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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 21 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 13-20 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 05/12/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 6-9, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to Claims 1 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and due to the Amendment filed 05/12/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment. The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
the prior are references does not render obvious the combined current/torque threshold trigger corresponding to a maximum groove depth for initiating outer diameter shaving of the edge finishing wheel. Further that,
Liao does not teach monitoring motor current/torque or threshold-based dressing. Liao describes a motor-driven grinding wheel within a grinding case and its operation.
Fu teaches in situ dressing mechanics, but not Applicant's torque/current-based control trigger tied to maximum groove depth. Fu's disclosure of when dressing occurs is framed in terms of wheel efficacy being sufficiently reduced, groove deepening/clogging, and/or the contact surface eventually becoming filled with grooves, does not support the limitations of Claim 1.
Obata teaches a different wear-groove management response (pitch shifting), not OD shaving triggered by a maximum-groove-depth threshold. Obata's teaching is a positional shift/indexing strategy rather than a blade-on-OD shaving operation initiated in response to a torque-threshold corresponding to maximum groove depth.
Miyake's threshold-triggered dressing is directed to "sharpness," not the claimed groove-depth-based control objective. Miyake does not teach determining an upper threshold corresponding to a maximum groove depth of a grooved edge- finishing wheel in a glass edge finishing operation.
Regarding Claims 5-8 the Applicant argues that,
Curtis fails to overcome the deficiencies of Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in Claim 1, as Claims 5-8 depend on Claim 1.
Regarding New Claim 21 the Applicant argues that,
Is patentable at least over the applied references of Claim 1 as the applied references do not render obvious the features of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1 Note: while the Applicant has listed arguments for the references in the order of Liao, Fu, Obata, Miyake, the order of the combination in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/12/2026 in Claim 1 is: Liao, Obata, Fu, Miyake.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that in the prior are references not rendering obvious the combined current/torque threshold trigger corresponding to a maximum groove depth for initiating outer diameter shaving of the edge finishing wheel,
Respectful disagreement. Liao is not relied upon to teach monitoring motor current/torque or threshold-based dressing. Liao is relied upon to teach a grinding machine system and its operation, which includes the element of a grinding wheel. Hence the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. Fu is not relied upon to teach torque/current-based control trigger tied to maximum groove depth. Fu is relied upon to teach a cutting tool that is used to remove material from a grinding wheel, where using the cutting tool is tied in some manner to a deepening of a groove (nexus for other references). This conveys the concept of using a cutting tool to redress the wheel due to a deepening of a groove. Hence the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. The pitch shifting on the OD of the grinding wheel by Obata is merely context. Obata is not relied up to teach shaving a grinding wheel after a critical depth of the grinding wheel is achieved. Obata is relied upon to teach a critical depth of a groove in a grinding wheel has been achieved with load-current detection and an appropriateness determination. “A means for determining the appropriateness of the load current value is provided. The load current value appropriateness determining means has, for example, a calculation program for calculating the wear groove depth from the change of the load current value, and when it is determined that the depth of the wear groove d is the limit, the thrust direction feed When the control means (Z-axis) starts polishing the next substrate, the control means (Z-axis) moves in the Z-axis direction by the pitch P” [0014]. Again, what occurs after the groove depth is determined to be at a critical value ad noted by the by the load current value – the indexing or pitch shifting of the grinding wheel, is context only. Obata directly discloses a critical groove depth is achieved by the value of the load current. Hence the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. Miyake is not relied upon to teach determining an upper threshold corresponding to a maximum groove depth of a grooved edge- finishing wheel in a glass edge finishing operation. Obata is relied upon to teach this. Miyake is relied upon to teach the concept of redressing a grinding wheel when a torque (load current) threshold is exceeded, as Obata already teaches a critical groove depth is achieved when a load current threshold is exceeded. Hence the argument is moot.
In the aggregate of i.-iv. above, the Applicant has stated an opinion with regard to the arguments
and cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schultze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716,
718 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Further, the Examiner would like to address the Amendments to Claim 1:
“providing an edge finishing wheel with a groove”.
An edge groove in a finishing wheel is common in the art, not an invention, to support the desired edge profile of a workpiece.
wherein the upper threshold torque ratio is stored in a memory and is empirically determined to correspond to a groove depth at which an efficacy of the edge finishing wheel diminishes.
Empirically determining a valuable level of a process variable does not add a meaningful limitation to this abstract idea because this amounts to simply implementing this abstract idea by calculation. Also, the additional limitation of “stored in memory” is a well understood routine as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
In summary the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103 and in addition is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claims 5-8 - In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
The arguments for Claim 1 apply for Claims 5-8. Hence the argument is moot. The rejection for Claims 5-8 are maintained.
Regarding New Claim 21 - In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Miyake is not relied upon using load current to dress for sharpness. Miyake is relied upon to teach load current threshold to dress a grinding wheel. A PHOSITA would know dressing a grinding wheel incorporates removing material from a grinding wheel. While Miyake does not teach specifically teach a predetermined amount to be removed, it would be obvious to optimize the removal amount to reduce waste and save cost.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations for Claims 2 and 3 presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the upper threshold torque ratio is stored in a memory and is empirically determined to correspond to a groove depth at which an efficacy of the edge finishing wheel diminishes”. The activity of empirically determining a significant level/value of any process variable is a common activity in industry. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because empirically determining a valuable level of a process variable does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because this amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea by calculation.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation of “stored in memory” is a well understood routine as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206084655U (as
submitted in the IDS dated 05/22/2024) by Liao et. al. (herein “Liao”) in further view of JP2010036315A
by Obata et. al. (herein “Obata”) and in further view of WO2019204215A1 (as submitted in the IDS
dated 09/03/2025) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Fu et. al (herein “Fu”) and in further view of JP2000263437A (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Miyake (herein
“Miyake”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Liao teaches a method of finishing edges of glass sheets, the method comprising,
engaging an edge of a glass sheet with a groove of an edge finishing wheel as the edge finishing wheel is rotated with a motor; Page 1 lines 35-36, Page 3 lines 6-8, Fig. 1 and Fig 2, “In order to achieve the above object, the utility model provides a glass grinder comprising a motor and said motor-driven rotating grinding wheel, “and drives the glass 7 to move linearly so that the glass can enter the opening groove 61 of the grinding box 3 to come into contact with the grinding wheel 2 and cut by the high-speed rotation of the grinding wheel 2 the edge of the glass 7.”
providing an edge finishing wheel comprising a groove;
Liao further teaches wherein, the edge finishing wheel comprises a groove; Fig. 1, Fig. 2 (enlarge).
While Liao teaches a method of using the peripheral edge of grinding wheel on a motor, controlling the movement of the glass substrate to engage the peripheral edge of the grinding wheel to edge grind a sheet of glass, and adding coolant to prevent/manage grinding wheel wear and affect the quality of the grinding (Page 1 lines 19-23), Liao fails to teach,
monitoring a working current of the motor when the edge finishing wheel is engaged with the edge of the glass sheet,
wherein,
the working current is indicative of a working torque of the motor;
determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than an upper threshold torque value
corresponding to a maximum groove depth;
In a similar endeavor of controlled edge grinding of the edge of a glass substrate with the peripheral edge of a motorized grinding wheel and a process to manage grinding wheel wear, Obata teaches a) a rotation driving unit and a feed control unit of the polishing wheel, and the rotation driving unit includes: A load current detecting means for detecting a load current flowing when contacting the substrate and the end face and means for determining the appropriate value of the load current value are provided [0006].
b) That the working current is indicative of a working torque of the motor;
Per Claim Interpretation,
Ib = baseline current where the grinder operates without touching the workpiece.
IL = the load current due only to the current increase when the grinder is engaged in with the workpiece.
