking force for dividing the glass sheet, as taught by Matsumoto.
Bai shows a rectangular glass sheet in figure 1, comprising a corner at which a first sideline and a second sideline intersect at 90°. Naturally, when applying the corner scoring method of Matsumoto for the corner cutting methods of Bai and Wakabayashi to produce cut corners with 45° angles, the method would include scoring a C-cut line segment along a C-cut line segment that does not intersect the first or second sideline and dividing the glass sheet along the C-cut line segment and an extension of the C-cut line segment, wherein the first sideline and the at least one C-cut line segment or an extension of the at least one C-cut line segment to be connected at an interior angle (i.e. 135°) wider than the first interior angle and 90° but narrower than 140°, and the at least one C-cut line segment or the extension of the at least one C-cut line segment and the second sideline to be connected at an interior angle (i.e. 135°) wider than the first interior angle and 90° but narrower than 140°.
Bai provides for a glass sheet to be used as display glass, but is silent regarding cutting a glass sheet along a first sideline and along a second sideline intersecting the first sideline. Sakai teaches it is well known to provide for glass sheets by cutting parent sheets into smaller glass sheets, wherein the cutting comprises cutting along at least one first sideline and along at least one second sideline intersecting the first sideline (abstract, [0001], [0063], [0081], [0086], figures 1, 11, and 13). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the glass sheet of Bai by cutting a parent glass sheet along at least a first sideline and at least a second sideline that intersects the first sideline to provide for rectangular glass sheets suitable for further processing into display glass, as Sakai teaches it is a well-known process.
Regarding claim 2, Bai shows a rectangular glass sheet in figure 1, which would comprise of corners having an interior angle of 90° and Sakai teaches providing for glass sheets that are rectangular ([0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai teaches cutting rectangular substrates, which requires the first and second sidelines to be straight lines that form 90° angles ([0018, figure 1]), and thus are each defined by a single functional formula. Bail teaches the C-cut line is a straight line (“shapes matched with cutting line” in 7th passage on page 2, “three sides are straight lines” in top passage on page 6), thus it is defined by a single functional formula.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN 110054406 machine translation provided) in view of Wakabayashi (JP 2006/120389 machine translation provided), Matsumoto et al. (JP 2004203690 machine translation provided), and Sakai (CN 103030264 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (2015/0259237). Wakabayashi also teaches further processing of the glass sheet by chamfering all the end face edges (passage bridging pages 3-4) and rounding of the corners by rounding a first sideline, the C-cut line segment, and the second sideline in a single continuous process (see arrow in figure 4, 10th passage on page 3), wherein chamfering and rounding is performed by grinding, so as to provide a glass panel suitable for use in displace panels. However, Wakabayashi does not suggest chamfering with heat. Kwon teaches chamfering by grinding is a well-known process for finishing a glass panel for panel displays, but such processes have drawbacks, including glass particles, breakage, and surface scratches ([0002], [0007]). Regarding claim 5, Kwon teaches an alternative to chamfering by grinding, is heat chamfering ([0011]). Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches heat chamfering comprises contacting the edge of the glass panel with a hot body (figure 3, [0014]), so as to peel the edge of glass panel ([0030], [0048], fig. 4). As can be seen in figures 3 and 5, the hot body has a conical contact part ([0045]), and at least one point in an effective heating portion of a periphery of the hot body is in contact with a non-chamfered point on the glass panel during the heat-chamfering of the edge of the non-chamfered glass panel ([0026]), which would naturally provide for a center angle of the effective heating portion that is in contact with the glass panel that ranges from 0° to 30°. Regarding claim 6, Kwon teaches heat chamfering a first sideline, the corner, and a second sideline in a single continuous process (fig. 5, [0049]). Kwon teaches heat chamfering provides for the peeling of the glass edge without generating glass particles ([0048]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively provided for heat chamfering of the edges of the glass panel by contacting the edges with a hot body so as to peel the edges, wherein heating chamfering of all of the edges are performed in a continuous process, in the process of Gaume and Wakabayashi, so to provided chamfered edges while preventing glass particles and/or surface scratches, as taught by Kwon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 3 under Guame and Wakabayashi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bai, Matsumoto, and Sakai.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights