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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The indefiniteness rejections of previous claims 1-13 are withdrawn in view of the present claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The formula in claim 1 determines a maximum impurity concentration less than 360 mass ppm and claim 12 states the maximum impurity concentration using the same formula is less than a predetermined value which is broader than maximum value of 360 mass ppm. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what the “remaining rate” in each of the last three lines refers to.
Claim 12 is rejected as being indefinite because the formula as defined in claim 1 is the same equation in claim 12 but defines the variables differently:
PNG
media_image1.png
568
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cri, Cre, MRb, MRi, MRe, E1, E2, E3 are defined differently for each formula although the formulas are the same.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, an impurity concentration in the glass plate is controlled by adjusting a ratio of the glass raw material, the glass plate cullet and the article cullet” Claim 1 does not define what is considered an “impurity” thus for this examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1an impurity is given the Merriam-Webster definition of:
PNG
media_image4.png
390
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an algorithm and explanation of variables therein without recitation of how the algorithm is then specifically used to keep an impurity concentration in the glass plate. Although claim 1 recites “formula (6) is kept less than a predetermined value” and “the maximum impurity concentration P∞ in the glass plate as expressed by the following formula (6) is kept less than a predetermined value…” respectively, there is no indication in the claims or specification of how the “keeping” step is carried out. The algorithm of formula (6), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, simply covers the performance of a limitation in the mind. nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and is thus an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only recites an impurity calculation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of the calculation. Claims 9-13 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 10788172) and Hidefumi (WO 2020241751) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Arai discloses a glass plate production method comprising;
Melting glass raw materials (S11) Fig. 3 (Col 17; line 31), Arai suggests the glass raw material having an optimized amount of glass cullet (Col 18; lines 16-19).
Arai discloses forming the glass melt into a glass plate (S130) (Col 17; lines 19-20, 56).
Arai discloses forming the glass plate into a glass article including a cover glass for a display (Col 19; lines 1-5).
Arai fails to discuss coating the glass plate to yield the cover glass.
In analogous art of cover glass for a display device (Background art, page 9) Hidefumi discloses a glass plate (1) (at least page 9) with an anti-fouling coating (2) and anti-glare coating (3), or anti-reflective coating. It would be obvious to modify the method of Arai by applying the anti-glare and anti-fouling coating as motivated to prevent reflection and prevent oils or removing cream (page 3-4) to the cover glass for a display.
Arai discloses optimization of a proportion of glass cullet in the glass raw material (Col 18; lines 18-19) and desires to maintain the transition metal ions controlled to below 0.1ppm in the batch (Col 17; line 60-Col 18; line 8). This is considered equivalent to controlling and adjusting the impurity concentration claimed.
The combined teachings of Arai and Hidefumi do not specifically disclose using each the cullet of the glass plate and cullet of the coated glass plate display specifically a skilled artisan knows any waste glass, be it the final product Hidefumi , waste pieces of the glass cut plates, or defective plates are known to be recycled in batch materials as cullet.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reuse any waste glass left throughout the process and optimize the proportion of cullet as motivated to reduce any undesirable impurity as motivated to achieve the desired glass composition and recycle material leading to efficient use of materials and economical success.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 4-5, Arai discloses optimizing the mixture of batch materials and cullet to obtain the desired batch (see rejection of claim 1) thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mixture of cullet and raw materials to obtain the desired final glass composition.
Regarding claim 15, Hidefumi suggests chemically strengthening the glass plate. It would be obvious to strengthen a glass plate in the method of Arai as motivated to strengthen the glass.
Regarding claims 9-13, to the best possible examination, Arai discloses maintaining the transition metal ions Fe Ti Cr Co controlled to below 0.1ppm in the batch (Col 17; line 60-Col 18; line 8). This is considered equivalent to the impurity concentration claimed and optimization of a proportion of glass cullet in the glass raw material (Col 18; lines 18-19). It would be obvious to optimize the amount of impurity allotted at a given time as motivated to maintain an impurity concentration at a specific amount.
Further regarding claim 10, E1, E2, and E3 are arbitrary numbers within the formula of claim 1 defining a desirable impurity concentration and the formula is derived by optimization of the cullet to batch materials to optimize the impurity content and achieve to final desired glass composition.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 10788172) and Hidefumi (WO 2020241751) as cited in the machine translation provided herein as applied above and further in view of McGregor et al. (US 2182834)
Regarding claims 2 and 6-8, The combined teachings of Arai and Hidefumi do not disclose some “treatment A” to remove a glass-outside attached substance. Arai discloses a specific amount of iron desired, thus iron being the impurity.
In analogous art of recycling displays McGregor discloses purifying plate glass scraps at least due to grinding and polishing into suitable cullet (Page 1, Col 1; lines 5-10) removing iron and other impurities (Page 1; Col 2; lines 15-29) removing the glass-outside impurity of iron via a magnetic separator and acid washing (Page 2; Col 1; lines 10-70) such that the waste material can be used as suitable cullet in new glass batches (Page 2; Col 2; lines 27-30). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the cleaning/ removal of impurities’ method of McGregor in the method of Arai as motivated to put the waste plate glass to use and achieve a desired amount of iron in the final product.
Regarding claim 3, Arai discloses optimization of a proportion of glass cullet in the glass raw material (Col 18; lines 18-19) and desires to maintain the transition metal ions Fe Ti Cr Co controlled to below 0.1ppm in the batch (Col 17; line 60-Col 18; line 8). This is considered equivalent to the impurity concentration claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the prior art recites the claimed formula of claim 1 however fails to indicate why the formula is novel and not a method of optimizing the amount of cullet and batch materials as motivated to derive the desired composition with the benefits of using recycled glass as indicated in the rejection.
The office does not have the time or resources to perform all of the experiments to arrive at the claimed formula however it would be clear the amount of impurities in the cullet, reuse of article waste, and raw materials determine the amount of impurities in the glass product that a skilled artisan could determine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230278904 cullet ratio [0007] controlling [0023]
US 20110203319 [0014] batch, cullet ratio computer-controlled [0014]
US 20060230787 [0011] batch virgin raw material and cullet ratio automatically determined by computer [0017]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights