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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 28, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed October 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 is/are currently amended.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The drawings were received on January 28, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments towards the rejections under 35 USC 112 are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lisec fails to teach an automated rack indexing assembly because the toothed belt drive moves glass sheets instead of racks. However, at Col. 6:1-8, Lisec discloses “For displacing the rack cart 20 in the direction of double arrow 30, the undercarriage 27 is coupled with a drive mechanism, not shown. This drive mechanism can be a rack-and-pinion drive or an endless belt drive, preferably a toothed belt drive” (bold emphasis added). Therefore, Lisec discloses the toothed belt drive is used to move the rack cart. As the belt drive is used to move the rack cart, the belt drive is considered be an automated rack indexing assembly, as the rack cart is not manually moved.
In view of the above remarks, the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lisec (USPN 5209627).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Lisec (USPN 5209627) teaches a method for producing glass panels comprising: providing a rack (rack cart 20) having a plurality of slots (racks 21 are considered slots), wherein each of the slots is dimensioned to receive a glass panel [Col. 5:37-39, “slots are used to individually storing glass offcuts”]; moving the rack along a travel path (on rails) to a first position using an automated rack indexing assembly [Col. 6:1-8, “toothed belt drive”], said travel path associated with processing equipment (conveying table 1) for a glass panel production line; loading a first glass panel onto the rack (using rollers 11 of lifting device 4); moving the rack along the travel path to a second position using the automated rack indexing assembly; and loading a second glass panel onto the rack. The rack cart is moved to align each slot with the lifting device [Col. 5:45-50]. Therefore, the rack would be moved to a second position before loading a second panel onto the rack. The apparatus of Lisec would, therefore, perform the claimed steps during normal operation.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Lisec teaches the loading of the first and second glass panels onto the rack uses motorized rollers (drivable conveying rollers 11).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Lisec teaches monolithic glass (implied by “glass”).
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.
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lisec in view of Mercure (USPN 7878754).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Lisec teaches a method for producing glass panels comprising: providing a rack (20) having a plurality of slots (21), wherein each of the slots is dimensioned to receive a glass panel [Col. 5:37-39, “slots are used to individually storing glass offcuts”]; loading said rack with at least first and second glass panels (as described above); moving the rack along a travel path to a first position using an automated rack indexing assembly [Col. 6:1-8, “toothed belt drive”], said travel path associated with processing equipment for a glass panel production line (as described above). Lisec fails to teach unloading the first glass panel from the rack onto the processing equipment; moving the rack along the travel path to a second position using the automated rack indexing assembly; and unloading the second glass panel from the rack onto the processing equipment. Mercure (USPN 7878754) teaches a rack (70) that is used to store panels, the rack having a similar structure to that of Lisec. Mercure discloses receiving panels, storing the panels and unloading the panels when needed [Col. 6:39-52]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to unload the first glass panel from the rack onto the processing equipment; move the rack along the travel path to a second position using the automated rack indexing assembly; and unload the second glass panel from the rack onto the processing equipment. In this way the rack would act as storage to hold panels until needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest loading the first glass panel onto the rack after processing thereof and a second glass panel onto the rack after processing thereof, combined with the rest of the claim language.
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.”
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights