DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209 machine translation). Mori discloses a glass winding system comprising a glass winder 2 configured to wind glass with an interleaf to form a glass roll, an interleaf unwinder 23 configured to unwind the interleaf from and interleaf roll (“winding process” on page 7, figure 1), and a breaking unit 12 configured to break the glass (page 6, figures 6-10, “glass film is disconnected by the bending stress”). As can be seen in figure 8, the glass is broken into a plurality of pieces when breaking unit 12 is in the opened position. Mori further teaches the glass winding system is configured to switch between a breaking mode in which the glass is broken (fig. 8) and a winding mode in which the glass is wound with the interleaf to form the glass roll (figures 9-10, top of page 7).
Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses the breaking unit is further configured to rotate with respect to a rotational axis (shaft 19c) to allow the glass winding system to switch between the breaking mode and the winding mode (figure. 4, “fig.4” paragraph on page 5).
Regarding claim 3, Mori teaches the breaking unit comprises ball rollers 16b (2nd paragraph on page 5). Thus, the ball rollers 16b are used at a first position (closed position) in the winding mode, and is removed from the first position in the breaking mode.
Regarding claim 4, Mori teaches the breaking unit comprises ball rollers 16b (2nd paragraph on page 5). Thus, the ball rollers 16b are used at a second position (closed position) in the winding mode, and is removed from the second position in the breaking mode.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (2019/0352115). Mori ‘209 teaches the interleaf unwinder is arranged below the glass winder (fig. 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided for other arrangements as a matter of design choice, without changing the functionality of the apparatus. For example, Mori teaches in another reference, ‘115, the glass winder arranged below the interleaf unwinder. Although a floor is not specified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the glass winder to be arranged on a floor as matter of common sense, as all manufacturing equipment would be supported on a manufacturing floor. Thus, Mori ‘115 suggests the glass winder is arranged between the floor and the interleaf unwinder. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively arranged the interleaf unwinder above the glass winder as a matter of design choice, as the rearrangement of the parts would not modify the operation of the devices.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brackley et al. (2015/0251944). Mori doesn’t specify switching between a clockwise mode and counterclockwise mode. Brackley also teaches glass winding system comprising a glass winder configured to wind glass. Brackley teaches the glass winder can switch between winding glass on a top roll 501 and a bottom roll 503, wherein when winding on the top roll 501 the glass is wound in a counterclockwise manner, and when winding on the bottom roll 503 the glass is wound in a clockwise manner ([0070]-[0070], see figure 11). Brackley teaches this arrangement allows for the switching from one roll to another roll when one becomes full. 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 arrangement to switch between a counterclockwise roll and a clockwise roll, to improve the efficient of the process. In applying the modification of Brackley, it would have been obvious to incorporate the interleaf of Mori into each of the rolls.
Regarding claim 7, bottom roll 503 is considered a third roller used in the clockwise mode and not used in the counterclockwise mode, and top roll 501 is considered the fourth roller used in the counterclockwise mode and not used in the clockwise mode.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abramov et al. (2015/0315059). Mori is silent regarding a load cell roller or a dancer roller. Abramov teaches a glass winding system comprising a glass winder. Abramov also teaches a load cell roller configured to sense a tension of the glass ([0035]), and providing feedback regarding the tension to control the glass winder to provide the necessary tension for winding ([0037]). Abramov further teaches the tension can also be controlled using a dancer roller ([0039]). 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 load cell roller and dancer roller for sensing and controlling the tension on the glass of Mori for proper winding of the glass.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220010365 as represented by US2023/0278822). Mori does not specify a position sensor. Kim teaches a winder system comprising a glass winder and an interleaf unwinder. Kim also teaches a position sensor configured to sense a position of the glass in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the glass roll, and a moving device configured to move the glass winder according to the position of the glass. Kim teaches this arrangement provides for uniform winding of the glass sheet while maintaining flat edges ([0063]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have provided for a position sensor and moving device for the glass winder of Mori so as to ensure uniform winding of the glass sheet, as taught by Kim.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (20150315059) in view of Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209 machine translation). Abramov teaches a system for forming glass rolls, the system comprising a glass ribbon supply system configured to supply an initial glass ribbon ([0023], [0025]), a cutting system configured to cut the initial glass ribbon into a first glass ribbon and a second glass ribbon ([0021]-[0022], [0030]), a first glass winding system configured to wind the first glass ribbon to form a first glass roll, and a second winding system configured to wind the second glass ribbon to form a second glass roll ([0037], fig. 2). However, Abramov doesn’t specify a winding system configured to switch between a breaking mode and winding mode. Mori also discloses a system for forming glass rolls, the system comprising a glass ribbon supply system configured to supply an initial glass ribbon (bottom paragraph on page 3), a glass winder 2 configured to wind a glass ribbon to form a glass roll (“winding process” on page 7, figure 1), and a breaking unit 12 configured to break the glass (page 6, figures 6-10, “glass film is disconnected by the bending stress”). As can be seen in figure 8, the glass is broken into a plurality of pieces when breaking unit 12 is in the opened position. Mori further teaches the glass winding system is configured to switch between a breaking mode in which the glass is broken (fig. 8) and a winding mode in which the glass is wound to form the glass roll (figures 9-10, top of page 7). Mori teaches the breaking unit allows for the disposal of glass ribbon while changing out full rolls or while having to make adjustments to a cutting device, without having to interrupt the supply of the glass ribbon, as restoration of the glass molding condition for supplying the initial glass ribbon is difficult (top half of page 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the winding system of Mori that is configured to switch between a breaking mode and a winding mode for the first and/or second winding systems of Abramov, so as to provide a means for discarding portions of the glass ribbon during changing of the rolls or during adjustment of the cutting devices, without having to interrupt the supply of the glass ribbon, as taught by Mori.
Regarding claim 15, Abramov teaches the glass ribbon supply system comprises a glass unwinder configured to unwind the initial glass ribbon from an initial glass roll ([0025]).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Abramov and Mori teach the second glass winding system comprises a glass winder configured to wind the second glass ribbon to form the second glass roll, and a breaking unit configured to break the second glass ribbon. Mori further teaches the breaking unit is configured to rotate with respect to a rotational axis (shaft 19c) to allow the glass winding system to switch between the breaking mode and the winding mode (figure. 4, “fig.4” paragraph on page 5).
Regarding claim 17, Mori teaches the breaking unit comprises ball rollers 16b (2nd paragraph on page 5). Thus, the ball rollers 16b are used at a first position (closed position) in the winding mode, and is removed from the first position in the breaking mode.
Regarding claim 18, Mori teaches the breaking unit comprises ball rollers 16b (2nd paragraph on page 5). Thus, the ball rollers 16b are used at a second position (closed position) in the winding mode, and is removed from the second position in the breaking mode. Mori further teaches a roller holder (plate 12) configured to hold the ball rollers in the breaking mold (fig. 4.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (20150315059) in view of Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (2019/0352115). Abramov doesn’t specify an interleaf unwinder. Mori further teaches an interleaf unwinder 23 configured to unwind the interleaf from and interleaf roll (“winding process” on page 7, figure 1). Mori teaches providing for an interleaf in between the glass ribbon layers as it is wound on the roll to provide protection to each of the glass layers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have further provided for an interleaf unwinder in the apparatus of Abramov so as to provide a protective sheet in between the glass layers of the glass roll.
Furthermore, Mori ‘209 teaches the interleaf unwinder is arranged below the glass winder (fig. 1). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided for other arrangements as a matter of design choice, without changing the functionality of the apparatus. For example, Mori teaches in another reference, ‘115, the glass winder arranged below the interleaf unwinder. Although a floor is not specified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the glass winder to be arranged on a floor as matter of common sense, as all manufacturing equipment would be supported on a manufacturing floor. Thus, Mori ‘115 suggests the glass winder is arranged between the floor and the interleaf unwinder. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively arranged the interleaf unwinder above the glass winder as a matter of design choice, as the rearrangement of the parts would not modify the operation of the devices.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov (20150315059) in view of Mori et al. (WO 2018/070209) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Brackley et al. (2015/0251944). Abramov doesn’t specify switching between a clockwise mode and counterclockwise mode. Brackley also teaches glass winding system comprising a glass winder configured to wind glass. Brackley teaches the glass winder can switch between winding glass on a top roll 501 and a bottom roll 503, wherein when winding on the top roll 501 the glass is wound in a counterclockwise manner, and when winding on the bottom roll 503 the glass is wound in a clockwise manner ([0070]-[0070], see figure 11). Brackley teaches this arrangement allows for the switching from one roll to another roll when one becomes full. 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 arrangement to switch between a counterclockwise roll and a clockwise roll, to improve the efficient of the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Merz et al (2013/0240656) teaches a sensor for detecting the diameter of a glass roll on a glass winder ([0063]). Bigelow et al. (WO 2016/123000) similarly teaches measuring the diameter of a glass roll on a glass winder ([0059]). However, they fail to teach a sensor moving unit configured to move the diameter sensor in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the glass roll.
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