IW = working current = Ib + IL
Torque, Ƭ, is such that Ƭ = K Ƭ x I, where K Ƭ is the torque constant of any motor in units of (N*m)/A in a standard torque equation for motors. As such the torque the equation is Ƭw = K Ƭ x Iw, where ,Ƭw is the working torque associated with the working current IW. The equation Ƭ = K Ƭ x I is known in the art, indicating that any type of load current is indicative of torque and that torque can be derived from any type of load current. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that load current is indicative of torque.
c) As torque has been shown to be indicative and directly related to a type of load current (Ib, IL or IW), determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than an upper threshold torque value is equivalent to determining if the working current of the motor is greater than an upper threshold working load current value. Here, Obata teaches an example of a measure for controlling the cutting wheel direction feed operation (and the thrust direction feed operation) of the polishing wheel based on the load current value appropriateness determination means, the load current value appropriateness determination means is configured such that the load current value at the time of polishing the substrate end face… When it is determined that the predetermined value has been exceeded, the next substrate end face processing includes a method in which the thrust direction feed control means moves the polishing wheel by a predetermined pitch and starts polishing ” [0008].
d) Further, Obata teaches that the of the grinding wheel is moved by a pre-determined pitch in a thrust direction( vertical/Z-axis) when the wear groove generated in the grinding wheel becomes deep from the load current value detected by the load current detection means provided in the rotation drive means, and cannot be used any more [0009]. “Since it has been clarified in the preliminary investigation that the load current value of the rotary drive section increases as the wear groove d becomes deeper, the depth of the wear groove and the quality of the polishing quality are judged based on the increase amount of the load current value. A means for determining the appropriateness of the load current value is provided. The load current value appropriateness determining means has, for example, a calculation program for calculating the wear groove depth from the change of the load current value, and when it is determined that the depth of the wear groove d is the limit, the thrust direction feed When the control means (Z-axis) starts polishing the next substrate, the control means (Z-axis) moves in the Z-axis direction by the pitch P” [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the grinding wheel management process of Obata which is based on current load of the motor associated with unusable groove depth as well as controlled grinder feed direction, to the process of Liao, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of further supporting management of grinding wheel wear to improve the quality of the polishing (grinding and polishing used interchangeably) and provide for continuous machining for improved productivity compared to the conventional method where the wear groove depth is temporarily stopped and the sliding contact position of the grinding wheel is changed, as noted by Obata [0010].
Liao and Obata teach a grinding process for glass substrates where a single unit performs grinding with a grinding wheel, controls load current, determines load current thresholds at a maximum depth in the grinding wheel, and acts upon load current thresholds for grinding wheel management for the benefits of grinding quality and improved productivity. Yet, Liao and Obata fail to teach,
engaging a blade of a cutting head with an outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel thereby shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel.
In a similar endeavor of controlled edge grinding of the edge of a glass substrate with the peripheral edge of a motorized grinding wheel and a process to manage grinding wheel wear, Fu teaches a method the peripheral edge surface 16 of glass sheet 18 is pressed into contact surface 12 of abrasive wheel 10 with a predetermined force, abrasive particles are dulled (e.g., smoothed), and the resultant increased friction with the glass edge can loosen and remove abrasive particles from the contact surface. After a time, a groove 24 forms in the contact surface. As the groove deepens, debris can fill the groove and prevent full contact between the abrasive wheel and edge surface 16, thereby reducing the efficacy of abrasive wheel 10 [0031]. Each time a groove 24 deepens to the point where the abrasive effect of the abrasive wheel is diminished, the abrasive wheel can be shifted in a direction along the axis of rotation to expose an unused portion of contact surface 12 to an edge surface of a glass sheet. Eventually, contact surface 12 is filled with grooves [0033]. Cutting tool 120 can be any suitable cutting tool configured to remove a layer of material from a surface of abrasive wheel 102 [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the in-machine cutting tool of Fu into the method of the combination as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of not discarding the abrasive wheel to be more cost effective and implement an in-line cutting process without removing the abrasive wheel from the spindle [0033], [0009].
Further, truing and/or dressing a grinding wheel is a common practice known in the art. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Obata teaches monitoring/detection/action/process control of a grinding process based upon the load currents (torque) detected in the process, and Fu teaches a cutting tool to dress the grinding wheel by removing material, Liao, Fu and Obata fail to teach,
engaging a blade of a cutting head with an outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel when the working torque of the motor is greater than the upper threshold torque value,
thereby shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel decreasing the working torque of the motor.
In a similar endeavor of dressing a grinding wheel after use on a workpiece, Miyake teaches a rotating grindstone with a work object, and brings the grindstone into contact with the work, thereby the work surface in a cylindrical grinder that grinds, the load current value of a motor (torque) that rotates the grindstone is measured, and if the load current value exceeds a certain threshold value, it is determined that the sharpness of the grindstone has deteriorated, and the grindstone is applied to a dressing device [0006]. Further, the better the sharpness of the grindstone 1, the smaller the load current value becomes, and the worse the sharpness, the larger the load current value becomes ([0012]). The threshold value is an upper limit value with which the work 2 can be favorably processed by the grindstone 1, suggesting after dressing, the load current has been reduced. Miyake teaches engaging dressing a grinding wheel during the grinding of a workpiece based upon the load current (torque) threshold being exceeded and obtaining decreased load current (torque) as a result. While Miyake does not teach grinding the edge surface of a glass sheet/substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of engaging a dressing of a grinding wheel based upon exceeding a load current threshold as in Miyake for the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes to make it possible to eliminate the waste of performing dressing on the grindstone even though the sharpness is not deteriorated, and since the sharpening is automatically performed, the processing time of dressing the grinding wheel is shortened, as noted by Miyake [0017].
wherein the upper threshold torque ratio is stored in a memory and is empirically determined to correspond to a groove depth at which an efficacy of the edge finishing wheel diminishes.
See U.S.C. 35 101 Rejection.
Regarding Claim 2 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Obata further teaches determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than the upper threshold torque ratio comprises,
determining a working torque ratio of the motor, wherein the working torque ratio = (the working current of the motor/ a rated current of the motor) x 100;
determining a difference between the working torque ratio and a baseline torque ratio of the motor, wherein the baseline torque ratio =(a baseline current of the motor / the rated current of the motor) x 100;
comparing the difference between the working torque ratio and the baseline torque ratio to the upper threshold torque ratio.
the upper threshold torque value is an upper threshold torque ratio corresponding to the maximum groove depth;
For clarity,
Ƭ = Torque
Ƭ upper threshold ratio = upper threshold current/maximum current of the motor (as understood by the Examiner)
Ƭ working ratio = working current/maximum current of the motor
Ƭ baseline ratio = baseline current/maximum current of the motor
Ƭ working ratio - Ƭ baseline ratio = (working current/maximum current of the motor) – (baseline current/maximum current of the motor).
Per Claim Interpretation, the Examiner understands that in essence, the instant claim is to determine if the difference between the working current and the baseline current, i.e. the increase on load current, is greater than the upper threshold current where the upper threshold current occurs at a maximum groove depth.
Here, Obata teaches an example of a measure for controlling the cutting wheel direction feed operation (and the thrust direction feed operation) of the polishing wheel based on the load current value appropriateness determination means, the load current value appropriateness determination means is configured such that the load current value at the time of polishing the substrate end face… When it is determined that the predetermined value has been exceeded, the next substrate end face processing includes a method in which the thrust direction feed control means moves the polishing wheel by a predetermined pitch and starts polishing ” [0008]. Further,
“From the result of this preliminary investigation, it became clear that the wear
groove depth of the grinding wheel can be predicted from the change of the load current value”, [0011].
“Since it has been clarified in the preliminary investigation that the load current value of the rotary drive section increases as the wear groove d becomes deeper, the depth of the wear groove and the quality of the polishing quality are judged based on the increase amount of the load current value”, which suggests this load current value represents a threshold current value. “A means for determining the appropriateness of the load current value is provided. The load current value appropriateness determining means has, for example, a calculation program for calculating the wear groove depth from the change of the load current value, and when it is determined that the depth of the wear groove d is the limit, the thrust direction feed When the control means (Z-axis) starts polishing the next substrate”, [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for managing wear of the grinding wheel of Obata in the method of Liao, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of maintaining polishing quality and providing continuous processing to improve productivity, as noted by Obata [0002], [0005].
Regarding Claim 3 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 2 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 2.
Obata further teaches wherein,
the upper threshold torque ratio is within a range from 48% to 52%; “when the number of polishing processes increases to about 2000, the wear groove depth becomes 1.0 mm, and the load current value at that time is about 40% larger than the average when no wear groove is generated. It was. From the result of this preliminary investigation, it became clear that the wear groove depth of the grinding wheel can be predicted from the change of the load current value”, [0011]. Here, Obata teaches a relative increase of load current (40%) (depending on groove depth (1.0mm) ) in reference to zero groove depth, as well a previously teaching the depth of the wear groove based on the increase amount of the load current value, which suggests a load current value represents a threshold current value.
Obata indirectly teaches,
Let x = Ib = baseline current where the grinder operates without touching the workpiece (zero groove depth).
Let 1.4 x =IL = the load current due only to the current increase when the grinder is engaged in with the workpiece.
In the case where the Ib + IL= 100% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor,
2.4x = 100% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor
x = 41.7% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor
Let 1.4 x =IL = 58.3% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor, which would correspond to the upper threshold torque ratio.
While Obata does not directly teach an upper threshold torque ratio in the range of 48%-52%, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that every motor has a maximum (rated) current of the motor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the upper threshold torque ration, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of properly choosing and sizing a motor for the process design as well as to not overload the motor to risk motor failure.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 4 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fu further teaches comprising,
directing liquid onto the blade of the cutting head and the edge finishing wheel
when the blade of the cutting head is engaged with the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel; [0006], Claim 3, “…wherein the coolant nozzle is arranged to direct coolant at a point of contact between the cutting tool and the abrasive wheel”. Applying coolant to a cutting tool and the surface to be cut is a common industrial process to dissipate heat. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Liao further teaches wherein,
the edge finishing wheel; Page 3 lines 6-8, …”and drives the glass 7 to move linearly so that the glass can enter the opening groove 61 of the grinding box 3 to come into contact with the grinding wheel 2 and cut by the high-speed rotation of the grinding wheel 2 The edge of the glass 7…”
Liao fails to teach wherein the edge finishing wheel
comprises abrasive particles embedded in a resin matrix.
Obata teaches a polishing wheel (grinding wheel) having abrasive particles and fibers embedded in a resin such that the wheel provides elastic material on the peripheral edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the grinding wheel of Obata on the method of Liao, one being motivated for the purpose of using a wheel with an elastic material in the peripheral portion that has excellent conformability when the outer peripheral surface of the wheel is brought into sliding contact with the end surface of the substrate, as noted by Obata ([0002], lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 10 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Liao further teaches wherein,
the edge finishing wheel comprises a plurality of grooves; Fig. 1, Fig. 2 (enlarge).
Regarding Claim 11 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 10 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 10.
While Liao teaches a plurality of grooves in the edge finishing wheel, Liao fails to teach further wherein,
a depth of the plurality of grooves is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.6 mm.
Obata teaches depth of multiple grooves (Fig. 1) worn into the periphery of the polishing (grinding) wheel at different depths (0.2mm to 1.01mm) that correspond to a different number of sheets polished (Fig. 5) that also correspond to different increased load current [0010]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Obata’s groove depth range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 12 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 10 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 10.
While Liao teaches a plurality of grooves further teaches wherein, Liao fails to teach,
a pitch of the plurality of grooves is less than or equal to 1.5 mm.
Obata teaches wear grooves formed sequentially at predetermined pitches on the peripheral edge of the grinding wheel where the depth of the grooves are determined by a change in load current during grinding the edge of a sheet of glass ([0009], [0014], lines 8-11). Further, that the polishing wheel (grinding) is raised top to bottom by pitch P after each successive groove. While Obata does teach specifically a dimension for the pitch it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pitch dimension since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the pitch dimension for the purpose of the common industrial effort for efficiency and thickness of the glass substrate, as the dimension of the pitch P only needs to be larger than the thickness of the substrate, as noted by Obata ([0014], lines 13-16.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 .
Regarding Claim 21 - Liao, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
shaving material comprises removing a predetermined incremental amount of material from the outer diameter during each shaving material operation.
Miyake discloses dressing a grinding when a current load is exceeded [0013]. A PHOSITA would know dressing a grinding wheel incorporates removing material from a grinding wheel. While Miyake does not teach specifically a predetermined amount to be removed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize for a predetermined removal amount since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize for a predetermined removal amount for the common industrial purpose of reducing grinding wheel waste and reducing cost. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed. In the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, "Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves". In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206084655U by Liao et. al.
(herein “Liao”) in further view of JP2010036315Aby Obata et. al. (herein “Obata”) and in further view of
WO2019204215A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 09/03/2025) (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Fu et. al (herein “Fu”) and in further view
of JP2000263437A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Miyake (herein “Miyake”) and in further view of PGPUB 20070087665A1 by Curtis
et. al. (herein “Curtis”).
The combination fails to teach,
collecting the liquid and debris from the shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel in a collection trough (Claim 5).
a debris shield is disposed proximate the edge finishing wheel and oriented to direct the liquid and debris projected from the edge finishing wheel into the collection trough (Claim 6)
applying vacuum to the collection trough to evacuate the liquid and debris from the collection trough (Claim 7).
directing the liquid and debris from the collection trough to a waste recovery bin (Claim 8).
In an analogous endeavor of grinding small components, Curtis teaches an apparatus and a method that includes,
a single grinding machine , a grinding wheel, a workpiece holder, an enclosure that contains the aforementioned [0006].
coolant to cool the workpiece and grinding wheel during the grinding operation
a grinding wheel mounted to a motor [0051].
The motor outside the external to the enclosure [0024].
a dressing tool [0058] inside the enclosure [0025].
mechanism to bring the grinding wheel and dressing to together so the grinding well can be dressed [0026].
a)-e) above provides a nexus.
Further, Curtis teaches,
a wheel guard that covers the grinding wheel ([0051], Fig. 6 element 54) and further describes a grinding wheel guard around a grinding wheel to help contain pieces of the grinding wheel and to contain coolant [0004].
that cooling liquid in grinding machines also carry away debris in the form of chip/cutting debris from the workpiece and abrasive material worn away from the grinding wheel [0003].
a coolant removal means… for removing the coolant and any grinding debris and fumes from the enclosure. The coolant removal means preferably comprises a pipe leading from the enclosure ((where trough base 30, that contains the coolant and likely material and grinding wheel debris resides, [0041], Fig. 3) to a coolant removal tank (waste recovery bin). and an extractor for aiding the removal of airborne coolant and grinding debris and fumes. The extractor may be any suitable extractor such as a fan or pump, providing it provides sufficient suction to draw airborne coolant and debris and fumes out of the enclosure ( including the trough base) and prevent such escaping from the enclosure when the door is opened.
…it is necessary (a) for the grinding wheel to move between its grinding position and its dressing position…the necessary aperture in the back of the enclosure is always closed by the cover plate 56, and the front of the enclosure is closed by the door 36 and the sliding panel 42. The labyrinth seals between the opening door and panel, together with the slightly sub-ambient pressure within the grinding enclosure, ensure that there is virtually no escape of cooling fluid and debris from the enclosure, and all the fluid and debris passes into the trough 30 and through the outlet pipe 32, to a conventional filtration and cleaning system which allows the coolant to be recycled through the machine.
In essence, Curtis teaches a horizontal motor grinding machine where grinding debris/coolant/fumes are removed from the grinding machine trough to a cooling removal tank via suction, where the used coolant is then recycled. As well, while not explicitly stated, Curtis implies that the dressing tool is used on the grinding wheel in the enclosure with, where shavings from grinding wheel would be produced during the dressing operation. Curtis discloses the claimed invention except for a vertical grinding machine for edge grinding glass sheets. On the whole for Claims 5-8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the process of Curtis in regard to containing and managing waste grinding debris/coolant/fumes/dressing shavings into the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose that the enclosure within the machine thus substantially avoids any exposure of the machine parts to the coolant and grinding debris which can substantially prolong their working life, the coolant can be efficiently collected, cleaned and recycled as it is contained within a relatively small volume, and cleaning of the machine as a whole is also made considerably easier, as noted by Curtis [0060].
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Brown et. al. (U.S. Patent 8,721,392) discloses a grooved grinding wheel with a depth of groove, and a grinding process to engage the edge of a glass substrate as well as dressing the grinding wheel.
Brown et. al. (USPGPUB 20130130597A1) discloses a grinding machine/system.
Smith (U.S. Patent 4,555,873) discloses a grinding operation that contains a grinding wheel that has controlled dressing/truing of the grinding wheel. Further, the truing process controls the depth of the dressing wheel to compensate for the grinding wheel wear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights