DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 50-57, in the reply filed on June 1, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 46-49 and 58-65 are withdrawn for being directed to nonelected inventions. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 50 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/095415 Murashige et al (cited by US 2022/0001652).
Regarding claim 50, Murashige teaches a glass article having a thickness of from 30 to 150 microns (paragraph 0045), the glass article comprising:
a first surface (figure 6);
a second surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are essentially parallel to each other (figure 6); and
at least one edge connecting the first surface and the second surface, wherein the at least one edge has a chamfer structure comprising three surfaces comprising a perpendicular surface being essentially perpendicular to the first surface and to the second surface (figure 6, perpendicular surface being region between thickness portions denoted as H1 and H1’),
a primary connecting surface 22 connecting the perpendicular surface and the first surface (figure 6), and a secondary connecting surface 24 connecting the perpendicular surface and the second surface (figure 6), wherein the chamfer structure has a profile such that
a tangent line A to the primary connecting surface crosses a tangent line B to the first surface (shown by dotted line creating angle θ2) at a distance dl from a tangent line C to the perpendicular surface (figure 6), and
a tangent line D to the secondary connecting surface crosses a tangent line E to the second surface (shown by dotted line creating angle θ3) at a distance d2 from the tangent line C to the perpendicular surface (figure 6),
wherein both dl and d2 are measured perpendicular to the tangent line C to the perpendicular surface, wherein tangent lines A, B, C, D, and E are obtained by fitting a respective tangent line to the corresponding surface in a profile of the chamfer structure (figure 6),
wherein the chamfer structure is asymmetric such that dl ≠ d2 (paragraphs 0035 and 0036, where the angles θ2 and θ3 are discussed separately such that the angles may be different from each other, resulting in a d1 and d2 that are not the same).
Regarding claim 57, Murashige teaches that dl is larger than d2 (paragraphs 0035 and 0036, where the angles θ2 and θ3 are discussed separately such that the angles may be different from each other, resulting in a d1 and d2 that are not the same).
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.
Claims 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/095415 Murashige et al (cited by US 2022/0001652) with evidence from US 2014/0170387 Kashima et al.
Regarding claims 51-56, Murashige teaches the glass article but does not explicitly teach values such that d1 and d2 can be determined. However, Kashima teaches a glass article where the edges are chamfered in a particular configuration such that applied stresses may be scattered, leading to a reduction in damage (paragraph 0048). Based on this teaching, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the angles and chamfers, and therefore the distances d1 and d2, to achieve the optimal stress scattering and damage reduction based on the desired final application.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific d1 and d2 values are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method, the precise dimensions and chamfer structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed d1 and d2 values cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the angles, dimensions and chamfer structure to obtain the desired physical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
