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 Interpretation
Claim 21 indicates the step of imparting the protrusion on a first major surface forms a trench on the second major surface. A method is made up of active steps. The active step indicated in the limitation above is imparting the protrusion. The trench is written as a result and the specification does not indicate an active step of forming a trench purposefully.
Claim 23 does not indicate when the claimed viscosity occurs during the method steps. For the purpose of this examination it will be considered to occur at any point during the method.
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) 15-18, 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lock (US 20130133369) and further in view of Fournel (WO 2018/0528) as cited in (US 20210292221).
Regarding claim 15, Lock discloses a method of manufacturing a ribbon (Fig 19) comprising:
contacting the ribbon with a recess (198) of a forming roll (26) to impart a protrusion to a first major surface of the ribbon (Fig. 19);
receiving the ribbon (21) on a support surface (260) positioned downstream from the forming roll (Fig 19), a second major surface of the ribbon opposite the first major surface facing the support surface, and the protrusions extending in a direction away from the support surface as depicted on the textured ribbon (31) in Fig 19; and
This system hereof may be mated with a wide variety of glass take out and glass forming or finishing devices, including but not limited to, heated flat plate takeouts…or flat belt conveyor [0100]
Considered equivalent to the claimed planarizing the second major surface of the ribbon by maintaining the ribbon in contact with the support surface for a duration of time given the broadest reasonable is silent to the temperature 500-1000 degrees Celsius and viscosity of the ribbon during a planarizing/ flattening step and minimize undesired defects.
In an analogous art of producing a glass ribbon Fournel discloses a method of manufacturing a ribbon while minimizing unintentional defects on the glass ribbon [0213] and ensuring flatness in the glass [0348] comprising:
contacting the ribbon with a recess of a forming roll to impart a protrusion to a first major surface of the ribbon;
planarizing the second major surface of the ribbon by maintaining the second major surface of the ribbon in contact with the support surface (100) considered a furnace defined by thermal elements (64) and the area of existence or machinery they are connected to. Fournel discloses the glass being heated at 600 to 1100 degrees Celsius a viscosity within a range from about 105 poise to about 109 poise [0232] for any amount of time which meets the claim limitation of, “some a duration of time” given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature and viscosity of the formed ribbon as taught by Fournel as motivated as a planarization step
Regarding claim 17, Fournel does not indicate the precise duration of time however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the glass conveying past the heating elements (64) in the amount of time to achieve the desired temperature of 600 to 1100 degrees Celsius and a viscosity within a range from about 105 poise to about 109 poise.
Regarding claim 20, Lock discloses a first surface portion of the second major surface opposite the protrusion extends along a first plane [0103] of 1 mm or thinner, thus overlapping the claimed range of less than about 150 microns. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and one would be motivated to optimize within the range disclosed by Lock.
Regarding claim 21, Lock discloses forming a protrusion on one surface when the glass is at a softened viscosity by [0086]
MPEP 2112.01 states;
Where the claimed and prior art products are produced substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Thus a skilled artisan expects a trench of some sort to form on the other surface. The planarizing step of Fournel will minimize any unwanted defects.
Regarding claim 22, Fournel discloses flattening, or planarizing, via a contact or non-contact support and using a vacuum [0120], [0343]-[0344], [0347] (note: [0333] suggests embodiment with glass in direct contact during said step)
Regarding claim 23, Lock discloses the glass ribbon being molten thus a viscosity softening point of 107.6 poise, Fournel discloses a controlled heating/cooling planarization step made obvious in claim 15 of a viscosity range from about 105 poise to about 109 poise. Thus the prior art teaches the ribbon within the viscosity range of claim 23 at least at some point during the claimed method of claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Fournel does not indicate the precise duration of time however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the glass conveying past the heating elements (64) in the amount of time to achieve the desired temperature of 600 to 1100 degrees Celsius and a viscosity within a range from about 105 poise to about 109 poise.
Regarding claim 25, the support surface of Fournel discloses 54A-54B [0347], [0364] with passages, or plurality of openings, or gaps with vacuum depicted by arrows (5528) depicted in Fig. 55.
Regarding claim 26, Fournel does not indicate the diameter of the first opening in the plurality of openings in the support surface the glass sheet is flattened using a one-sided gas bearing assembly, such as, for example, the gas bearing assembly shown in FIGS. 54A and 54B. The one-sided gas bearing assembly includes both gas feed passages and a driven exhaust vacuum system. The gas feed passages provide gas which applies a positive pressure to the glass sheet. [0347]
Regarding claims 27-29, the spacing vacuum pressure applied is all optimization that would be obvious to a skilled artisan as motivated to achieve the desired flatness, which would be minimization.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the diameter of an opening as motivated to draw vacuum and achieve the desired flatness absent any unexpected results [0120].
Regarding claim 31, Fournel does not indicate the precise duration of time however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the glass conveying past the heating elements (64) in the amount of time to achieve the desired temperature of 600 to 1100 degrees Celsius and a viscosity within a range from about 105 poise to about 109 poise.
Regarding claims 30, 32, Fournel suggests flattening the glass ribbon by applying both positive pressure and pressure below atmospheric pressure leads the gas bearing system to a strongly self-adjusting gap system, with pressure forces driving toward perfect flatness [0346] and even suggests a biased pressure force when necessary for a high degree of flatness [0347].
It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the method of Lock to achieve flatness on the side of the glass without protrusions by implementing the various suggestions of Fournel including using a vacuum support taught by Fournel and a well-known contact press mold on the protrusion side to maintain the imposed pattern while flattening the other side.
Regarding claims 33-34, the spacing vacuum pressure applied is all optimization that would be obvious to a skilled artisan as motivated to achieve the desired flatness, which would be minimization.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the diameter of an opening as motivated to draw vacuum and achieve the desired flatness absent any unexpected results [0120].
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lock (US 20130133369) and further in view of Fournel (WO 2018/0528) as cited in (US 20210292221) as applied above and further in view of over Likitvanichkul (US 20140318184)
Regarding claims 19 and 22, a skilled artisan looking at the combined teachings of Lock and Fournel after planarizing the second major surface, the second major surface comprises a flatness that is less than about 100 microns.
MPEP 2112.01 states;
Where the claimed and prior art products are produced substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In an analogous art of forming a glass ribbon, Likitvanichkul discloses the roughness, equivalent to the claimed flatness, of the second major surface is .230 microns or less [0036] thus overlapping the claimed range with sufficient specificity. A skilled artisan would be motivated to produce a glass with the roughness known in the art as taught by Likitvanichkul.
Regarding claim 20, Lock discloses a first surface portion of the second major surface opposite the protrusion extends along a first plane [0103] of 1 mm or thinner, thus overlapping the claimed range of less than about 150 microns and Likitvanichkul discloses a method of manufacturing a ribbon (Fig 2) comprising:
contacting the ribbon (21) with a recess of a forming roll (26) to impart a protrusion to a first major surface of the ribbon, creating a patterned, textured surface (Fig. 2, [0023], [0030]);
Likitvanichkul discloses a thickness of 1 mm or less [0020] thus overlapping the claimed range of claim 20 overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and one would be motivated to optimize within the range disclosed by Likitvanichkul
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights