METHOD OF MANUFACTURING WINDOW AND WINDOW MANUFACTURED BY THE SAME

§102 §103

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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 2018-0056355). Regarding claim 1, Park teaches manufacturing methods of cutting window glasses and window glasses made thereby (“a window”) (Paragraph [0001]). The windows, as illustrated in figures 6-7, include a flat portion and an edge portion which has a gradually decreasing thickness toward the edge (“a flat portion; and an edge portion at an outer side of the flat portion and having a gradually decreasing thickness in a direction away from the flat portion”) (Paragraph [0071]). The windows may also be formed from the methods of using a laser to form a sheet cutting portion penetrating vertically through the window and then wet etching in order to form the chamfer portion in which the direction of curvature changes at least once (“wherein an exposed edge portion side surface of the edge portion comprises a laser irradiation line extending in a thickness direction”) (Fig. 6-7; Paragraphs [0015]; [0071]). PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the windows as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, figures 6-7 (provided below), the chamfering of the edges results in rounded, concave edges (“wherein an edge portion comprises an edge upper surface and an edge lower surface between the edge portion side surface, and facing away from each other, the edge upper surface comprising a curved surface concave in a direction toward the edge lower surface, and the edge lower surface comprising a curved surface concave in a direction toward the edge upper surface”) (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]; [00 71]). Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the windows as discussed above with respect to claim 2. As illustrated in the figures above, the windows with the chamfered, rounded edges appear to be symmetrical with respect to a virtual line extending through the center of the windows. 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. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2018-0056355) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the windows as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the rounded chamfering of the edges of the windows through wet etching results in at least one change in direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least one change in direction would include two changes, three changes, four changes and so on. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that up to four changes would result in two concave sections in an upper section of the edge portion and two concave sections in the lower portion, rendering the limitations of “wherein the edge portion comprises an edge upper surface and an edge lower surface facing away from each other, the edge upper surface comprising a first sub upper surface and a second sub upper surface that are concave in a direction toward the edge lower surface” and “the edge lower surface comprising a first sub lower surface and a second sub lower surface that are concave in a direction toward the edge upper surface.” Furthermore, Park teaches the changes in directions may be controlled by performing multiple, different wet etching factors, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different wet etching factors would result in different rounded, chamfered sections having different radii. This would ultimately teach the first and second sub upper surfaces having different radii and the first and second sub lower surfaces having different radii. Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the windows as discussed above with respect to claim 4. As discussed above, the rounded, chamfered edges may have at least one change of direction (“inflection portion”). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 4-5, applicant argues that Park fails to anticipate each of the limitations of claim 1, especially “wherein an exposed edge portion side surface of the edge portion comprises a laser irradiation line extending in a thickness direction.” This is so such that while Park describes a cutting method using a laser, the method further teaches wet etching this cut portion, therefore removing said laser line. Applicant’s invention is different such that the instant invention applies a second laser line and wet etching is performed up to this line, leaving the line intact. The examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s arguments. Paragraph [0036] states “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, a method for manufacturing a side-strengthened window glass using sheet cutting according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: forming a mask layer in cell units on the upper and lower portions of a glass plate; sheet cutting an exposed portion of the glass plate outside the mask layer area using a laser to form a sheet cutting portion that penetrates vertically through the exposed portion of the glass plate without forming a breaking line; performing wet etching on the glass plate with the sheet cutting portion formed thereon to form a chamfer portion in the exposed portion of the glass plate; removing the mask layer and strengthening the glass plate to strengthen the side portion of the glass plate through the sheet cutting portion; and cutting the strengthened glass plate in cell units using a laser or by applying a certain pressure to form a cell-unit window glass.” PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale As such, the removal of the strengthened glass plate via a laser, as indicated in the underlined portion above, which is done in the same area as the original sheet cutting as shown in the figure 1 above, results in the claimed laser irradiation line. Furthermore, Park appears to teach the wet etching being performed on the sheet cutting portion or the surrounding area which may be illustrated in Figure 6 below (Paragraph [0055]). [AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image4.png 200 400 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, the examiner contends that Park teaches the method of sheet cutting through laser irradiation, wet etching, and subsequent removal through laser irradiation or only performing wet etching on surrounding areas would result in applicant’s claimed invention, including comprising a laser irradiation line extending in a thickness direction. The current rejection is made FINAL. 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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. /DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783