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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites the pair of oppositely charged electrodes are positioned adjacent a separation apparatus or adjacent pulling rolls. There is no reciting of these positionings.
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.
The term “adjacent” in claim 19is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of this examination the term adjacent in claim 18 will be considered to mean close.
Claim 20 is indefinite because it is comparing a voltage differential being reduced to a hypothetical situation. Claim 20 is limiting the method of claim 11. A claimed method is defined by a series of active steps and claim 20 is defining a relationship between particles and glass ribbon based on hypothetical situations. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed method step is in claim 20.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 18 recites positioned adjacent. Adjacent does not require items to be touching. For the purpose of this examination the term adjacent in claim 18 will be considered to mean close.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Akira (JP2001176691) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 11, 21-22, Brown discloses a method for manufacturing a glass article used in an electronic device [00119]-[00120] comprising:
flowing a glass ribbon (103) having first and second opposing major surfaces and extending lengthwise along a drawing direction and a widthwise direction (W) through a housing enclosure (considered 140 or 1200) each comprising a first side wall and a second side wall (See Fig 1,2 7-8),
the housing enclosure (140/1200) has first and second side walls extending along at least a portion of the first and second opposing major surfaces in the lengthwise and widthwise directions (As depicted in Fig 1,2 7-8); and
Brown desires removing debris from the surrounding environment to avoid surface contact with the glass before, during, or after a separation process ¶ [00124], it can be desirable to avoid surface contamination of the glass ribbon 103 and the glass sheet 104 entirely or to at least reduce the time debris may be in contact with a major surface 213a, 213b of the glass ribbon 103 or a major surface 214a, 214b of the glass sheet 104, thereby decreasing the chance that a relatively strong bond develops between the debris and the glass ribbon 103 or the glass sheet 104 ¶[00176] with the goal to provide a pristine glass surface ¶ [00141].
Brown does not indicate using an ionization source.
In an analogous art concerned with the same problem of preventing particles and dust from adhering to a glass surface [0002]-[0005] Akira discloses removing static electricity in an environment, or enclosure, by neutralizing the charge of the glass substrate surfaces by applying a positive or negative voltage to a positive and or negative electrode [0004] Akira suggests supplying an ion carrier gas within a chamber surrounding the glass substrate [0013]. Akira discloses an embodiment with conical airflow or curtain airflow blown toward the glass charged body so that more efficient charge removal can be performed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brown by directing ions from an ionization source comprising the step of energizing oppositely charged electrodes into a chamber or housing of Brown as motivated to provide that more efficient charge removal can be performed and prevent adherence of dust and particles as desired by both Brown and Akira.
Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses an atmosphere of the gas around the ribbon of at least about 200°C ¶[0176]
Regarding claim 13-14, Brown discloses an air knife for controlling the velocity of the air curtain toward the glass ribbon ¶[0013]-[0014] and Akira discloses an air knife enhancer for controlling the velocity of the ion transport in the gas against the glass (page 9 ¶2) the combined teachings of supplying ionized gas by oppositely charged electrodes (taught by Akira) in the method of Brown makes it obvious to control the gas flow velocity and thus the velocity flow of ions with an enhancer of an air knife.
It is obvious to control the velocity of ions toward the glass as motivated to provide sufficient charge removal from the glass and optimize adherence of particles to the glass.
Regarding claim 15, Akira suggests a corona discharge ionizer [0005], soft x-ray (page 7), corona discharge ionizer [0005] are all suitable ionizers
Regarding claim 18, Brown discloses creating an air curtain to reduce debris adherence to the glass ribbon [00210] and Akira discloses providing ionization of a gas curtain to neutralize the glass and prevent adherence of debris to the glass (see rejection of claim 1).
Brown discloses pulling rolls (Fig.2) and separation device and a glass separator (149). The combined teachings of Brown and Akira do not indicate electrodes being positioned between adjacent a separation apparatus or adjacent pulling rolls.
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan in glass manufacture that Brown also comprises pulling rolls as motivated to pull the glass ribbon [0035] of Delia. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the ionizer of Akira including the electrodes adjacent the separation apparatus, or pulling rolls as motivated to reduce charge on the glass ribbon and thus debris adherence. The matter of placing the ionizer near the pulling rolls or separation apparatus is a matter of engineering choice with the predictable result charge removal on the glass ribbon and prevent adherence of dust and particles to said ribbon.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings of Brown and Akira disclose neutralizing the glass ribbon so particles don’t adhere by static electricity, or voltage thus the voltage differential is reduced by at least about 90%.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Akira (JP2001176691) as applied above and further in view of Salisbury (US 20070085008).
Regarding claims 16-17, The combined teachings of Brown and Akira disclose a method which ionizes airflow along a glass sheet to prevent debris from adhering to the surface of the glass suggesting a corona ionizer.
Analogous art of a corona ionizer for ionizing airflow and controlling the charge in corona ionizers, Salisbury discloses providing corona ionizers with a corona discharge emitter tip comprising an insulative material of a ceramic conduit [0006]-[0007]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the corona ionizer with a corona discharge emitter tip to control the voltage source to control the electrostatic charge [0029].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Akira (JP2001176691) as applied above and as evidenced by Lee (KR 20170110352) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 19, Akira fails to disclose the shape of the conductor of the corona discharge ionizer.
In an analogous art of ionizers, Lee discloses a corona ionizer taught by Akira may have bar shaped conductors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights