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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Seong (KR10-0883280) as cited in the translation provided herein and Onezawa (US 8035948)
Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses a method for manufacturing a glass article 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 (140/1200) 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 discloses removing debris from the surrounding environment to avoid surface contact with the glass using air flow 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].
In analogous art Seong discloses preventing particles from adhering to the surface of a glass by ionizing via directing ions from an ionization source toward the glass surface see the following citation and Fig 6 ¶[0012]:
The ionizer is installed in the injection pipe 42 of the air injection unit 4 and is sprayed with the injection of air to prevent static electricity generated between the glass G and the foreign matter particle and further removing debris from the enclosure with airflow ¶ [0040]-[0043]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle removal method at any point during the glass manufacturing method of Brown, including before cutting and within the housing with the addition of an ionizer as motivated to prevent static adherence of the particles to the glass and provide pristine glass surfaces.
Additionally, analogous art Onezawa discloses a static eliminator (Fig 1) that blows ionized air onto the object with counter electrodes (51) as seen in Fig 7A-C as motivated to direct the charged particles and prevent dust/foreign matter or particles in the surrounding environment from adhering to a component capable of being charged (Col 6; lines 5-20) and a skilled artisan would be motivated to modify Brown with electrodes as well to direct any charged particles and further inhibit any static attraction between the glass surface and debris.
Regarding the limitation of claim 11 “a density of particles having a diameter of less than about 212 microns on a major surface of the glass article is less than about 0.008 per square centimeter. “
MPEP 2112.01 recites
Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Alternatively, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the removal of debris to the maximum amount from the surface of the glass as motivated to provide a desirable glass product with reduced debris particles adhered to the surface. These are not unexpected results commensurate in scope with the present claim 11 in view of the specification.
Regarding claim 12, Brown discloses an atmosphere of gas around the glass ribbon of at least about 200°C. ¶[0176]
Regarding claims 13-14, Brown discloses an enhancer of a gas knife that increase a flow velocity of ions toward at least one of the first and second opposing major surfaces of the glass ribbon (104) ¶[0013]-[0014],
Regarding claim 15, Onezawa suggests ionizers comprise a corona discharge ionizer (Col 1; line 25)
Regarding claim 20, The method made obvious by Brown and Seong makes obvious preventing static electricity between particles and the glass surface to reduce particle adhesion to the surface of the glass.
It would be obvious to optimize the ionization and airflow to reduce the voltage between the particles and the glass ribbon as motivated to prevent adherence of debris particles.
Regarding claims 21-22, Brown discloses the glass suitable for an electronic display ¶[00119]
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Seong (KR10-0883280) and Onezawa (US 8035948) as applied above and further in view of Katsumi (JP H06208898)
Regarding claim 16-18, The combined teachings of Brown and Seong disclose a method of preventing particles and debris from adhering to a surface using ionization to prevent static charge.
They fail to specifically state the ionization source comprises a conductive emitter housed in a thermally insulative material.
In an analogous art of eliminating static charge from a glass surface (abstract) Katsumi discloses ionization into a housing via an electrode coated in an insulating material (claim 3) ceramic conduit and a pair of oppositely charged electrodes (claim 2).
It would be obvious to modify the method of Brown and Seong with the ionization air chamber electrodes of Katsumi to eliminate surface static as motivated to reduces the particles that adhere to the surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 19, Katsumi depicts electrodes that are considered a conductive bar (1)
Claim(s) 15 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO 2017034975) and Seong (KR10-0883280) and Onezawa (US 8035948) and JP 4489883.
Alternatively claim 15 is rejected over JP4489883. The combined teachings of Brown and Seong disclose a method which ionizes airflow along a glass sheet to prevent debris from adhering to the surface of the glass however fail to disclose the type of ionizer.
Analogous art of JP 4489883 provides an X-ray ionizer ¶[0010], [0012], [0015] as a known ionizer for ionizing airflow in a housing for glass to prevent dust ¶ [0037] or other particulates from adhering to the glass surface.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to analogous art as motivated for known ionizers to provide ionized gas flow to prevent debris on the surface of a glass sheet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim is amended to recite “while the glass ribbon flows through the housing, directing ions from an ionization source toward at least one of the first and second opposing major surfaces of the glass ribbon and/or using an electrode to direct particles away from at least one of the first and second opposing major surfaces of the glass ribbon,"
Applicant cites Brown ¶ [0177] discussing removing separation debris while Seong discloses removing foreign substances attached to the surface. Applicant then determines what Applicant believes this is more analogous to subsequent debris removal also discussed in ¶[00176] of Brown (see remarks filed 02/16/2026 page 8).
In response as to what is “more analogous” this is a mere allegation by the Attorney. As pointed out by Brown ¶ [00124], [00176] debris include “separation debris” “environmental debris” and it is desirable to flow before, during, or after a separation process…and it can be desirable to avoid surface contamination of debris of the glass ribbon entirely or to at least reduce the time debris may be in contact with the glass ribbon with the goal to provide a pristine glass surface ¶ [00141].
Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle removal method of Brown at any point during the glass manufacturing , including within the housing with the addition of an ionizer of Seong as motivated to prevent adherence of the particles to the glass and provide pristine glass surfaces as desired by Brown.
Applicant’s argument fully hinges on Brown preventing contact of a contaminate and Seong is related to removing a contaminate (see remarks filed 02/16/2026 page 9). As indicated previously, Brown states avoiding surface contamination of debris of the glass ribbon entirely or to at least reduce the time debris may be in contact with the glass ribbon as indicated in the rejection and response to remarks above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness over Onezawa is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). This is not hindsight, debris being attracted to a surface ribbon is known by common sense. Static attraction or intermolecular forces are in existence between any two molecules any yield attraction between the debris and any surrounding material.
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 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