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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 2 and 3 utilize black shading. This is inappropriate, see 37CFR1.84(m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract exceeds 150 words in length (193 words).
The abstract recites language which can be implied, stating “…according to present invention…”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“*Description of symbols” (Pg. 9, Ln. 2-8) is under the “Brief Description of the Drawings” heading. This is inappropriate, see 37CFR1.74.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment to the specification filed 02/15/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/KR2022/000596 and of the foreign application KR10-2021-0192436 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 12/30/2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 02/15/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the acronym “UTG” prior to identifying what it stands for in the claim. For sufficient clarity and comprehension, unfamiliar acronyms or abbreviations should be accompanied by their fully spelled out meaning upon first use.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 coating film formed on either side" (Pg. 4, Ln. 12). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Prior to this point the film on the front was designated "the coating film" and the film on the back was designated "the partial coating film". Therefore, it is inappropriate to state "the coating film formed on either side" since "the coating film" is only on one side. Examiner recommends stating "the coating film and the partial coating film each have a thickness of less than 30 µm”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the cell glass" (Pg. 5, Ln. 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the removal of film from the "front surface" or removal of all films from all surfaces, further resulting in a lack of clarity in step S6 as well as portions of step S5.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN112939452) hereinafter Hu, in view of Tong et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 111362570), hereinafter Tong, Tamada et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2016188922), hereinafter Tamada, and Zheng et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN113582553), hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches a method for processing UTG having a partial coating film formed thereon, the method comprising: a step of coating an entire front surface of a thin-film mother glass (large-size flat glass) with a coating solution (acid-resistant film) for preventing chemical contact, and then drying the resulting product to form a coating film; a step of forming, on a rear surface of the thin-film mother glass, a partial coating film which is the same shape as the shape of a cell-unit thin-film glass (target small-sized flat glass) to be cut from the thin-film mother glass (step S1’’; Pg. 5 Ln. 34 - Pg. 6 Ln. 13); wherein the thin-film mother glass and the cell-unit thin-film glass have a thickness of 100 um or less (30-100 μm; Pg. 3 Ln. 12); wherein the coating solution used to form the coating film formed on the front surface of the thin-film mother glass and the partial coating film formed on the rear surface is an acid-resistant coating solution (acid-resistant film; Pg. 5 Ln. 34 - Pg. 6 Ln. 13); a step of cutting rear surface along a cut guiding line of the partial coating and in the shape of the cell-unit thin-film glass and then separate the cell-unit glass from the mother glass (Pg. 6 Ln. 8-13); and a step of reinforcing the cell-unit thin-film glass (step S2; “chemically strengthened salt bath”; Pg. 7 Ln. 6-9).
Hu does not teach: a step of irradiating the rear surface with a laser beam to cut the thin-film mother glass; the coating formed on either side of the mother glass has a thickness of less than 30 um; the guiding line 1 um to 100 um away from the edge of the coating; the coating is an acrylic, polyethylene resin, polypropylene resin, polyvinyl chloride resin, or polystyrene resin solution with an ultraviolet absorption rate of 10% or greater in a wavelength range of 400 nm or less, and with an infrared absorption rate of 1% or less in a wavelength range of 1000 nm or greater; the laser is infrared; the laser is a nanosecond, picosecond, or femtosecond infrared laser; the laser outputs a Bessel beam; the laser has a laser beam wavelength of 1020 nm to 1040 nm; a step of healing a laser-cut surface of the cell-unit thin-film glass through selective chemical treatment to remove heat-damaged and defect portions generated during the laser cutting; a step of cleaning the cell-unit thin-film glass and then removing the entire coating formed on the surface; a step chemically healing the surface of the cell-unit thin-film glass to remove defects or flaws on the surface of the cell-unit thin-film glass; wherein in the step of healing a laser-cut surface of the cell-unit glass, an inclined plane-shaped cut portion is formed by a healing solution at the right-angled corner of the cell-unit glass facing the coating film formed on the front and rear surfaces; the inclined plane-shaped cut portion has a horizontal width of 3 um to 500 um and a height of 3 um or greater, wherein the height is not greater than 50% of the thickness of the cell-unit thin-film glass; in the step of cleaning the cell-unit glass and then removing the entire coating film formed on the surface, the cell-unit glass is immersed in a solution to remove the coating film, wherein the removal solution is potassium hydroxide (KOH) as a basic aqueous solution at a temperature of 25 °C or greater; and in the step of reinforcing the cell-unit thin-film glass, the cleaning solution includes potassium hydroxide (KOH) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and pure deionized water with a surfactant added, at a PH of 10 or greater.
Tong teaches use of a picosecond infrared laser (picosecond or femtosecond laser; near-infrared, visible, or ultraviolet wavelength laser; Pg. 4 Ln. 22-24) with a Bessel beam output (Pg. 4 Ln. 14) to both cut and form the edge of a glass sheet (chamfering and demoulding; Pg. 4 Ln. 29 – Pg. 5 Ln. 1) in lieu of a chemical corrosion and mechanical polishing method (Pg. 2 Ln. 15-19).
Because both Hu and Tong teach methods of cutting and forming the edge of a glass sheet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of cutting and forming the edge of a sheet of glass.
Additionally, Tong teaches it is known that the geometry of the edge (e.g. cutting depth, chamfer angle) can be controlled by adjusting processing parameters to suit a variety of needs (Pg. 5 Ln. 32 – Pg. 6 Ln. 2).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the edge chamfered with a horizontal width of 3 um to 500 um and height of 3 um or greater, and wherein the height is not greater than 50% of the thickness of the cell-unit thin-film glass. Determining the dimensions of the edge chamfer would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired shape or geometry of the edge. Such a modification would have only required routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art.
Zheng teaches it is known to treat the cut edge of an ultra-thin glass cover plate in order to repair minor chipping defects caused by laser cutting as well as the surface of the cover plate in order to repair defects generated during the manufacturing process (Pg. 3, Ln. 14-23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the techniques of both healing the laser-cut surface of the cell-unit thin-film glass through selective chemical treatment and chemically healing the surface of the cell-unit thin-film glass, as taught by Tamada, to improve the method of Hu for the predictable result of repairing minor chipping defects on the edges caused by laser cutting and repairing defects on the surface generated during the manufacturing process.
Further, although Zheng does not explicitly state cutting along a guide line 1-100 microns away from the partial coating film, Zheng does teach an etching amount of 5-20 microns (Pg. 3, Ln. 14-17) in order to repair minor chipping defects caused by laser cutting in the range of 3-5 microns (Pg. 4, Ln. 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the cut guide line be 1-100 microns away from the partial coating film. Determining the cutting distance from the partial coating film would be a routine optimization based on the amount of defect left by the particular laser or cutting method used and thus a commensurate margin of unmasked edge required to be treated. Such a modification would have only required routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05.
Tamada teaches it is known to use an acrylic resin solution as an acid resist (Pg. 6 Ln. 11-13), and for an acid resist coating to have a nominal thickness of 15um (Pg. 4 Ln. 8-10), for the purpose of forming a masking pattern on a substrate to be etched (Pg. 6 Ln. 11-13).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of using an acrylic resin solution as an acid resist at a nominal thickness of 15um, as taught by Tamada, to improve the method of Hu for the predictable result of forming a masking pattern on a substrate to be etched.
Additionally, Tamada teaches it is known to cure a resin solution on a substrate to be etched by exposing the solution to a varying spectrum of light for a predetermined period of time (Pg. 2 Ln. 18-22).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a resin solution with an ultraviolet absorption rate of 10% or greater in a wavelength range of 400 nm or less, and with an infrared absorption rate of 1% or less in a wavelength range of 1000 nm or greater. Determining a resin composition with an appropriate spectral absorption rate would be a routine optimization based on the curing process and light source being used. Such a modification would have only required routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05.
Further, Tamada teaches it is known to use a high alkalinity aqueous solution comprising potassium hydroxide, water, and a surfactant, having been heated to 100 C, as a means of cleaning the substrate and removing the cured resin solution (Pg. 23 Ln. 9-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a step of immersing the glass in a solution of potassium hydroxide, water, a surfactant, at a PH of 10 or greater, at a temperature of 25 °C or greater, as disclosed by Tamada, in the method of Hu to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would provide a means of cleaning the glass and removing the cured resin solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-8725. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights