DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites a portion of the protrusion that forms part of a second major surface of the ribbon. The protrusion is formed on a (first) major surface of the ribbon. By definition, a protrusion extends from the (first) major surface and not from the second major surface (opposite surface) of the glass ribbon. Thus, it is unclear how any part of the protrusion forms part of the second major surface of the ribbon.
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.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (altered position relative to the major surface)][AltContent: textbox (major surface )]Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lock (2013/0133369). Lock teaches a method of manufacturing a ribbon comprising contacting the ribbon with a recess of a forming roll to impart a protrusion to the ribbon traveling along a ribbon travel path in a first travel direction (figure 5, [0089]), receiving the ribbon on a surface positioned downstream from the forming roll, and then altering a position of the protrusion relative to a major surface of the ribbon by means of a vacuum mold (figure. 19, [0100]), as emphasized in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lock (2013/0133369) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fournel et al. (2021/0292221). Lock teaches the altering comprises forming a vacuum between the ribbon and the surface to bias the ribbon toward the surface ([0100]). While a vacuum mold is depicted in fig. 19, Lock further teaches the surface can alternatively be a flat plate or a horizontal vacuum glass forming system ([0100]). Lock further teaches flatness is an important consideration ([0061]). Fournel also teaches a method for manufacturing a glass ribbon, and like Lock, emphasizes the flatness of the glass ribbon as a desired attribute ([0120]). Fournel teaches using a horizontal vacuum glass forming surface to apply a combination of a pressure and a vacuum between the glass ribbon and the surface, wherein the vacuum formed biases the ribbon toward the surface, thereby effecting planarizing of the glass ribbon ([0120], [0343]-[0344], [0347]). Fournel teaches the horizontal vacuum glass forming surface provides for adjusting any warps in the glass ribbon ([0348]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed the horizontal vacuum and pressuring surface of Fournel in the method of Lockt to remove any warps in the glass ribbon. In applying the planarizing technique of Fournel to Lock, the backside of the protrusion on the second major surface of the ribbon is planarized and is made co-planar with surrounding portions of the second major surface.
Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisson et al. (2011/0236631) in view of Bisson et al. (2015/0099618). Bisson ‘631 teaches a method comprising contacting a ribbon with a recess of a forming roll to impart a protrusion to the ribbon traveling along a ribbon travel path in a first travel direction (figures 2 and 4A, [0019], [0022]). Bisson further teaches the textured glass ribbon can be further be manipulated in different directions ([0030]), but doesn’t offer specifics. Bisson ‘618 teaches in another reference, a method for manufacturing a ribbon comprising contacting the ribbon with a forming roll, the ribbon traveling along a ribbon travel path in a first travel direction ([0032]-[0033]), and receiving the ribbon on a surface positioned downstream from the forming roll ([0039]-[0040],[0048]-[0049], figures 7-9). Bisson ‘618 teaches redirecting the ribbon from the first travel direction to a second travel direction, i.e. from vertical to horizontal, to minimize the size of the process and apparatus layout ([0037]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the redirection of the glass ribbon of Bisson ‘631 to a horizontal support downstream of the forming roll, so as to minimize the size of the process and apparatus layout.
Bisson’631 teaches the textured glass ribbon can be manipulated after producing the textured pattern, including further stretching to reduce the thickness, which would result in further deformation of the texture that is rolled on the glass ribbon ([0029]-[0030]). Bisson’ 618 teaches the surface for receiving the glass ribbon provides for superior flatness ([0047]). Thus, in applying the redirection and horizontal support of the glass ribbon after stretching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the position of the protrusion relative to a major surface of the ribbon to be altered during the flattening of the glass ribbon.
Regarding claim 12, Bisson’ 631 teaches the glass ribbon can be further manipulated using thermal devices ([0030]) and Bisson ‘618 teaches activating a thermal management apparatus that controls a temperature of the surface to reduce a temperature of the ribbon as the ribbon is in contact with the surface ([0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Bisson ‘618 further teaches turning the ribbon around a turning roll after the forming roll (for imparting the protrusion) and before receiving the ribbon on the surface, the turning roll altering a temperature of the ribbon by further cooling ([0037]). Bisson ‘618 teaches the turning roll allows for redirection of the glass ribbon about a curved support ([0038], figure 7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a turning roll so as to provide support for the glass ribbon as it is redirected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Bisson et al. (2011/0236631) teaches a method for manufacturing a ribbon comprising contacting the ribbon with a recess of a forming roll to impart a protrusion to the ribbon traveling along a ribbon travel path in a first travel direction ([0019], [0022]). Bisson teaches in another reference (2015/0099618) passing the glass ribbon through a cooling apparatus ([0048], figure 9). However, Bisson ‘618 teaches the glass ribbon is at a viscosity of less than 108 poise before being redirected from vertical to horizontal positions ([0029]). Thus, Bisson fails to specify a glass ribbon at a viscosity in the range of 109 to 1013 poise before entering a cooling device. Fredholm (WO 2022/026207) teaches forming a glass ribbon using forming rollers (figures 3 and 4) and passing the glass ribbon through a cooling apparatus ([0060]). Fredholm teaches forming a glass ribbon formed using a forming roll increases the viscosity of the glass ribbon due to the cooling effect of the forming roll, wherein the glass ribbon can be expected to have a viscosity of greater than or equal to 109 poise before entering a cooling apparatus ([0061], [0068]). Fredholm also teaches the glass ribbon exiting the cooling apparatus is greater than the viscosity before entering the cooling apparatus ([0062]). Fredholm further teaches the cooling apparatus provides for controlled cooling of the glass ribbon using multiple independently controlled cooling modules, thereby effecting a uniform temperature profile across the glass ribbon ([0069]), while taking into account the ribbon temperature and thickness, including thickness variation of the ribbon ([0072]-[0073]). Thus, Fredholm appears to suggests changing a temperature of the glass ribbon while maintaining a relative uniform temperature in the glass ribbon (hence a temperature difference between the protrusion and surrounding portion of the ribbon to less than about 5°C). However, Fredholm fails to recite with any specificity the step of actively reducing a temperature difference between the protrusion and a major surface of the ribbon to less than about 5°C as the ribbon. Instead, the cooling effect of Fredholm is provided to the whole surface of the glass ribbon without focus on a temperature difference between protrusions and a major surface of the ribbon. Fredholm also teaches in another reference (US 2019/0169059) cooling the glass ribbon down to room temperature ([0044]), which typically has a viscosity of greater than 1016 poise. However, Fredholm ‘059 fails to suggests the step of reducing a temperature difference between the protrusion and a major surface of the ribbon to less than about 5°C.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 and 22 of copending Application No. 18/838,047 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a method for producing a glass ribbon comprising contacting a glass ribbon with a recess of a forming roll to impart a protrusion to a first major surface of the ribbon, receiving the ribbon on a support surface positioned downstream from the forming roll, and forming a vacuum between the glass ribbon and support surface to bias the ribbon, thereby altering a position of the protrusion relative to the major surface of the ribbon by planarizing a second major surface of the glass ribbon.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lock does not disclose altering the position of the protrusions relative to a major surface of the glass ribbon after the ribbon is received on a downstream surface. The major surface is interpreted to be the flat surface above the first mold 260 (mold on the left) in figure 19 of Lock and the altered position of the protrusion is interpreted to be the concave portions of the glass ribbon on top of the second mold 260 (mold on right side) in figure 19. Thus, the concave portions provide for protrusions that are altered in their positions relative to the major surface of the glass ribbon.
Applicant further argues the downstream manipulation, stretching or flattening of the textured glass ribbon of Bisson does not equate to the altering of the position of the a protrusion relative to the major surface of the glass ribbon. This is not found persuasive because the act of flattening would push the protrusions down, thereby altering the positions of the protrusions relative to the surface.
Applicant’s argument regarding the double patenting rejection is moot, as the rejection is now based on claims 15 and 22 of the copending application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights