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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the embodiment of Lu (claim 8) teaches cleaning the edge of the glass substrate. Lu teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 including contacting the edge surface with the cleaning agent but is silent with respect to contacting being for a predetermined amount of time. It is already known within Lu to contact the edge surface with a cleaning agent. Mitake was simply relied upon as an example to generally show that contacting a surface with a cleaning agent is known to occur for a predetermined amount of time. Regardless if Mitake cleans the support plate or the substrate or the edge of the substrate, the “contact time” for the cleaning agent on a surface is known and reads on predetermined amount of time. The applicant appears to create another combination of the same references which does not reflect that of the examiner’s in the office action. The examiner’s motivation to combine the references is with respect to the benefits of predetermined contact time with the cleaning agent on the surface. The motivation does not regard the deficiencies of Lu which the applicant argues.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Lu with Mitake would lead a person in the art to focus on cleaning the load cup rather than the glass substrate, 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 any one 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). The combination of Lu with Mitake is used to show predetermined contact time being known. The examiner is not focusing on the support plate of Mitake or incorporating those teachings within that of Lu. The combination with Lu aims to highlight that the teachings within Lu are being modified by a known concept represented in Mitake.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to Mitake, Goldstein, Momono, and Stura, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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:
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 1-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0148892) and in view of Mitake et al. (PG Pub U.S 2011/0265815) as evidenced by Goldstein (PG Pub U.S 2005/0058836).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a method of cleaning a glass substrate (abstract and para 0017), the method comprising: contacting the glass substrate (para 0017) with a cleaning agent (para 0026), wherein the cleaning agent comprises a substance (carbon dioxide/dry ice) (para 0026 and claim 16) having a sublimation point in a range of from - 90 °C to -70 °C [-78.5°C as evidenced by Goldstein; para 0015] and the cleaning agent is dispersed in a gas carrier (para 0026-0027), and the contacting is limited to an edge region (claim 8, para 0016, and 0029) of the glass substrate including an edge between opposing major surfaces (para 0028-0029).
However, Lu fails to specifically teach the cleaning agent contacting for a predetermined amount of time. However, Mitake also teaches a method of cleaning a gas substrate wherein it is known for the cleaning agent to contact the substrate for a predetermined amount of time (para 0051-0054) in order to prevent cooling from the cleaning agent (para 0051) and to effectively clean the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu such that the cleaning agent contacts the substrate for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Mitake in order to prevent cooling from the cleaning agent and to effectively clean the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein the cleaning agent comprises a substance (carbon dioxide/dry ice) (para 0026 of Lu) having a sublimation point in a range of from -80 °C to -70 °C [-78.5°C as evidenced by Goldstein; para 0015].
Regarding claim 3, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein the substance of the cleaning agent is carbon dioxide in a solid form (para 0026 of Lu; ice particles reads on solid form).
Regarding claim 4, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein the gas carrier comprises a compressed gas (para 0026-0027 of Lu).
Regarding claim 5, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein the gas carrier comprises compressed atmospheric air or a compressed nitrogen (N2) gas (para 0026-0027 of Lu).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein a pressure of the gas carrier is in a range of 30 psi to 140 psi (2.07 Bar to 9.65 Bar reads on from 1 Bar to 7 Bar) (para 0026 of Lu). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein a pressure of the gas carrier is in a range of from 30 psi to 140 psi (2.07 Bar to 9.65 Bar reads on from 1.25 Bar to 4.5 Bar) (para 0026 of Lu). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein contacting the glass substrate comprises dispensing the cleaning agent from a dispensing apparatus (356/358D) (para 0026 and figs 3a-b of Lu).
Regarding claim 10, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the cleaning agent is dispensed at a rate in a range of from 0.10 kg/min to 0.70 kg/min. However, Mitake teaches that the contact time of the cleaning agent being dispensed is a result effective variable (para 0051-0054). The contact time/dispensing rate affects the cleaning efficiency and removal of matter (para 0051-0054). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate dispensing rate of the cleaning agent for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dispensing rate such that the cleaning agent is dispensed at a rate in a range of from 0.10 kg/min to 0.70 kg/min in order to effectively clean and remove matter from the substrate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the cleaning agent is dispensed at a rate in a range of from 0.15 kg/min to 0.50 kg/min. However, Mitake teaches that the contact time of the cleaning agent being dispensed is a result effective variable (para 0051-0054). The contact time/dispensing rate affects the cleaning efficiency and removal of matter (para 0051-0054). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate dispensing rate of the cleaning agent for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dispensing rate such that the cleaning agent is dispensed at a rate in a range of from 0.15 kg/min to 0.50 kg/min in order to effectively clean and remove matter from the substrate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 12, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach a distal end of the dispensing apparatus is located at a specific claimed distance from the glass substrate. However, Mitake teaches wherein a distal end of the dispensing apparatus is located at a distance from the glass substrate in a range of from 20 mm to 50 mm (reads on 12.7 mm to 152.4 mm) (para 0049 of Mitake) in order to achieve effective cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the distal end of the dispensing apparatus and the glass substrate such that it is in a range of 12.7 mm to 152.4 mm as taught by Mitake in order to achieve effective cleaning. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 13, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach a distal end of the dispensing apparatus is located at a specific claimed distance from the glass substrate. However, Mitake teaches wherein a distal end of the dispensing apparatus is located at a distance from the glass substrate in a range of from 20 mm to 50 mm (reads on 25.4 mm to 76.2 mm) (para 0049 of Mitake) in order to achieve effective cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the distal end of the dispensing apparatus and the glass substrate such that it is in a range of 25.4 mm to 76.2 mm as taught by Mitake in order to achieve effective cleaning. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 14, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the glass substrate is passed by the dispensing apparatus at a rate in a range of from 3 mm/sec to 10 mm/sec. However, Mitake teaches that the movement speed of the dispensing apparatus is a result effective variable (para 0054). The movement speed of the dispensing apparatus affects the cleaning coverage and efficiency of the substrate (para 0054). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate movement speed of the dispensing apparatus for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the movement speed of the dispensing apparatus such that the glass substrate is passed by the dispensing apparatus at a rate in a range of from 3 mm/sec to 10 mm/sec in order to effectively achieve a high cleaning coverage and efficiency of the substrate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 15, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the glass substrate is passed by the dispensing apparatus at a rate in a range of from 5 mm/sec to 8 mm/sec. However, Mitake teaches that the movement speed of the dispensing apparatus is a result effective variable (para 0054). The movement speed of the dispensing apparatus affects the cleaning coverage and efficiency of the substrate (para 0054). Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate movement speed of the dispensing apparatus for the predictable result of effectively cleaning the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the movement speed of the dispensing apparatus such that the glass substrate is passed by the dispensing apparatus at a rate in a range of from 5 mm/sec to 8 mm/sec in order to effectively achieve a high cleaning coverage and efficiency of the substrate. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 17, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach a specific claimed particle size of the cleaning agent. However, Mitake teaches wherein the cleaning agent comprises one or more particles having a particle size of 0.5 mm (reads on in a range of from 100 um to 1 mm) in diameter (para 0044 of Mitake) in order to achieve effective cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size of the cleaning agent such that it is in a range from 100 um to 1 mm as taught by Mitake in order to achieve effective cleaning. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach a specific claimed particle size of the cleaning agent. However, Mitake teaches wherein the cleaning agent comprises one or more particles having a particle size of 0.5 mm or less (reads on in a range of from 1 um to 100 um) in diameter (para 0044 of Mitake) in order to achieve effective cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size of the cleaning agent such that it is in a range from 1 um to 100 um as taught by Mitake in order to achieve effective cleaning. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 21, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein teaches wherein the contacting is limited to the edge between opposing major surfaces (para 0026-0027 of Lu).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0148892), Mitake et al. (PG Pub U.S 2011/0265815) as evidenced by Goldstein (PG Pub U.S 2005/0058836) and further in view of Momono (PG Pub U.S 2018/0141853).
Regarding claim 20, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the glass substrate comprises: 50 to 70 mol% SiO2, 12 to 22 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 19 mol% B2O3, 0 to 15 mol% MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO, 0 to 15 mol% MgO, 0 to 2 mol% BaO, 0 to 22 mol% ZnO, 0 to 6 mol% ZrO2, 0-8 mol% TiO2, and 0.01-0.1 mol% SnO2. However, Momono also teaches a glass substrate wherein it is known to comprise 30 to 70 mol% SiO2 (para 0012), 8 to 25 mol% Al2O3 (para 0012), 0 to 25 mol% B2O3 (para 0027), 1 to 55 mol% MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO (para 0025, 0030, 0031, and 0037), 1 to 30 mol% MgO (para 0025), 0 to 10 mol% BaO (para 0031), 1 to 30 mol% ZnO (para 0025), 0 to 10 mol% ZrO2 (para 0033), 0-10 mol% TiO2 (para 0012), and 0-5 mol% SnO2 (para 0034) in order to provide a stronger and more durable substrate (para 0009-0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass component of the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein such that it comprises 30 to 70 mol% SiO2, 8 to 25 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 25 mol% B2O3, 1 to 55 mol% MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO, 1 to 30 mol% MgO, 0 to 10 mol% BaO, 1 to 30 mol% ZnO, 0 to 10 mol% ZrO2, 0-10 mol% TiO2, and 0-5 mol% SnO2 as taught by Momono in order to provide a stronger and more durable substrate. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the ranges disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (PG Pub U.S 2022/0148892), Mitake et al. (PG Pub U.S 2011/0265815) as evidenced by Goldstein (PG Pub U.S 2005/0058836) and further in view of Stura et al. (PG Pub U.S 2012/0181264).
Regarding claim 22, present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the contacting removes glass particles from the edge region. However, Stura teaches that it is known to clean edges of glass substrates (para 0003) in order to remove glass particles from the edge region left behind from laser edge glass cutting (para 0003 and 0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein to remove glass particles from the edge region as taught by Stura in order to remove glass particles from the edge after laser edge glass cutting.
Regarding claim 23, the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein fails to teach wherein the edge contacted by the cleaning agent is a laser cut edge. However, Stura teaches it is known to clean glass edges including a laser cut edge in order to remove glass particles after laser cutting (para 0003 and 0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present combination of Lu and Mitake as evidenced by Goldstein such that the edge contacted by the cleaning agent is a laser cut edge as suggested by Stura in order to remove glass particles after laser cutting.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights