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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 21-29 withdrawn/canceled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites “an emitter system for irradiation of laminated glass panels of different widths” wherein the limitation after “for” refers to a desired functional limitation without any structural limitation to accomplish the function.
Claim 17 recites “individual emitters”. It is understood the antecedent basis refers to the plurality of elongated emitters introduced in claim 16.
Claim 19 recites “a cutting device for cutting laminated glass panels of different widths” wherein the limitation after “for” refers to a desired functional limitation without any structural limitation to accomplish the function.
Claim 20 recites “each individual emitter”. It is understood the antecedent basis refers to one of the plurality of elongated emitters introduced in claim 16.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 IS objected to because of the following informalities:
Please correct the superscript in the units of claim 35
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-20 and 30-37 are 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 recites “the plurality of elongated emitters each have ends”. The limitation should be rewritten as “each of the plurality of elongated emitter have ends”. As written, the limitation can be misconstrued as the collective elongated emitter has ends, which is not the intended interpretation of the specification. Dependent claims 17-20 and 30-37 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 16 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 16 recites “the emitter system comprises at least three emitters”. The limitation should be rewritten as “the plurality of elongated emitters comprise at least three emitters”. As written, the limitation can be misconstrued as creating antecedent basis for “at least three [additional] emitters”, not related to the plurality of elongated emitters previously introduced. This issue also applies to claim 32.
Claim 33 recites “the plurality of elongated emitters have a length”. [0030] of the specification is clear that each individual elongated emitter has the claimed length. As written, the collective plurality has the claimed length which is not the intended interpretation. Please correct accordingly or else this rejection will be considered a written description rejection in the following Office Action.
Claim 34 recites “the plurality of elongated emitters are all of equal length”. The location of “all” fails to clarify the intended interpretation. As written, the claim can be construed as the collective plurality has equal length, compared to nothing.
Claim 36 recites “at least one of the plurality of elongated emitters” followed by “an emitter of the plurality of elongated emitters”. There is implied but no direct nexus mapping the latter to the first limitation. For example “an emitter of the plurality of elongated emitters” does not expressly mean it is one of the “at least one of the plurality of elongated emitters”.
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 32 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. Due to the “or” limitation of claim 32, there is no express narrowing limitation in claim 32 with respect to its parent claim 16. 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.
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 16-20 and 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (EP-1323681-A2, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Shigeoka et al (US-20040112885-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Glaser teaches a glass cutting device for processing laminated glass panels (Line 70) of different widths (Line 164-166) comprising an emitter system for irradiation (Line 126) which comprises a plurality of elongated emitters arranged one behind another on a common longitudinal axis (Line 153-155, short segments conductively connected over the length).
Glaser teaches that the elongated emitters divides heating along the length (Line 156-157). Glaser does not expressly teach the plurality of elongated emitters have ends which are angled in relation to the common longitudinal axis or the nominal number of emitters. In related emitter system for irradiation of glass panel art, Shigeoka teaches of plurality of elongated emitters arranged one behind another on a common longitudinal axis (Fig. 5, lamp 130A) which each have ends which as are angled in relation to the common longitudinal axis (Fig. 17, ends 136a) wherein the emitter system comprises at least three emitters (Fig. 5, lamp 130A). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass cutting device of Glaser to incorporate the elongated emitters of Shigeoka with angled ends in relation to the common longitudinal axis with at least three emitters arranged in the common longitudinal axis as a known emitter system for irradiating glass panels.
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches of automated controls (Line 48) without expressly teaching a control unit. The automated control of Glaser controls the length of the emitter to activate (Line 164-166). Shigeoka teaches of a control unit that controls the emitters to turn on and off [0156, 134, 150]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control unit that activates the emitters on and off as taught by Shigeoka to control the length of emitters of Glaser to be activated as a known arrangement for an emitter system for irradiating glass panels.
Regarding claim 18, depending from claim 17, Glaser teaches of sensors configured to record the width of the laminated glass panel to be processed and used for the width to be emitted (Line 164-166). Modified Glaser incorporates the control unit of Shigeoka which controls the activation of emitters to be activated [0156, 134, 150]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the control unit of modified Glaser use the width determined by the sensor of Glaser to be the input for the control unit of Shigeoka as desired by Glaser. See MPEP 2114(IV).
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches a cutting device (Line 88-97) that moves longitudinally which allows cutting laminated glass panels of different widths along the cutting axis, and is on the same axis of the plurality of elongated emitters of the emitter system (Fig. 1/2).
Regarding claim 20, depending from claim 16, Glaser implies that there are plurality of individual emitters smaller than a width of the laminated glass panel (Line 153-155) wherein modified Glaser incorporates the individual emitters taught by Shigeoka teach the length of the emitter is smaller than a width of the laminated glass panel to be irradiated (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches the elongated emitter has heating coils (Line 170-175). Modified Glaser relies on the individual emitters/lamps of Shigeoka which teaches of filaments in the lamp [0083]. A skilled artisan understands the filaments reads on the heating coil limitation. Regarding the plastic film inside the laminated glass panel, this is a limitation of the material worked upon which does not patentably distinguish the apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 31, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches the elongated emitter has heating coils (Line 170-175). Modified Glaser relies on the individual emitters/lamps of Shigeoka which teaches the ends of each emitter angled in relation to the common longitudinal axis have a bending radius with a vertex (Fig. 17) wherein the filament/heating coil extend along the common longitudinal axis and beyond a vertex of the bending radius [0083] (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 32, depending from claim 16, Shigeoka teaches the emitter system comprises at least three emitters (Fig. 5, lamp 130A). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum number of elongated emitters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 33, depending from claim 16, Shigeoka teaches the length of the elongate emitter in the range of 130 to 400 mm [0085]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the length of each elongated emitter that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 34, depending from claim 16, Shigeoke teaches the plurality of elongated emitter all are equal length per Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 35, depending from claim 16, Shigeoka teaches of power density [0154] and a minimum power density [0032]. Shigeoka is used for heat treating their glass [0001] and is modified in its incorporation for the cutting device of Glaser. The minimum power density taught by Shigeoka inherently reads on the limitation by overlapping the instantly claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 36, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches the plurality of elongated emitters comprises a light exit slit and a reflector wherein the reflector reflects radiation emitted by the emitter in a direction of the reflector back in the direction of the light exit slit (Line 126-131, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, depending from claim 16, Glaser teaches of automated controls (Line 48) without expressly teaching a control unit. The automated control of Glaser controls the length of the emitter to activate (Line 164-166). Shigeoka teaches of a control unit that controls the subset of emitters/zones to turn on and off [0156, 134, 150]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control unit that activates the emitted on and off as taught by Shigeoka to control the subset of emitters of Glaser to be activated as a known arrangement for an emitter system for irradiating glass panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20020060210-A1 teaches the claimed power density for cutting
JP-2002198319-A can substitute the Shigeoka reference
US-20080298786-A1 teaches heating coils in angled ends of elongated emitters with individual control in prior art
US-7656079-B2 teaches individual control of the filaments/coil
EP-3208245-A1 teaches an emitter system on a trolley to irradiate different widths of a laminated glass panel
US-20180242399-A1 is Inventor’s relevant prior art
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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 on 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights