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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected laser system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/26/2026.
Claim Interpretation
A “streak” as indicated in the claims is defined in the specification [0004] and [0060] as formations in the glass ribbon that are a change in thickness.
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.
The term “proximate outer edges” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate outer edges” 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. The claimed streak in claims 1 and 10 do not define outer edges nor is the term “proximate” clearly defined in claim 11 or the specification.
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc (US 20140123703).
Regarding claim 1, LeBlanc discloses a method for remediating streak during a glass ribbon forming process, comprising:
forming the glass ribbon (44);
maintaining the glass ribbon under tension via pulling rolls (46);
identifying a change in the thickness in the glass ribbon [0019], [0038] at a location along a width of the glass ribbon. The change in thickness corresponds to the claimed first streak.
LeBlanc directs a laser beam at the location of the identified thickness change, or first streak and the laser beam has a wavelength of 9.4-10.6 micrometers [0027] thus overlapping with the present claim range.
the laser beam heats the glass of the glass ribbon to reduce viscosity and correct any thickness variation of a preselected portion [0019], [0027].
This heating to correct thickness variation necessarily reduces the rate of change in the thickness of the glass ribbon at the location of the thickness variation, or claimed first streak.
LeBlanc differs from claim 1 of the present application by failing to require the identified thickness variation portion to be at a “rate of change in a thickness of the glass ribbon per unit width of the glass ribbon is greater than or equal to about 1 nmt/mmw, wherein a width of the first streak is less than or equal to about 50 mm”
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to apply the method of LeBlanc to any identified thickness variation of the glass ribbon regardless of dimensions and rate of change in the thickness variation as motivated to reduce a thickness variation.
Regarding claim 2, LeBlanc does not disclose the power density however indicates that the power level of the wavelength can be optimized based on whether an objective is to alter the thickness of a limited or a large number of preselected portions of the glass [0026]
Regarding claim 5, LeBlanc discloses identifying a thickness distribution [0019], [0038] thus a thickness profile and adjusting the laser placement to the desired location and power applied [0026]
Regarding claim 7, LeBlanc discloses identifying thickness variations in preselected portions [0019], [0027] and splitting the laser beam (13) into at least a first beam and a second beam (17); and directing the first beam at the first streak and directing the second beam at the second streak (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, there is no exact length and width on the claimed streak thus any location may be considered a center of the streak given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc (US 20140123703) as applied above and further in view of Abramov (WO 2019173358)
Regarding claims 3-4, and 6, LeBlanc discloses using a laser to heat a desired portion of the glass ribbon however fails to disclose the beam width.
In an analogous art Abramov discloses controlling the thickness of at leas a portion of a glass ribbon with a laser [0007]-[0008], the adequacy of the laser for increasing the temperature and decreasing the viscosity of a selected portion of a glass ribbon and alter the thickness depends on the wavelength and power and suggests a top-hat or guassian profile beam [0057], [0060] and further indicates a beam width or shape can function as a distance between the desired heating point and width and height of the beam shape [0059]-[0060]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the beam height and width of the laser beam to heat the desired selected portion of the glass ribbon absent any unexpected results commensurate in scope with claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 8, LeBlanc discloses a sight laser beam (13) reflected along a beam path of the laser beam and split into beams (17) however does not disclose the wavelength of the sight laser beam. Abramov discloses controlling the thickness of at leas a portion of a glass ribbon with a laser [0007]-[0008], It would be obvious to optimize the beam to be split as motivated to optimize the wavelength to heat the glass ribbon and reduce the viscosity as desired.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc (US 20140123703) as applied above and further in view of Kress (US 9803974)
Regarding 11, LeBlanc discloses identifying the thickness at a location but fails to disclose how the identification occurs.
Kress discloses measuring glass at high temperatures by irradiating glass and caused by refraction of the light due to the changing of the thickness and determining the thickness (Col 3; lines 10-35).
LeBlanc is silent to the identification system thus a skilled artisan would look to the available art to find a measurement system as motivated to measure the thickness of the hot glass.
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