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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2026.
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(s) is/are: “cooling device” in claims 1-3; “separating device” in claims 1, 9-11, and 13-14; “conveying device” in claim 3; “capturing device” in claims 8-10 and 13; “impact unit” in claim 12; “first translation driving unit” in claim 13; “second translation driving unit” in claim 13; and “rotation unit” in claim 13.
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.
The limitation “cooling device” recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the functional modifier “cooling” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 120, shown in figure 5, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “separating device” recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the functional modifier “separating” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 140, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “conveying device” recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the functional modifier “conveying” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 110, shown in figure 4A, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “capturing device” recites the generic placeholder “device” coupled with the functional modifier “capturing” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 130, shown in figure 3, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “impact unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “impact” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 141, shown in figure 7A, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “first translation driving unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “driving” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 132, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “second translation driving unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “driving” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 133, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “rotation unit” recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “rotation” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 134, shown in figure 6, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-14 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 cooled glass cover" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “a position corresponding to the cooling device” in lines 3-4, but does not define a manner of correspondence, as this could require being above, below, on, adjacent, in, or any number of correspondences.
Claim 13 recites “a rotation unit” in line 12, which is not defined. Reciting the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with the functional modifier “rotation” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed, the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, applicant does not disclose a structure of a rotation unit by which this function may be performed, only a box 134 in the figures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3. 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIELER et al. (US 11,051,441).
Regarding claim 1, WIELER teaches a cooling device 120 and a separating device 140 (fig. 1B; col. 9, lines 29-38 and 46-58). The materials claimed only limit the structure insofar as the apparatus must be capable of working upon the material. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 2, WIELER teaches the cooling device can supply cooling fluid (col. 24; line 57 – col. 25, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, WIELER teaches a conveying device (col. 8, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 9, WIELER teaches a capturing device 1820 and impact separating device (col. 44, line 66 – line 6; col. 45, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 10, the capture device of WIELER is functionally capable of performing the function claimed.
Regarding claim 14, WIELER teaches a collection zone receptacle 2208 (col. 46, lines 22-32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIELER as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of TRAN et al. (US 6,203,621).
Regarding claim 4, WIELER teaches a conveyor and carrier tray fixed to the conveyor (col. 23, line 62 – col. 24, line 2), but does not teach that the conveyor comprises a belt and drive roller. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a belt and drive roller as the conveyor because such was a common, well-known means of conveyance in the art at the time of the invention. One example of such is disclosed by TRAN, which teaches conveying glass to various processing locations via a belt and drive roller (col. 3, lines 2-7).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIELER.
Regarding claim 13, WIELER teaches the capture device comprises a rotation unit and a robotic arm that can clamp a device, move in three dimensions, and transfer a device (col. 25, lines 15-30), but does not explicitly describe plural translation units. However, it would have been obvious to utilize multiple drives to move the robot arm, as is nearly always the case in the prior art at the time of the invention, and duplication of apparatus components has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: similar cooling delamination apparatuses are disclosed by CHANG et al. (US 2025/0100267), ADAMS et al. (US 2024/0123723), JOUDON et al. (US 2022/0143766), RUJANAVECK et al. (US 11,157,043), BLOHOWIAK et al. (US 2020/0331253), BAE et al. (US 2019/0210351), and WALDSMITH (US 5,448,817). The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest such an apparatus wherein the carrier tray has at least one second recess connected to a side of the device accommodating first recess; or wherein the separating device further comprises an impactor that can impact a glass cover of a held device laminate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745