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) 1-14, 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredholm (US 20040093900) and Tamamura (EP 2799404).
Regarding claim 1, Fredholm discloses a method of forming a glass ribbon, comprising:
flowing a stream of molten glass (1a) on an outer surface of a treatment roller (4a) rotating about a first axis of rotation in a first direction of rotation (see arrow in Fig 1),
the stream of molten glass forming a molten glass layer on the outer surface of the treatment roller (4a see Fig 1) [0011]-[0012] just after the forming body (200) which increases the viscosity while forming the ribbon [0187];
and
drawing the ribbon of molten glass from the treatment roller in a draw direction between at least one pair of pulling rolls (rolls (7) of Fig 1) positioned below the treatment roller (4a), the pair of pulling rolls (7) engaging the edge portion on opposite sides of the glass ribbon as depicted in Fig 4. [0187]
Fredholm does not disclose cooling an edge portion of the molten glass layer on an outer surface of the treatment roller thus increasing an edge to center viscosity ratio.
In an analogous art of forming a glass ribbon, Tamamura discloses contacting an edge portion of the molten glass layer while the glass is in a viscous state flowing from the forming body [0027] with edge rollers (R1) just below the forming body to suppress contraction of the viscous glass ribbon in the width direction [0027] the contacting of said roller cooling the edge portion and increasing a viscosity thereof [0027], [0035].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Fredholm with edge rollers (R1) just after the forming body as motivated to prevent contraction of the ribbon of Fredholm in the width direction.
Regarding claim 2, Fredholm discloses one set of pulling rolls (7) on the edges of the ribbon.
It would be obvious to provide multiple edge pulling rolls as indicated Tamamura pulling edge rollers (R2), because the mere duplication of parts of pulling rolls for the predictable result of pulling the glass ribbon is considered prima facie obvious absent any unexpected results MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, Fredholm shows the stream of molten glass is flowed from a forming body (200) in Fig 1 [0187].
Regarding claim 4, Tamamura discloses the stream of molten glass is flowed from a slot in the forming body in the slot downdraw method [0052].
Regarding claim 5, Fredholm discloses cooling the treatment roller (4a) by contacting an interior surface of the first edge roller with a cooling fluid [0052] Tamamura desires the edge rollers to cool the glass and prevent contraction but does not specifically state the interior of the edge roller has a cooling fluid [0027], [0035]. It would be obvious to supply coolant inside the edge rollers as taught by Fredholm to control the temperature of the roller as motivated to suppress contraction.
Regarding claim 6, Fredholm discloses cooling the treatment roller (4a) by contacting an interior surface of the first edge roller with a cooling fluid [0052].
Regarding claim 7, Fredholm suggests a diameter of the forming roller is in a range from about 40 mm-200 mm [0137] thus overlapping with the claimed range of 5 cm to about 31 cm. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize within the disclosed ranges MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 8, Fredholm does not suggest a length of the treatment roller is in a range from about 25 cm to about 400 cm however it would be obvious to modify the length of the forming roller (4a) of Fredholm as motivated by the width of the formed glass ribbon.
Regarding claims 9-10, Fredholm and Tamamura do not recite the diameter and length of the first edge rollers, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to determine a suitable sized edge roller in the method of Fredholm and Tamamura.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Regarding claim 11, The treatment, or forming roller, of Fredholm cools the glass ribbon thus lowering the viscosity at least [0043]-[0046]. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fredholm by placing the edge rollers suggested by Tamamura at a position relative to the treatment roller at a point of cooling where the viscosity of the glass is such that contraction is still preventable [0054]-[0056].
Regarding claim 12, the first edge roller of suggested by Tamamura is movable along a second axis of rotation opposite the forming roller of Fredholm.
Regarding claims 13-14, The combined teaching of Fredholm and Tamamura do not explicitly state the viscosities of the edge portions and centerpoints
The objective of the edge rollers provided by Tamamura are to prevent contraction of the glass ribbon after being drawn [0035], [0052], viscosities discussed in [0054]-[0056].
MPEP 2122.01 discloses Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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).
The combined teachings of Fredholm and Tamamura make obvious the same claimed method of claim 1 therefore a skilled artisan would expect the same properties to result from the disclosed method commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Regarding claims 22-23, Fredholm discloses the treatment roller (4a) across the entire width of the glass ribbon rotates in a direction [0187] as depicted by the arrow in Fig 1. It is obvious to a skilled artisan that some type of motor is used to operate the rotation of the roller (4a).
Regarding claim 24, Fredholm does not disclose the viscosity at the treatment roller (4a) surface to be 5-5000 Pas. The treatment roller surface cools the glass and increases the viscosity to control the flow rate of the glass [0187]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature and thus viscosity of the glass at the treatment roller as motivated to control the flow of the glass.
Regarding claim 25, Fredholm uses roller 4a to cool and stabilize a stream by cooling and in the width direction and it would further be obvious to modify Fredholm by placing the edge rollers (R1) just after the forming body on the other side of the treatment roller in Fredholm as motivated to prevent contraction of the ribbon and further stabilize the glass ribbon.
Regarding claim 26, the edge rollers contact the edges and thus not a central location of the molten glass given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 27, in modifying Fredholm with edge rollers opposite the treatment roller as indicated in claim 1, the edge roller necessarily rotates a second direction from the treatment roller to allow for the ribbon to continue to be drawn down.
Regarding claim 28, using a motor to rotate the rollers of the claimed method is an obvious alternative to manual rotation and an obvious engineering choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fredholm Fig 4 shows the width of the forming roll being greater than the width of the glass ribbon thus the roll 4a increases the viscosity of the glass. This is a mere attorney argument. The glass width remains the same in the downdraw direction of Fig 4 of Fredholm thus no large changes in viscosity depicted in the Figure 4 of Fredholm. [0187] of Fredholm indicates the roller 4a cools the stream and reduces the viscosity. Applicant argues the margin wheels (7) are below roll (4a) however this argument does not relate to the rejection the rolls 7 are drawing rollers. The rejection relies on the addition of edge rollers of Tamamura. Applicant argues these must act in pairs however these cooling edge rollers of Tamamura can act on the edges against the cooling treatment roller of Fredholm to control stability and contraction of the ribbon to carryout the same function indicated by Tamamura.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 117561224 depicts treatment roller with roller opposite.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights