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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Applicant has allegedly disclosed the invention of glass that has compressive and tensile stress zones—created by a wide variety of light—and not limited to any particular creation technique. The disclosure taken as a whole does not depict where in glass piece the tension
and compression exist—nor what mechanism creates tension or compression. For example, applicant’s specification indicates that 1 and 11 are “disk” shape (Spec. p.22 inter alia) but that does not make sense. How are they a disk? What is the thickness direction? Where does the laser (allegedly) go within the glass, and how does that create tension or compression zones—what are the boundary of the zones? In figure 2 at least the line marking the creation of compressive zone overlaps and hits the alleged ‘tensile’ zone (See rings of compression at 7, 19, figures 1 and 2).
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims; Here—claim 1 encompasses all glass with a compressive portion and a tensile stress at any point in the glass. This is wildly broad and weighs against enablement. Note—the term “zone” has no meaning in this context—the boundary of the tension and compression are shown overlapping in figure 2. Also—the “separation face” is the idea of a later separation and is not a definite thing. Applicant’s specification notes this at p. 8 line 15+: “the separation face does not (yet) necessarily have to be present at that point in time because it is only formed completely after the separation of the glass….” How does applicant wish claim 1 to be assessed—which requires a “separation face” in the glass material. Is this the idea that glass can be separated (later) including by a saw blade? The breadth here is wild—and also indefinite (see infra). Claim 20 also does not make sense. Where is a compressive stress zone “perpendicular” to a “side face” shown in the figures? The location of the stresses are being claimed as though they are very important and unique, but they are not shown or described with any particularity. As best understood, applicant discloses shooting a laser at glass with appropriate conditions to separate the glass—but the nature of the positions of stress/ tension/ compression are not disclosed or described in a manner to make persons of ordinary skill understand where they are, or how they are formed.
ere
(B) The nature of the invention; Here—the control of a laser to effectively cut glass of unknown thickness is either so routine that it is just routine optimization of known lasers and lights—in which case (see 102/103 rejections) applicant has not added anything discernable of note to the art—or else applicant has been so vague about the nature of the extent of the claims that they are not enabled to be practiced. Here, the disclosure does not state how the ‘line focus’ creates tension and compression zones—but leaves it to the public to adopt maybe a Bessel or maybe an airy function, or a laser. Also—applicant requires the tensile zone to be surrounded by compressive zones – but does not show this arrangement. As noted above figure 2 shows compressive zones intersecting and overlapping with the tensile zone (rings shown as 19). They are either not “along the separation face” because 19 is spaced laterally from the presumed (future) separation face—or else the compression does not surround the tension---- since the repeated modification of the glass by some focused light would hit and interact with the previously created zones of tension (as they are shown overlapped significantly in figure 2). This factor weighs against enablement.
(C) The state of the prior art; As noted infra, there is evidence that others have used focused light to create glass with different stress zones, which weighs for enablement.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill; This factor weighs against enablement, since those of ordinary skill would be glass cutters—and would not be able to understand from this disclosure what aspects of laser are being focused—nor where they are focused, nor how exactly the tension and compression zones are allegedly arranged. This factor weighs against enablement
(E) The level of predictability in the art. This is a mechanical or physical problem, which appears to have repeatability, based on some of the art cited below, and as such This factor weighs for enablement.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor. Here, applicant does not provide sufficient direction—the nature of the actual control of the light to be focused is not clarified—it is not clear what part of the glass is being modified, or how. This factor weighs against enablement. None of the particular claimed amounts are ties to any particular laser type, speeds, or sizes—making the nexus between the claims and the disclosure difficult to understand. For example, in claim 13 and 21, the range of compressive stress is given as 1MPa to 3000MPa. This appears to be a large range, but there is no direction as to what factor influences the difference? Applicant has not disclosed what to do to a laser (*or light more broadly—as disclosed) to influence the induced stress—the how or why of the laser operation is not shown or disclosed. This factor weighs against enablement.
(G) The existence of working examples. Here, no working example is proffered or known, and therefore this factor weighs against enablement
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Based on the disclosure, the amount of experimentation is similar to a disclosure that says go use lasers to cut glass. Because the claims are overbroad—and do not limit their scope to any particular glass, or any particular light source with a ‘line focus’—and the nature of how the line focus is achieved at all is omitted from disclosure entirely—there is no evidence in the record that the experimentation would be simple to create working examples from the disclosure. This factor weighs against enablement
Taken together as a whole, the factors weigh against a finding of enablement, since the disclosure is imprecise, vague, and overbroad, as analyzed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are full of terms which are confusing or vague, and which impermissibly discuss the scope of the invention in a manner which makes it impossible to determine what is being claimed.
Generally, claims do not import subject matter from the specification, including drawings. The drawings may not be ’read into’ the claims, but are a guide for how to understand the disclosure. Here, the drawings and specification do not help the claims make sense.
Claim 1 requires the compressive zones to be located so the tensile zone is between them, but this is not shown in the figures—the figures show overlapping lines which allege to have created (without ablation) compressive and tensile zones, which intersect repeatedly.
Claim 1 requires a “separation face” which the specification indicates may not exist yet. p. 8 line 15+: “the separation face does not (yet) necessarily have to be present at that point in time because it is only formed completely after the separation of the glass….” Is the separation face a property of the glass that is being claimed—or is it the idea of the possibility of separation? What defines a face to be a separation face except intent? How does a tensile stress ‘line’ exist if the laser has been shooting overlapping compressive zones into the same line (shown in figure 2).
Claim 3 requires the claimed subject matter to be “a glass element” and also that the glass element be “separated” (a method step) into more sub elements. We cannot discern whether this is saying there are spaces in a single element which exist as arbitrary zones—or if applicant intends to claim a method of breaking glass— and if so—then the nature of claim 3 is imprecise, since claim 1 requires tensile zones which no longer exist if the glass is separated into elements along the separation face (right?).
Claim 4 requires the tensile zone to be “surrounded” by two compressive zones, which is not understood—the tension and compression zones apparently overlap and intersect, and the disclosure does a poor job explaining where these zones are—they are not shown to ‘surround’ tension zones around the separation face as disclosed in claim 1.
Claim 8 requires “isobars” which extend in the tensile …zone and/or the compressive zone. This is indefinite since a single isobar cannot extend in a tensile AND a compressive zone, since isobars are areas of the same stress—and compression and tension cannot be the same stress level.
Claim 5 requires that “the tensile stress zone and the compressive stress zones are formed non-destructively” which is not understood. Being shot with a laser and having compressive and tensile sections formed which leads to the inclusion of a separation face (as set forth in claim 1) is a creation of a destruction of the glass being claimed—which is therefore not “non-destructively.” The specification indicates that this is perhaps “local areas…respectively modified” which again—seems like a destruction—in that it alters the interior of the glass to some unexplained extent.
Claim 7 does not make sense—“ Regarding claim 7. The glass element according to claim 1, further comprising local areas of the glass material that have local stress modifications; and a surface of the glass body that has at least one edge in common with the separation face, wherein the local areas extend in a cross-sectional plane of the glass element along a straight path, and wherein the cross-sectional plane extends parallel to the surface of the glass body.” – these features are not shown or described such that they are understood. The ‘cross sectional plane” is not shown in any figure—the straight path is not seen, and the parallelism is not shown or designated in a manner that makes sense.
Claim 10 requires the glass to be a disc—but the nature of the disc is not clear in the specification, and it appears applicant is using the term in a non-standard manner, without redefining the term.
Claim 17 is indefinite for the recitation of two different ranges—a narrower and a broader range in the same claim—this is indefinite, since the claimed range cannot be understood.
Claim 18 is indefinite for reciting “the separation face follows at least parts of an outer shape of an airy beam or a bessel beam.” Which does not make sense—how does the ‘face’ ‘follow’ a Bessel beam? A Bessel beam is inclusive of propagation of an interference wave form in space and time—the separation face is a plane. This is not a claim limitation which can be understood as defining a structure or feature of the GLASS which is being claimed.
Claim 20 does not make sense. Where is a compressive stress zone “perpendicular” to a “side face” shown in the figures? The location of the stresses are being claimed as though they are very important and unique, but they are not shown or described with any particularity. As best understood, applicant discloses shooting a laser at glass with appropriate conditions to separate the glass—but the nature of the positions of stress/ tension/ compression are not disclosed or described in a manner to make persons of ordinary skill understand where they are, or how they are formed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-17, 19-24, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0017407 (Bello).
Regarding claim 1, Bello discloses a glass element, the glass element (102 figure 3) comprising: a glass body of a glass material (figure 3) having a first portion and a second portion (figure 8 shows 4 portions bounded by respective separation faces); a separation face in the glass material between the first portion and the second portion (any of the break lines shown in figure 8); a tensile stress zone in the glass material along the separation face (See Abstract, noting the sheet has compressive force at the top and bottom, surrounding the tensile force in the glass ‘disc’ “The substrate may also have a compressive stress greater than or equal to 200 MPa and a depth of layer from about 50 μm to about 150 μm. The substrate may further include a tensile stress region having a stored elastic energy of less than 40 kJ/m.sup.2 providing for a flat fragmentation factor of less than or equal to 5.”) ; and two compressive stress zones in the glass material along the separation face (id), wherein the tensile stress zone is between the two compressive stress zones (id).
Regarding claim 2. The glass element according to claim 1, wherein the glass element is separable along the separation face into a first sub-element consisting of the first portion and a second sub-element consisting of the second portion.
Regarding claim 3. The glass element according to claim 1, wherein the glass element is separated along the separation face into a first sub-element consisting of the first portion and a second sub-element consisting of the second portion.
Regarding claim 4 wherein the tensile stress zone is surrounded by the two compressive stress zones.
Regarding claim 5, Bello further discloses, wherein the tensile stress zone and the compressive stress zones are formed non-destructively (they are shown formed before any desctruction takes place in Bello).
Regarding claim 10. The glass element according to claim 1, wherein the glass element has a disk shape (This is ambiguous as noted above under 112(b) heading, but it appears that to the same extent as applicant, Bello shows a “disk” meaning a flat piece of glass—Figure 8, inter alia).
Regarding claim 11, the glass material of Bello comprises an aluminosilicate glass ([0025]) and/or a borosilicate glass.
Regarding claim 12, Bello further discloses the glass element is a glass plate having a thickness from 0.6 mm to 50 mm. (See [0005] it is between 1 and 2 mm)
Regarding claim 13, Bello further discloses wherein the compressive stress zones have a compressive stress from 1 MPa to 3000 MPa. ([0005]: “A surface compressive stress at the first surface and the second surface of the strengthened substrate may be greater than or equal to 200 MPa.”
Regarding claim 14, Bello discloses wherein the tensile stress zone is sandwiched directly between the two compressive stress zones ([0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Bello discloses wherein the two compressive stress zones are spaced apart from one another (they are shown sandwiched).
Regarding claim 16, Bello discloses wherein the separation face and/or edges of the separation face is/are prestressed (the compressive layers and tensile layer exists before—which is therefore ‘prestressed’ per se).
Regarding claim 17, Bello discloses wherein the glass element has a thickness between 0.6 mm and 10 mm or between 1 mm and 50 mm (Bello discloses a 1-2 mm glass, [0005])
Regarding claim 19, Bello discloses the separation face extends and/or forms within the tensile stress zone (because the break e.g. figure 8, is across the whole thickness of the glass including compressive and tensile zones…).
Regarding claim 20, it is anticipated AS BEST understood on the same analysis as claim 1, above
As best understood, Bello also discloses claim 21, since the disclosed compressive stress zone has a compressive stress from 1 MPa to 3000 MPa (200Mpa, noted supra) and the compressive stress zone extends in a plane parallel to the side surface (along the planar direction, shown above)
As best understood, Bello also discloses claims 22-23 since further comprising an edge strength of the glass sub-element along the side surface of greater than 100 MPa because of the 200MPa strengthening.
As best understood, Bello also discloses claims 24, because Bello discloses side surface comprises an average surface roughness with a roughness depth RZ of 5 nm to 10 μm (“the first surface has a surface roughness Ra of less than or equal to 1 μm.”)
Bello also discloses claim 26 for the same reasons as claim 11.
Bello also discloses 27 and 28, for the same reasoning as claims 9, 12, supra.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 18, 20, 25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bohme (US 10,280108).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Bohme shows the same invention idea and structure as applicant, as best understood—the shooting of lasers into glass to form a separation plane in the glass, as seen in figure 2 and figure 4. The nature of the specific creation of “tensile” and “compressive” force is not stated explicitly, but is implied—and Bohme states the creation of “stresses” is because of the same force as applicant uses—ultrashort pulse lasers focused inside a glass (“The CO.sub.2 laser can be pulsed or applied continuously. Preferably, pulses in the range of 100 μs to 4,000 μs are used with pulse train frequencies of 0.1 kHz to 100 kHz. For particular preference, the pulse duration is in the range between 300 μs and 4,000 μs with 0.1 kHz to 3 kHz pulse train frequency. The laser power can be in the range of 10 to 200 W, preferably however in the range of 10 to 100 W.” and “ A corresponding aftertreatment step is however frequently not required at all since the zones of internal damage, which are introduced in step (b) (and in the possibly implemented optional step (d)) already have internal stresses introduced into the substrate material which suffice for the undesired contour remains to be detached by themselves from the remaining substrate (self-removal of the contour remains) in the course of the material removal- and/or material deformation step or after the same.
(39) Further advantageous achievable method features can be deduced from claim 7 and claim 8.”
Regarding claim 6, This discloses the same claimed subject matter as applicant--further comprising a superposition of a plurality of local areas of the glass material that have local stress modifications, in a cross-sectional plane, parallel to a surface of the glass body (E.g. Bohme figure 4, etc)
Regarding claim 8. As noted above, this is believed to not make sense—but as best understood, since further comprising isobars of a first stress that extend parallel to the separation face in the tensile stress zone and/or the compressive stress zones. To the extent it is understood—it is saying that there are compressive zones which have a single magnitude, and likewise for tensile. Here, Bohme shows the use of single pulses in the same manner as applicant, which would therefore created localized tensile or compressive zones with “isobars.”
Regarding claims 18, and 29 wherein the separation face follows at least parts of an outer shape of an airy beam or a bessel beam (a curved line—as in figure 4; the nature of “follow” and airy or Bessel beams is indefinite, since the nature of the Bessel is not discussed in a manner which clearly relates to the actual processing of the Glass whi8ch is the subject of the claim).
Regarding claim 25, Bohme discloses the side surface is flat or curved and comprises, in at least one cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the side surface, a parabolic and/or circular course and/or a course according to an equation of the fourth degree (See curved face figure 4).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme (US 10,280108).
Regarding claim 9, Bohme does not explicitly disclose the tensile stress zone has a first thickness and the two compressive stress zones have a second thickness, and wherein the first thickness is less than 50 μm and greater than 1nm, and/or the second thickness is less than 100 µm and greater than 1 nm, however, based on the similarity of the pulses discussed by Bohme, it appears the size of the imperfections/ discontinuities would be the same as applicant. The selection of the size of the pulse and duration, and energy based on the disclosure of Bohme would be an obvious pursuit of optimization, as best understood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724