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Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/16/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 “average stress” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “average stress” 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. It is unclear if the is an average stress derived from a specific length of the glass ribbon, a specific side of the glass ribbon, or both sides of the glass ribbon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lock (US 20130133369).
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 interpretation in view of the specification.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bisson (US 20150099618)
Regarding claim 15, Bisson discloses a method of manufacturing a ribbon (Fig 5-6) comprising:
contacting the ribbon (232) with a recess of a forming roll (224) to impart a protrusion to a first major surface of the ribbon (Fig. 6, [0033]);
receiving the ribbon [0048] on a support surface (430 or 540) positioned downstream from the forming roll (Fig 9), 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 (232) in Fig 6; and
Considered equivalent to the claimed planarizing the second major surface of the ribbon by maintaining the ribbon in contact with the support surface (430 or 540) for a duration of time wherein “in contact” includes via an air cushion or the ribbon touching the conveyor given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Regarding claim 16, Bisson discloses a viscosity less than 50000 Poise [0005], 108 poise [0007] thus overlapping with the claimed range of about 105 poise to about 109 poise where overlapping ranges that sufficiently anticipate.
Claim 17 is not limited to specific method step and planarizing is not claimed in such a way that it is limited thus Bisson is considered to anticipate the duration of time is within a range from about 4 minutes to about 60 minutes given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Claims 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Likitvanichkul (US 20140318184)
Regarding claim 15, 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]);
receiving the ribbon on a support surface positioned downstream from the forming roll 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;
or the glass take out mechanism may be a horizontal conveyor that transports the glass ribbon to downstream glass processing stations [0030]
this is 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 interpretation in view of the specification.
Regarding claim 17, is not limited to specific method step and planarizing is not claimed in such a way that it is limited thus Likitvanichkul is considered to anticipate the duration of time is within a range from about 4 minutes to about 60 minutes given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Regarding claim 18, 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lock (US 20130133369) as applied above.
Regarding claim 19, Lock does not specifically state the ribbon comprises an average stress that is less than 7 MPa however MPEP 2112.01 states;
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or 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)
Lock discloses all of the claimed method steps of claim 15, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to presume the glass ribbon would have the average stress as claimed in claim 19 absent any unexpected results, which must be commensurate in scope with the claim.
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
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bisson (US 20150099618)
Regarding claim 19, Bisson does not specifically state the ribbon comprises an average stress that is less than 7 MPa however MPEP 2112.01 states;
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or 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)
Bisson discloses all of the claimed method steps of claim 15, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to presume the glass ribbon would have the average stress as claimed in claim 19 absent any unexpected results, which must be commensurate in scope with the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Bisson discloses a thickness of 1 mm or less [0005] Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and one would be motivated to optimize within the range disclosed by Bisson
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Likitvanichkul (US 20140318184) as applied above.
Regarding claim 19, Likitvanichkul does not specifically state the ribbon comprises an average stress that is less than 7 MPa however MPEP 2112.01 states;
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or 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)
Likitvanichkul discloses all of the claimed method steps of claim 15, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to presume the glass ribbon would have the average stress as claimed in claim 19 absent any unexpected results, which must be commensurate in scope with the claim.
Regarding claim 20, 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
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