DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes).
Regarding claim 1, Phenes (Figs. 1-9 [0005]) discloses a method of processing a viscous ribbon and the viscous ribbon traveling along a travel path in a travel direction 319 (Figs. 3-9 and [0052]), and ([0027]-[0028] discloses the viscous ribbon formed by a glass forming apparatus. These disclosures are interpreted as providing for the step of moving the glass ribbon along a travel path in a travel direction. Phenes ([0007]) discloses detecting a defect and determining if the defect is an inclusion or a surface characteristic of the ribbon. This is interpreted providing for the step of identifying a defect in the glass ribbon. Phenes ([0008]) discloses detecting of the defect comprises determining a position of the defect, ([0069]) discloses determining the defect position along a direction that may be parallel to the travel direction 319, ([0010]) discloses tracking a first segment of the viscous ribbon which comprises the defect, and [(0071]) discloses the tracking includes measuring the velocity of the viscous glass ribbon. The disclosures of determining the defect position and the defect is within a first segment provides for the step of virtually tagging a first segment of the glass ribbon comprising the defect, and the tracking disclosures provide for tracking the first segment as the first segment moves in the travel direction.
Phenes ([0011]) discloses removing the first segment from the viscous ribbon downstream from a portion of the viscous ribbon that is imaged and ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149. Phenes (Fig. 7) also illustrates a portion of the glass ribbon 402 upstream of the first segment and the separation path 721 relative to the travel direction. Accordingly, based on the additional disclosures by Phenes discussed above, the disclosures are interpreted as providing the step of separating the first segment from a portion of the glass ribbon upstream from the first segment relative to the travel direction. Additionally, Phenes (Fig. 7 and [0070]-[0072]) discloses categorizing the segments into defect-containing segments and defect-free segments, and for example, tracking of the first segment 701 which comprises the defect and ([0074] and Fig. 9) discloses removing of the first segment 701 can comprise segregating the first segment 701, which comprises defects, from the other segments 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715 which do not comprise defects (i.e. corresponding to zero identified defects). Accordingly, based on the disclosures by Phenes discussed above, the method further provides for based on the virtual tagging of the first segment (discussed above), segregating the first segment from a second segment of the glass ribbon comprising zero identified defects (i.e. other segments which do not comprise defects).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1 above, ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149. Additionally, Phenes discloses categorizing the segments into defect-containing segments and defect-free segments, and for example, tracking of the first segment 701 which comprises the defect. The separation path 721 is interpreted as generating a first virtual boundary of the first segment attached to the portion of the glass ribbon upstream from the first segment of the glass ribbon relative to the travel direction. Phenes ([0071]) additionally discloses a second separation path 723 is determined which provides for a second virtual boundary of the first segment attached to a portion of the glass ribbon downstream from the first segment relative to the travel direction.
Regarding claim 4, as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the defect is located in the first segment. In addition to the rejection of claim 3, Phenes (Fig. 7) illustrates the first segment 701 with the defect located between the first virtual boundary (i.e. separation path 721) and the second virtual boundary (i.e. separation path 723).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Phenes discloses tracking the first segment as the first segment moves in the travel direction and separating the first segment. Phenes fails to explicitly disclose tracking is terminated when the first segment is separated. However, as discussed above, Phenes (Fig. 9) illustrates the step of removing and segregating the first segment following the glass separator 149. Since when the first segment is separated it is removed and segregated, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to terminate the tracking when the first segment is separated.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the rejection of claim 3 above, Phenes (Fig. 7 and [0069]-[0070]) discloses a glass separator 149 (e.g. scribe, score wheel, diamond tip, laser etc.) the first segment 701 is separated from the ribbon 402 along a first separation path 721 by the glass separator 149 and a second separation path 723 to separate a second segment 703 from the first segment 701. Accordingly, there is separating of the glass ribbon at the first virtual boundary and the second virtual boundary by the glass separator 149. While scoring is not explicitly recited for the separating at the first virtual boundary and the second virtual boundary, since the glass separator 149 is disclosed as for example, a scribe, score wheel, diamond tip, etc., it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a scribe, score wheel, or diamond tip as the glass separator for separating the glass ribbon at the first virtual boundary and the second virtual boundary, in addition to separating by the glass separator, the method comprising scoring by the glass separator at the first virtual boundary and the second virtual boundary.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner).
Regarding claim 6, Phenes fails to disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising based on the virtual tagging of the first segment, creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment prior to separating. However, Mueller (Fig. 1 and pg. 5) discloses a method of drawing a glass ribbon 1 from a glass drawing machine 22 and the quality of glass is determined by using a measuring device 3 to detect bubbles, inclusions, streaks, ripples etc. and the defective glass ribbon provided with markings which are read out by a measuring unit arranged in the cutting device for the purpose of cutting control and discloses in some cases even when the online measuring device, cutting device, and control device may be integrated, and as a result, external markings may not be required, the markings can still be made and additional information can be passed on from the online measuring device to optimize the cutting process. Additionally, Ortner ([0008]) teaches during the manufacture of glasses defect sites may occur and ([0009]) subjecting a glass ribbon to an inspection for defects when the glass roll is unrolled, for example during further processing of the glass, such as when sheets are to be separated from the glass ribbon. Ortner discloses running the glass ribbon through a defect inspection unit and the defect inspection unit transfers information on the position of the defect on the glass ribbon to a computer which calculates optimal cutting positions as well as dimensions of sheets to be cut to a cutting unit. Ortner ([0014]) teaches error markings makes possible identifying, for further processing, the section of the glass ribbon with the defect site that is not to be used for the manufacture of products, and can be read out, and considered during the separating of the continuous ribbon. Ortner ([0015]) teaches different types of defects, the error mark provides information on the type of defect. Ortner teaches specific type of defect may be acceptable for another use of the glass, and the defect can be used for yield-optimized cutting. Ortner (Figs. 3-4 and [0028]) teaches error markings in the vicinity of the defect on the glass sheet and ([0030]) the error marking can be a dashed marking line which extends physically over the entire length of the defect in the x-direction (i.e. travel direction).
Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner discloses identifying defects in a glass ribbon integrated with cutting of the glass, and Mueller teaches marking of the glass ribbon while forming the glass ribbon, and Mueller and Ortner teaches markings used for optimized cutting.
Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Mueller and Ortner, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Phenes could be improved by integrating the virtual tagging of the first segment and defect and creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment prior to the separating to provide for optimized cutting. The steps of integrating and creating the visible mark is interpreted as equivalent the method further comprising, based on the virtual tagging of the first segment, creating the visible mark on the first major surface of the first segment prior to separating, as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner).
Regarding claim 7, Phenes (Figs. 1-9 [0005]) discloses a method of processing a viscous ribbon and the viscous ribbon traveling along a travel path in a travel direction 319 (Figs. 3-9 and [0052]), and ([0027]-[0028] discloses the viscous ribbon formed by a glass forming apparatus. These disclosures are interpreted as providing for the step of moving the glass ribbon along a travel path in a travel direction. Phenes ([0007]) discloses detecting a defect and determining if the defect is an inclusion or a surface characteristic of the ribbon. This is interpreted providing for the step of identifying a defect in the glass ribbon. Phenes ([0010]) discloses tracking a first segment of the viscous ribbon which comprises the defect, and [(0071]) discloses the tracking includes measuring the velocity of the viscous glass ribbon. The tracking disclosures provide for tracking the first segment as the first segment moves in the travel direction. Phenes ([0011]) discloses removing the first segment from the viscous ribbon downstream from a portion of the viscous ribbon that is imaged and ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149.
Phenes fails to disclose the method further comprising creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment by contacting the first segment with a marking apparatus as the first segment moves relative to the marking apparatus and detecting the visible mark on the first segment.
However, Mueller (Fig. 1 and pg. 5-6) discloses a method of drawing a glass ribbon 1 from a glass drawing machine 22 and the quality of glass is determined by using a measuring device 3 to detect bubbles, inclusions, streaks, ripples etc. and the defective glass ribbon provided with markings which are read out by a measuring unit arranged in the cutting device for the purpose of cutting control. Mueller (pg. 5) discloses the cutting device having a measuring unit for reading out markings, and the information from the markings used to control the cutting device and discloses the online measuring device, cutting device, and control device may be integrated, and teaches the markings can still be made and additional information can be passed on from the online measuring device to optimize the cutting process.
Additionally, Ortner ([0008]) teaches during the manufacture of glasses defect sites may occur and ([0009]) subjecting a glass ribbon to an inspection for defects when the glass roll is unrolled, for example during further processing of the glass, such as when sheets are to be separated from the glass ribbon. Ortner discloses running the glass ribbon through a defect inspection unit and the defect inspection unit transfers information on the position of the defect on the glass ribbon to a computer which calculates optimal cutting positions as well as dimensions of sheets to be cut to a cutting unit. Ortner ([0014]) teaches error markings makes possible identifying, for further processing, the section of the glass ribbon with the defect site that is not to be used for the manufacture of products, and can be read out, and considered during the separating of the continuous ribbon. Ortner ([0015]) teaches different types of defects, the error mark provides information on the type of defect. Ortner teaches specific type of defect may be acceptable for another use of the glass, and the defect can be used for yield-optimized cutting. Ortner (Figs. 3-4 and [0028]) teaches error markings in the vicinity of the defect on the glass sheet and ([0030]) the error marking can be a dashed marking line which extends physically over the entire length of the defect in the x-direction (i.e. travel direction). Ortner (Fig. 4 and [0066]) discloses following an inspection unit 7 for the detection of glass there is a marking unit 9 for marking the glass ribbon while conveying the glass ribbon and ([0051]) teaches the marking unit comprising an inkjet printer, laser unit, or a unit that introduces an adhesive.
Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner discloses identifying defects in a glass ribbon integrated with cutting of the glass. Ortner teaches use of a marking unit (corresponding to a marking apparatus) while conveying a glass ribbon. Mueller teaches marking of the glass ribbon while forming and conveying the glass ribbon, the cutting device integrated with a measuring unit for reading out markings to control cutting, and optimize cutting. Additionally, Mueller and Ortner teach markings used for optimized cutting. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Mueller and Ortner, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Phenes could be improved by including the step of creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment by contacting the first segment with a marking apparatus as the first segment moves relative to the marking apparatus to provide markings for optimized cutting. Additionally, in addition to creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment, the Mueller reference teaches a measuring unit for reading out markings to control cutting, and therefore, in addition to the creating a visible mark for optimized cutting, it would be obvious the method includes reading out the markings to control cutting, which is interpreted as providing for the step of detecting the visible mark on the first segment.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, Phenes ([0010]) discloses tracking a first segment of the viscous ribbon which comprises the defect, and ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149. Phenes ([0072]) further discloses the segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715 categorized into segments that contain defects and defect-containing segments. Phenes discloses an example where segment 701 comprises the defect, but it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, any of the segments may be categorized as a defect-containing segment or not containing a defect (defect-free segment). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with the tracking of multiple segments categorized as defect-containing segment or defect-free segment, there is a scenario of tracking a second segment of the glass ribbon positioned adjacent to and upstream from the first segment containing a defect relative to the travel direction, where the second segment comprises zero identified defects, as claimed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dever (US 7,278,223).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, Mueller teaches the defective portion of the glass ribbon provided with markings, and Ortner teaches a inkjet printer for marking a glass ribbon and the modified method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner provides for creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment, which includes the defect. The modified method fails to disclose details of the marking apparatus, such as the marking apparatus comprising a soapstone material. However, Dever (Col. 6, lines 31-60) discloses a marking apparatus for marking a surface and teaches a quantity of marking material that can be ink, soapstone, pigment, paint, etc., or compounds or composites of these or other marking materials. Based on the teachings by Dever that include materials for marking a surface, such as ink, pigment, paint, soapstone, or compounds or composites of these marking materials, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Phenes, a marking apparatus comprising a soapstone material or compound or composite comprising soapstone material, since it is known in the prior art that soapstone or marking material compounds or composites may comprise soapstone material.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner) as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Leser (US4,492,477).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, the modified method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner provides for a marking a major surface of a first segment comprising a defect with a marking apparatus for optimized cutting. Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner fail to provide details of creating the marking, such as the step of maintaining the marking apparatus a distance apart from the second segment as the second segment moves relative to the marking apparatus. However, Leser (Fig. 13 and Col. 12, lines 9-31) discloses a marking system 17 for marking a moving glass ribbon when a flaw reaches the active zone of the marking system. Leser discloses the marking system 17 that moves along a transverse rail that may include a marker, such as a liquid atomizer or a grease pencil, and actuating the marking system to create the mark. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Leser, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the marking method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner, the marking apparatus for marking a conveying glass may include a liquid atomizer or a grease pencil that is spaced a distance apart from the moving glass and is not actuated until a flaw reaches an active zone of a marking system. Since the marking apparatus is not activated until a flaw reaches an active zone of the marking system in the modified method, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 above, and the second segment is a defect-free segment, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the marking system is not activated, and therefore, the marking system is maintained a distance apart from the second segment as the second segment moves relative to the marking apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, the modified method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner provides for a marking a major surface of a first segment comprising a defect with a marking apparatus for optimized cutting. Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner fail to provide details of creating the marking, such as moving the apparatus toward the glass ribbon along a movement axis that intersects the first major surface. However, Leser (Fig. 13 and Col. 12, lines 9-31) discloses a marking system 17 for marking a moving glass ribbon when a flaw reaches the active zone of the marking system. Leser discloses the marking system 17 that moves along a transverse rail that may include a marker, such as a liquid atomizer or a grease pencil, and actuating the marking system to create the mark. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Leser, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the marking method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner, the marking apparatus for marking a conveying glass may include a grease pencil that is actuated to create the visible mark, and it must be actuated toward the glass ribbon along a movement axis that intersects the first major surface in order to provide the marking.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (US 2015/0299020 – hereinafter Bao).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, the modified method of Phenes in view of Mueller and Ortner provides for a marking a major surface of a first segment comprising a defect with a marking apparatus for optimized cutting. Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner fail to provide details of creating the marking, such as moving the apparatus toward the glass ribbon along a movement axis that intersects the first major surface. However, Bao (Figs. 3 and 4 and [0002]) discloses a method of forming a scribing mark on a glass sheet with a scribing tool. Bao (Figs. 3 and 4 and [0038]) discloses the scribing tool 6 moves in an up and down direction for marking the glass sheet. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Bao, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of marking, a scribing tool used for the marking and the creating the visible mark by the scribing tool comprises moving the marking apparatus toward the glass ribbon along a movement axis that intersects the first major surface to form the visible mark.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (US 2015/0299020 – hereinafter Bao) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Vogt et al. (US 2016/0185647 – hereinafter Vogt).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above, the modified method of Phenes provides for in the method of marking a scribing tool. Accordingly, the modified method of claim 14 provides for creating the visible mark with a scribe marking apparatus where a force is applied on the first segment when the first segment is contacted with the marking apparatus and maintaining the force within a predetermined range. The references fail to disclose detecting a force applied by the modified method. However, in addition to the rejection of claim 14 above, Bao ([0016]) discloses applying a predetermined scribing force to the glass sheet to apply the scribing mark and teaches the force affects the scribing depth and Vogt (abstract and [0024]) discloses a method of scoring with an adjusted scoring pressure and a sensor for measuring the scoring force and adjusting. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Bao and Vogt, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of claim 14 including detecting a force applied in order to provide for the appropriate force while creating the visible mark with the scribing tool used for marking.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phenes et al. (WO 2020/163054 – hereinafter Phenes) in view of Mueller et al. (WO/0214229A1 – hereinafter Mueller) and Ortner et al. (US 2016/0311722 – hereinafter Ortner).
