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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 and 02/21/2025 have 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”).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inoue et al. (US 2019/0101787) illustrates, in figures 2 and 7, upper and lower surfaces having concave surfaces at the edge of a transparent substrate (Paragraphs [0012]-[0025]).
Srinivas et al. (US 2014/0239552) illustrates, in figure 3, upper and lower surfaces having concave surfaces at the edge of a brittle material (Paragraph [0075]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights