DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is a control device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Furthermore, the cutting device, breaking device, and grinding device of claim 1, and the drilling device of claim 12 have been evaluated for potential 112(f) interpretation. It was determined not to invoke 112(f) as cutting tools, grinding tools, breaking tools, and drilling tools are generally well understood apparatus in glass manufacturing.
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 1-13 and 17-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective device of the first tool" and” the respective device of the second tool” in the measured variable sections. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “the respective device of the first/second tool” in different lines. However, the claim also recites the device having at least one tool. Thus, in one aspect the device comprises a tool, and in another aspect the tool comprises the device. Thus, it is unclear how the device and the tool are related and if they are different from each other. Please clarify.
The term “state parameter” is used in several claims, including at least claims 1 and 5. It is unclear what a state parameter is. How is it different from any other parameter?
Claims 2-13 and 17-20 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 1, Bando discloses an installation for producing a glass article, the installation comprising a cutting device having a cutting tool configured to cut a glass pane, a breaking device having a breaking tool configured to separate out a useful part of the glass pane, and a grinding device having a grinding tool configured to grind an edge of the useful part (bottom passage on page 4 to top passage on page 5), wherein each of the tools and the glass pane or useful part are movable relative to one another (glass pane travels along X-direction from cutting station to bending station to grinding station in figure 1, see also 3rd passage on page 6 for the cutting tool, 5th passage on page 7 for the breaking tool, and top line on page 9 for the grinding tool). Bando further teaches a control device and a measuring device for generating measurement signals that provide data related to a first measured variable. More specifically, Bando teaches the measurement device, i.e. sensor 132 (detection means 2nd passage on page 14) measures the position of the peripheral edge of the useful part to determine the amount of wear on the grinding wheel, and by means of the control device (computing means at top half of page 12, figure 11), determines a deviation value between the measured value of the peripheral edge of the useful part and a reference value, and corrects for the deviation by controlling the position of the grinding wheel (3rd-4th passages on page 2) relative to the useful part. Thus, the measuring device of Bando is configured to generate a measurement signal (i.e. position) for providing information regarding a first parameter variable, wherein the first parameter variable is determined during a grinding processing step, is related to the relative position of the grinding wheel to the contour of the useful part, and comprises a process parameter (position) of the grinding wheel (component). Additionally, the control device of Bando is configured to control the grinding device, is configured to receive measurement signal from the measurement device, form measurement data (i.e. deviation), form a correction signal, and control the grinding tool with the correction signal. However, Bando doesn’t specify additional measurement signals related to additional measured variables. Joz similarly teaches an installation comprising a cutting tool for cutting and breaking a glass pane (abstract). Joz also teaches measuring the position of the cutting tool relative to the glass pane to ensure the desired orientation of the cutting edge of the cutting tool to be applied to the glass pane in the cutting processing step (abstract, page 3), wherein the measurement is perform using a sensor (position detection means in step d on page 3).Joz further teaches a control device configured to control the cutting tool, wherein the control device is configured to receive the measurement signal from the measuring device, form correction signals based on measurement data and control the cutting tool with correction signals (bottom half of page 6). Joz teaches correcting for the orientation of the cutting tool provides for precise cutting (bottom of page 3) while preventing surface damage to the glass pane (5th passage on page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have also provided for a measurement signal for the cutting step by means of a sensor, wherein the measurement signal provides data for a second parameter variable, such as the orientation of the cutting tool relative to the glass pane, so as to provide for accurate cutting of the glass pane without surface damage, as taught by Joz.
Regarding claim 2, Bando teaches the measuring device is configured to measure an edge of the useful part (2nd to last passage on page 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Bando teaches the control device is configure to generate correction signals by including measurement data that is based on at least one of the measured variables formed during previous production of useful parts (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Bando teaches a computing means (6th passage on page 12) that compares a constant value to the measured value and calculates a deviation value, which suggests the installation comprises an interface for exchanging data with an external data memory or an internal data memory, as the constant value used for comparison must be stored somewhere.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Bando teaches the measurement signal comprises a measured state variable that defines a state parameter of the grinding wheel, such as the wear on the grinding wheel, and the control device is configured to take this into account when forming the correction signals (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Joz teaches providing for a measurement signal associated with the cutting step and that defines the position at which the cutting tool contacts the glass pane (7th-10th passages on page 3).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bando teaches measuring the peripheral edge of the ground useful part, which suggests the measurement signal provided can define the shape of the edge of the useful part (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claim 11, Bando teaches the cutting tool comprises a cutting wheel 16 (10th passage on page 5).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Loesenbeck (DE 20 2010 008 624 machine translation provided and Takamatsu et al. (TW I261049 machine translation provided). Bando recognizes the grinding tool wears down with use, and suggests adjusting for the wear and tear based on a measured variable (1st and 3rd passages on page 2), but does not specify a processing device for sharpening the grinding tool. Loesenbeck also teaches a grinding tool for processing edge of a glass pane (2nd passage on page 1). Loesenbeck, like Bando, recognizes the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use (7th passage on page 3). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device in the installation so as to allow sharpening of the grinding tool (top passage on page 5), and thereby provide for high quality grinding of the glass pane (6th passage on page 4). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device for the grinding tool as part of the installation allows for on-demand sharpening without having to remove the grinding tool (7th passage on page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provide for a sharpening device in the installation of Bando and Joz so as to provide sharpening of the grinding tool, as it is recognized the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use, as taught by Loesenbeck. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Bando teaches a measured variable to indicate a wear on the grinding tool. (3rd passage on page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have adapted the control device to be configured to process this measurement signal to determine the frequency of the sharpening process and to activate the sharpening tool, to thereby provide for automated sharpening of the drilling tool.
However, Loesenbeck doesn’t specify a sharpening stone. However, the use of sharpening stones for shaping and sharpening cutting or grinding tools is well known. For example, Takamatsu teaches a glass cutting wheel (background on page 1) and shaping of the glass cutting wheel using a sharpening device, such as a sharpening stone 12 (last few lines of page 12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a sharpening stone for the sharpening device of Loesenbeck, as it predictably provides for the shaping and sharpening of the glass grinding tool, as taught by Takamatsu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (KR 20130014102 machine translation provided). Brando doesn’t specify a measuring device providing for a process parameter related to the breaking step. Like Bando, Jang teaches an installation for cutting and breaking a glass pane. Jang further teaches a measuring device for generating a measurement signal that provides information for a process parameter in a breaking processing step, the process parameter comprising a force with which a breaking tool acts on the glass pane (2nd to last passage on page 3). Jang teaches measuring the force ensures a uniform contact of the glass pane with the breaking tool (page 3 to 4) to ensure the optimal breaking force (7th passage on page 4, last passage on page 9). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilize a measuring device for measuring a force of the breaking tool during the breaking step in the installation of Bando and Joz, so as to provide a uniform breaking force on the glass pane, as taught by Jang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schenk et al. (2006/0081673). Bando doesn’t specify a drilling device. Schenk teaches a similar installation comprising a cutting tool and breaking tool for processing a glass pane ([0012]-[0014]). Schenk also teaches it is common to further process the glass pane by grinding and drilling ([0018]), which would naturally involve a grinding device and a drilling device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a drilling device in the installation of Bando and Joz for drilling the useful part, as there may a need to produce holes in the useful part.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided), Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided), and Schenk et al. (2006/0081673) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Loesenbeck (DE 20 2010 008 624 machine translation provided) and Takamatsu et al. (TW I261049 machine translation provided). Bando recognizes the grinding tool wears down with use, and suggests adjusting for the wear and tear based on a measured variable (1st and 3rd passages on page 2), but does not specify a processing device for sharpening the grinding tool. Loesenbeck also teaches grinding tool for processing edge of a glass pane (2nd passage on page 1). Loesenbeck, like Bando, recognizes that the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use, especially when processing glass (7th passage on page 3). Loesenbeck teaches tools used for grinding glass must produce high surface quality, and thus the grinding surfaces of the tool must be smooth as well. Thus, Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device in the installation so as to allow sharpening of the grinding tool (top passage on page 5), and thereby provide for high quality grinding of the glass pane (6th passage on page 4). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device for the grinding tool as part of the installation allows for on-demand sharpening without having to remove the grinding tool (7th passage on page 2). Accordingly, since a drill tool is subjected to wear due to the process of glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provide for a sharpening device in the installation of Bando, Joz, and Schenk so as to provide sharpening of the drilling tool, as it is recognized the drilling tool is subjected to wear with use, as taught by Loesenbeck. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Bando teaches a measured variable to indicate a wear on the grinding tool (3rd passage on page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have adapted the control device to be configured to process this measurement signal to determine the frequency of the sharpening process and to activate the sharpening tool, to thereby provide for automated sharpening of the drilling tool.
However, Loesenbeck doesn’t specify a sharpening stone. However, the use of sharpening stones for shaping and sharpening cutting or grinding tools is well known. For example, Takamatsu teaches a glass cutting wheel (background on page 1) and shaping of the glass cutting wheel using a sharpening device, such as a sharpening stone 12 (last few lines of page 12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a sharpening stone for the sharpening device of Loesenbeck, as it predictably provides for the shaping and sharpening of the glass grinding tool, as taught by Takamatsu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Bando teaches static post process measurement, wherein the position of the edge of the glass pane is measured after it has been processed by grinding, and Joz teaches a static pre-process alignment routine that is performed before the tool makes contact with the glass. Applicant argues this is in contradiction with the claimed invention which measures the variable during the working of the glass pane. The argument is not found persuasive for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the claims are directed to an apparatus, which are not limited by functional limitations the recites a manner of operating the apparatus, other than structures inferred from the functional limitations. In other words, the detecting of the measured variable during the execution of the processing operation does not provide further structural limitation to the apparatus. Thus, the functional limitations do not bear patentable weight. Secondly, a first measured variable that is detectable during a processing operation, interpreted broadly, only suggests that the measure variable can be detected during processing and does not limit the detection to only during processing.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 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