Regarding claim 16, Phenes (Figs. 1-9 [0005]) discloses a method of processing a viscous ribbon and the viscous ribbon traveling along a travel path in a travel direction 319 (Figs. 3-9 and [0052]), and ([0027]-[0028] discloses the viscous ribbon formed by a glass forming apparatus. These disclosures are interpreted as providing for the step of moving the glass ribbon along a travel path in a travel direction. Phenes ([0007]) discloses detecting a defect and determining if the defect is an inclusion or a surface characteristic of the ribbon. This is interpreted providing for the step of identifying a defect in the glass ribbon. Phenes ([0010]) discloses tracking a first segment of the viscous ribbon which comprises the defect, and [(0071]) discloses the tracking includes measuring the velocity of the viscous glass ribbon. The tracking disclosures provides for tracking the first segment as the first segment moves in the travel direction. Phenes ([0011]) discloses removing the first segment from the viscous ribbon downstream from a portion of the viscous ribbon that is imaged and ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149.
Phenes fails to disclose the method further comprising creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment by contacting the first segment with a marking apparatus as the first segment moves relative to the marking apparatus and detecting the visible mark on the first segment.
However, Mueller (Fig. 1 and pg. 5-6) discloses a method of drawing a glass ribbon 1 from a glass drawing machine 22 and the quality of glass is determined by using a measuring device 3 to detect bubbles, inclusions, streaks, ripples etc. and the defective glass ribbon provided with markings which are read out by a measuring unit arranged in the cutting device for the purpose of cutting control. Mueller (pg. 5) discloses the cutting device having a measuring unit for reading out markings, and the information from the markings used to control the cutting device and discloses the online measuring device, cutting device, and control device may be integrated, and teaches the markings can still be made and additional information can be passed on from the online measuring device to optimize the cutting process.
Additionally, Ortner ([0008]) teaches during the manufacture of glasses defect sites may occur and ([0009]) subjecting a glass ribbon to an inspection for defects when the glass roll is unrolled, for example during further processing of the glass, such as when sheets are to be separated from the glass ribbon. Ortner discloses running the glass ribbon through a defect inspection unit and the defect inspection unit transfers information on the position of the defect on the glass ribbon to a computer which calculates optimal cutting positions as well as dimensions of sheets to be cut to a cutting unit. Ortner ([0014]) teaches error markings makes possible identifying, for further processing, the section of the glass ribbon with the defect site that is not to be used for the manufacture of products, and can be read out, and considered during the separating of the continuous ribbon. Ortner ([0015]) teaches different types of defects, the error mark provides information on the type of defect. Ortner teaches specific type of defect may be acceptable for another use of the glass, and the defect can be used for yield-optimized cutting. Ortner (Figs. 3-4 and [0028]) teaches error markings in the vicinity of the defect on the glass sheet and ([0030]) the error marking can be a dashed marking line which extends physically over the entire length of the defect in the x-direction (i.e. travel direction). Ortner (Fig. 4 and [0066]) discloses following an inspection unit 7 for the detection of glass there is a marking unit 9 for marking the glass ribbon while conveying the glass ribbon and ([0051]) teaches the marking unit comprising an inkjet printer, laser unit, or a unit that introduces an adhesive.
Phenes, Mueller, and Ortner discloses identifying defects in a glass ribbon integrated with cutting of the glass. Ortner teaches use of a marking unit (corresponding to a marking apparatus) while conveying a glass ribbon. Mueller teaches marking of the glass ribbon while forming and conveying the glass ribbon, the cutting device integrated with a measuring unit for reading out markings to control cutting, and optimize cutting. Additionally, Mueller and Ortner teach markings used for optimized cutting. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Mueller and Ortner, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Phenes could be improved by including the step of creating a visible mark on a first major surface of the first segment by contacting the first segment with a marking apparatus as the first segment moves relative to the marking apparatus to provide markings for optimized cutting. Additionally, as discussed above, Ortner (Figs. 3-4 and [0028]) teaches error markings in the vicinity of the defect on the glass sheet and ([0030]) the error marking can be a dashed marking line which extends physically over the entire length of the defect in the x-direction (i.e. travel direction). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the error markings within the segment and extending along an axis, such as an X-axis, in the travel direction.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above, Ortner teaches error markings on the glass sheet which extend physically over the entire length of the defect. Accordingly, the modified method of claim 16 provides for the error markings within the segment containing the defect. Also, discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above, ([0070]-[0072] and Fig. 7) discloses the ribbon is categorized into segments 701, 703, 705, 707, 709, 711, 713, 715, the segments can be separated from each other at a location downstream from where the viscous ribbon 402 may be imaged, and comprises a separation path 721 along which the first segment can be separated by the glass separator 149. Additionally, Phenes discloses categorizing the segments into defect-containing segments and defect-free segments, and for example, tracking of the first segment 701 which comprises the defect. The separation path 721 is interpreted as generating a first virtual boundary of the first segment attached to the portion of the glass ribbon upstream from the first segment of the glass ribbon relative to the travel direction. Phenes ([0071]) additionally discloses a second separation path 723 is determined which provides for a second virtual boundary of the first segment attached to a portion of the glass ribbon downstream from the first segment relative to the travel direction. Therefore, based on the obviousness for error markings (i.e. visible mark) along the defect length in the modified method of Phenes, which is within the first segment and the first segment comprises a first virtual boundary (separation path 721) attached to a portion of the glass ribbon upstream from the first segment and a second virtual boundary (separation path 723) attached to a portion of the glass ribbon downstream from the first segment relative to the travel direction, it would be obvious the modified method of Phenes provides for the visible mark (error markings) on the first segment positioned between the first virtual boundary and the second virtual boundary.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above, the modified method provides for the visible mark (error markings) within the first segment containing the defect, and the visible mark (error markings) within the segment and extending along an axis, such as an X-axis, in the travel direction. With the visible marking (error markings) extending along the X-axis (travel direction) within the first segment containing the defect and positioned between the first virtual boundary that extends along an axis that intersects an axis along the travel direction and the second virtual boundary that extends along an axis that intersects an axis along the travel direction, this would provide for the visible mark along an axis along the travel direction spaced a first distance from the first virtual boundary and a second distance from the second virtual boundary such that the axis along the travel direction intersects the first virtual boundary axis and the second virtual boundary axis.
Regarding claim 20, Phenes (Figures) discloses defects (605, 607) that extend along second axis at an angle relative to the axis in the travel direction. Phenes fails to explicitly state the angle is within a range from about 80 degrees to about 100 degrees. However, based on the defects (605, 607), the defect extends at an angle approximately 90 degrees relative to the axis of the travel direction, which is within Applicant’s claimed range from about 80 degrees to about 100 degrees, as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 is discussed below.
Regarding claims 11-13, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 10 further comprising separating the first segment from the second segment prior to detecting the visible mark on the first segment.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above, the method of Phenes provides for tracking the first segment, which comprises the defect, as the first segment moves in the travel direction. Since the defect is tracked, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the tracking the first segment is commenced at a location along the travel path at which the defect is identified. However, the method fails to disclose wherein the tracking the first segment is terminated after the visible mark is created.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sausset et al. (US 2015/0375415A1 – hereinafter Sausset) (Fig. 6) discloses a bubble defect 60 and a scratch defect 62.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741