DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in paragraph [0054] the term “SS54” should be “SS4”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant uses the abbreviation“4D” in the specification ([0076]), please define the abbreviation “4D”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: It is unclear to the Examiner where the specification supports that the glass processing device further comprises a chamber, a lower mold disposed in the chamber, and an upper mold positioned above the lower mold in the chamber. While the thermoforming device is supported in Fig. 12 and a glass processing device is supported in Fig. 6 with a jig, laser, and driving device, it is unclear that the Figures and specification indicate the glass processing device includes the claimed jig, laser, driving device, along with the claimed chamber, lower mold, and upper mold.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-19 in the reply filed on Apr. 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, the Examiner interprets “a primary processed glass” as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
In claim 11, The Examiner interprets “wherein the laser ablates some portions of the side wall of the primary processed glass at the second position” as manner of operating the device.
Claim 14 claims limitations directed towards the primary processed glass, which is the material worked upon by the apparatus.
Claim 15 claims limitations directed towards the primary processed glass, which is the material worked upon by the apparatus. This limitation is tied to the manner of operating the device.
Claim 16 limitations are interpreted as manner of operating the device, since the limitations reference the wherein statement of claim 11 also interpreted as manner of operating the device.
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 16 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 16 claims the height of the upper surface of the side wall of the primary processed glass, which is the material worked upon by the apparatus, relative to a height of an upper surface of the second part of the jig. This limitation lacks clarity, since the limitation is relative to the material worked upon by the apparatus, which is not required in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2024/0181562) in view of Morikazu (US 2023/0415263A1) and IIzuka et al. (US 2024/0194501 – hereinafter IIzuka).
Regarding claim 11, Mori (Fig. 1 and [0025]-[0027]) discloses a laser processing apparatus comprising a holding unit (corresponding to a jig assembly) including a chuck table 33 (corresponding to a jig) that rotates. Mori discloses a laser (“laser beam applying unit 5”) fixed to a second position spaced apart from a first position where a jig assembly including the ingot (i.e. workpiece) is positioned. Mori (Fig. 1 and [0028]) discloses a driving device (moving mechanism 41 and moving mechanism 42) that provides for X-axis and y-axis translation of the jig. Accordingly, the moving mechanisms provide for a driving device that can transport the jig from a first position to the second position.
Mori fails to disclose the jig comprising a first part and a third part attached to the first part, wherein the jig rotates around an imaginary axis passing through a middle of a third part. However, Morikazu (Fig. 3 and ([0021]-[0023]) teaches holding unit including a chuck table 35 that rotates including a cover plate 34 and support column 33 that the chuck table 35 passes through and the rotating mechanism is housed in support column 33. Both Mori and Morikazu teach a holding unit including a chuck table that rotates. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Morikazu, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the jig (i.e. chuck table) of Mori further comprising a first part, such as a cover plate 34, and a third part attached to the first (i.e. cover plate 34) so that the jig rotates around an imaginary axis passing through the middle of the third part.
Mori fails to disclose jig including a second part extending from the first part. However, IIzuka (Figs. 1 and 4 and ([0048]) discloses laser applying unit 70 combined with a chuck table 81 including pins that abut uniformly against a wafer on the chuck table to ensure the wafer is aligned with the center of the chuck table. Mori, Morikazu, and IIzuka discloses a chuck table combined with a laser. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by IIzuka, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, pins could be added to the modified jig of Mori to provide for alignment capabilities. The pins provide for a second part protruding and extending from the first part (i.e. cover plate 34). As stated in the claim interpretation section above, the Examiner interprets the primary processed glass as the material worked upon by the apparatus, and the laser ablation as the manor of operating of the apparatus. It is noted the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus claim (see MPEP 2115). Therefore, the primary processed glass is not required. Also, it is noted the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the claimed apparatus if the prior art teaches the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114). Therefore, the ablation of portions of the material worked upon is not required. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Mori discussed above, has the structural limitations of a jig comprising the claimed first part, second part, and third part, a laser, and a driving device that transports the jig from the first position to the second position.
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner interprets the modified apparatus of claim 11 provides for the claimed structure, since the limitations are directed towards the material worked upon by the apparatus, and the apparatus of claim 11 is capable of operating with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner interprets the modified apparatus of claim 11 provides for the claimed structure, since the limitations are directed towards the material worked upon by the apparatus, and the apparatus of claim 11 is capable of operating with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, the Examiner interprets the modified apparatus of claim 11 provides for the claimed structure, since the limitations are directed towards the material worked upon by the apparatus, the manner of operating the apparatus, and the apparatus of claim 11 is capable of operating with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, as stated in the rejection of claim 11 above, Mori (Fig. 1 and [0028]) discloses a driving device (moving mechanism 41 and moving mechanism 42) that provides for X-axis and y-axis translation of the jig, and Mori discloses the jig assembly is rotated about the imaginary axis. Accordingly, the moving mechanisms provide for a driving device that can transport the jig from a first position to the second position. With the disclosure of X-axis and Y-axis translation this provides for the driving device linearly moves the jig assembly from the first position to the second position. As stated in the claim interpretation above, the laser ablation is interpreted as manner of operating the device and the primary processed glass is interpreted as the material worked upon by the apparatus. Accordingly, since the modified apparatus of Mori, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, provides for the driving device can transport the jig from the first position to the second position, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the laser of Mori is capable of at the second position, ablating some portions of the side wall of the primary processed glass while the jig assembly is rotated around the imaginary axis.
Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of claim 11 is capable of the claimed manner of operating limitations claimed in claim 18, such as at a second position ablating portions of a side wall of the primary processed glass while the jig assembly rotates
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claims 12-13, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the glass processing device comprising the claimed jig, jig assembly, laser, and driving device further comprising a chamber and lower and upper mold in the chamber, as claimed in claim 12. Claim 13 depends from claim 12
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a hole defined in the first part of the jig and a suction pressure is provided in the hole to fix the primary processed glass to the jig, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (US2021/0395130) (fig. 6 and [0089]-) discloses an apparatus comprising a laser (200) and a jig (corresponding to substrate-fixing jig assembly 800) comprising a shell-forming frame 100 having a bottom (corresponding to a first part) and a second part that protrudes and extends from the first part to form forming space 110. Yu ([0023]) discloses the substrate-fixing jig assembly may include a pressing jig disposed on the shell forming frame to be apple to move up and down and rotate. Yu fails to disclose the jig (i.e. assembly 800) rotates around an imaginary axis through a middle of a third part and a driving device that transports the jig from the first position to the second position.
Zou (US 2022/0238953) (Figs. 2-3 and abstract) discloses a first mold and a second mold which provides for an upper and lower mold. Zou fails to disclose a jig and laser.
Ukrainczyk (US 2010/0000259A1) (abstract and Fig. 5) discloses a mold combined with a furnace (corresponding to a chamber). Ukrainczyk fails to disclose a jig and laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights