DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 4/15/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are pending, claim 13 is canceled, claims 1-10 are withdrawn and claim 15 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 15, the limitations that the plurality of linear stripes are arranged at the constant intervals “along an entirety of the outer circumferential edge surface” fails to limit claim 11. Claim 11 has the limitations that the plurality of linear stripes “being periodically arranged at constant intervals along the outer circumferential edge surface”, which is being interpreted as being located at points on the entire length of the outer circumferential edge. This means the phrase “along an entirety” in claim 15 does not further limit claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach a disk-shaped glass substrate having two main surfaces, an outer circumferential edge surface having the plurality of linear stripes extending in a thickness direction of the glass substrate and “being periodically arranged at constant intervals along the outer circumferential edge surface”, wherein the outer circumferential edge portion of at least one main surface has a flattened region with a smaller surface roughness Ra than an other region of the at least one main surface, and wherein the flattened region has a width of 5 mm or less in a radial direction and a height within a range from -0.3 to +0.3 mm with respect to the other region of the at least one main surface in combination with the rest of the limitations claimed.
The closest prior art is Nakajima et al. cited in the previous Office action; however, the Examiner is not able to state by the preponderance of the evidence that the method of cutting the glass substrate of Nakajima et al. by their scribing method using a cutting wheel would intrinsically result in the plurality of linear stripes “being periodically arranged at constant intervals along the outer circumferential edge surface”. There is no rationale, save improper hindsight, to have substituted the cutting wheel of Nakajima et al. with a pulsed laser beam as it would destroy the principle of operation of the process of cutting of Nakajima et al. to form the inclined cuts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the claim objections and the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights