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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to CN202310729332.2, with a filing date of 06/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2024 and 06/28/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 drawn to an Apparatus in the reply filed on 06/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claim (s) 17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a method (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 06/028/2026.
Claim Interpretation
To note, a recitation with respect in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Regarding Claim 5 - a cooling air duct is inserted into a cavity of each of the wheels for cooling and edge
drawing;
Regarding Claim 6 - cooling air is introduced into the cooling air duct;
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 23 – pressure is greater than a pressure threshold / pressure is greater than a pressure threshold between the glass plate and the primary clamping unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a clamping device at an edge of a substrate glass during molding based on an overflow technique does not reasonably provide enablement for,
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Breadth of the claims: claims recite (claim 8) to adjust a temperature of the cooling air by controlling a refrigeration power of the refrigeration device and adjust an airflow speed of the cooling air by controlling an operation parameter of a cooling fan and (claim 13) adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part.
B) Nature of the invention: the invention asserts it is desirable to provide a clamping device at an edge of a substrate glass during molding based on an overflow technique and an operation method thereof to suppress the inward shrinkage of the glass plate, ensure the effective plate width of the substrate glass, and ensure that the glass does not contact other objects in the effective region, thereby ensuring the smoothness of the glass surface [0004].
C) State of the prior art: U.S. Patent 11,485,667 states improvements to apparatuses, or systems, for drawing sheet glass, such as from the root of a forming wedge in a fusion downdraw process to significantly decreases the amount of sheet width attenuation and produce increased useable sheet width allowing more efficient utilization of the glass sheet (Col 2 lines 23-26, 33-35)
D) Level of one of ordinary skill: a skilled artisan understands that edge rollers are used to improve attenuation/width of a glass sheet from a downdraw process.
E) Level of predictability in the art: a skilled artisan can readily predict that cooling air and the distance between two sets of pull rollers below the root (or guide plate) need to be adjusted at times to reduce attenuation width of the drawn glass sheet.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: [0058], [0066],[0071-0075], [0090], and [0098] of the instant specification provide the most detail regarding to adjust a temperature of the cooling air by controlling a refrigeration power of the refrigeration device, adjust an airflow speed of the cooling air by controlling an operation parameter of a cooling fan, and adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part (claims 8 and 13). However, it is not clear from the adjusting in which direction the adjustment is performed as a result of (i.e. higher/lower, up/down) controlling a refrigeration power of the refrigeration device , controlling an operation parameter of a cooling fan, as well as which direction the adjustment of the clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part based upon the adjustment of the temperature of the cooling air and airflow speed of the cooling air.
G) The existence of working examples: instant Figs. 1, 3-6 show how the method should be functionally applied; however, similarly to the amount of direction provided by the inventor above, there lacks detail of an example that demonstrates the values of the noted variables effect, to in a proper direction, adjust a temperature of the cooling air, adjust an airflow speed of the cooling air, and to adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit.
H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: as with the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and the level of predictability, the instant specification fails to provide enough instruction to overcome what a skilled artisan would rather continuously experiment with to determine the proper adjustment direction to be made for adjusting a temperature of the cooling air, to adjust an airflow speed of the cooling air , and to adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit.
Further dependent claims that have enablement issues include:
From Claim 8:
Claims 15 and 16 -to determine the clamping distance based on an ambient temperature, a liquid glass temperature, a glass thickness, and a liquid glass flow speed through a clamping model, the clamping model being a machine learning model. [0070], [0102], [0107-0120], [0131] of the instant specification states the variables of the clamping model but it is not clear the definition of a freezing simulation layer, what variables are included in calculating the freezing simulation layer, how the freezing simulation layer is calculated, the output/value of the freezing simulation layer, how the output value of the clamping model is calculated, what the relative weighting factor is of each clamping model variables, what is the definition of a loss function and how is it calculated, what is the definition of a cooling simulation layer and how it is calculated ,what is the calculation for estimating the glass cooling rate, if the output of the cooling simulation is model for estimating the glass cooling rate or if the output is the glass cooling rate, what type of neural network is used for the cooling simulation layer model, how the distance estimation layer is calculated.
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(s) 13 (and dependent claims 14, 15, 16, and 23), 15, 16, and 22 is/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.
Regarding Claim 13 – it is unclear what constitutes “adjust” regarding claim 13 to “a clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part”, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands “adjust” to mean changing a clamping distance by any means, either higher or lower, to any value, by use of a control device or a manual device.
Regarding Claim 15 - it is unclear what constitutes “ determine” in regard to “the clamping distance based on an ambient temperature, a liquid glass temperature, a glass thickness, and a liquid glass flow speed through a clamping model, the clamping model being a machine learning model”, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands “determine” to mean identifying a clamping distance by any means of any value within any tolerance range.
Regarding Claim 16 - The term “estimate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “estimate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “estimate a glass cooling rate through the cooling simulation layer based on the ambient temperature, the liquid glass temperature, and the glass thickness” and “estimate the clamping distance through the distance estimation layer based on the liquid glass flow speed and the glass cooling rate” are rendered indefinite.
Claim 22- it is unclear what constitutes “ a preset algorithm” in regard to “determine an adjusted airflow speed of the cooling air through a preset algorithm, the adjusted airflow speed of the cooling air being negatively correlated with a temperature change rate of the cooling air and a change rate of the glass cooling rate, and being positively correlated with a change rate of the liquid glass flow speed”, rendering the claim indefinite.
All remaining dependent claims not specifically cited are also considered to be indefinite at least because of their dependency on independent claim 1.
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 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/mental process without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim(s) 16, recite “processor is (further) configured to”,
Claim 16 - estimate a glass cooling rate through the cooling simulation layer based on the ambient temperature, the liquid glass temperature, and the glass thickness; and estimate the clamping distance through the distance estimation layer based on the liquid glass flow speed and the glass cooling rate, which under broadest reasonable interpretation reads upon a mental process. For example, a practitioner is capable to estimate a cooling rate based upon any type of data, including rate through the cooling simulation layer based on the ambient temperature, the liquid glass temperature, and the glass thickness. The same applies to a practitioner capable to estimate a clamping distance through the distance estimation layer based on the liquid glass flow speed and the glass cooling rate. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the mental process of performing an estimate on a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
11,485,667 by Anderson et. al. (herein “Anderson667”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 11,554,975 by
Coppola et. al. (herein “Coppola”)
Regarding Claim 1 – Anderson667 teaches,
a clamping device at an edge of a substrate glass;
during molding based on an overflow technique;
comprising,
a primary clamping unit;
and a secondary edge drawing unit;
wherein ,
the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit clamp edges of two sides of a glass plate, respectively;
the primary clamping unit is arranged above the secondary edge drawing unit;
FIG. 1C/1D/1E, element 250, Col 5 lines 58-62,“… the edge rollers 250 (clamping device) include upper edge rollers 251 (primary clamping unit) and a set of lower edge rollers 252 (secondary clamping unit) engaging the glass sheet 110 being drawn in a downdraw process. FIG. 1D/1E illustrates the upper edge and lower edge rollers engaging each side of the glass sheet, where the upper edge roller is above the lower edge roller and the upper edge roller is below the root (root element 20 shown in FIG. 1C and is also in FIG. 1D/1E but not labeled).
While Anderson667 teaches an overflow downdraw process, which typically has guide plates, or edge directors, at the root and that upper edge roller is closer to the root (root = where the glass comes together after overflowing the sides of the glass trough, Col lines 38-42, FIG. 1C element 20, where element 20 is also present in FIG. 1D/1E but not labelled, Col 5 lines 48-49 ) than the secondary edge drawing unit, Anderson667 does not specifically disclose,
and the primary clamping unit is closer to a guide plate than the secondary edge drawing unit;
In a similar endeavor of making glass sheet/ribbon from an overflow downdraw process (fusion draw method (Abstract, FIG. 2)), Coppola discloses edge directors (guide plates) at the root of the downdraw process ( Col 7 lines 27-49, FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the edge directors at the root of the downdraw per Coppola to the apparatus and the root location of Anderson667, where the upper roller is below the root and the upper roller (the clamping wheels) would be below and closer to the edge directors, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of increasing the width (“W”) of the glass ribbon, countering attenuation of the width of the glass ribbon that may occur due to molten material being drawn off the root, as noted by Coppola (Col 7 55-62).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
11,485,667 by Anderson667 et. al. (herein “Anderson667”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 11,554,975
by Coppola et. al. (herein “Coppola”) and further view of USPGPUB 2014006116A1 by Langensiepen
(herein “Langensiepen”).
Regarding Claim 2 - Anderson667 and Coppola in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Anderson667 teaches wherein,
the primary clamping unit includes clamping wheels; FIG. 1C/1D/1E, element 250, Col 5 lines 58-
62,“… the edge rollers 250 (clamping device) include upper edge rollers (wheels) 251 (primary
clamping unit).
While Anderson667 discloses clamping wheels, yet does not specifically disclose,
the clamping wheels are solid roller wheels;
and a material of the clamping wheels is a metal material or a ceramic material;
In a similar endeavor of a downdraw sheet process including edge directors where edge rolls are used
to engage the edge portions of the glass sheet as the glass is drawn off the root (FIG. 1, FIG. 2 element
115, [0038]), Langensiepen discloses a downstream edge roll where the outer peripheral surface is
infiltrated with ceramic particles (Abstract, [0016], [0047]) where the downstream roll is solid (Fig. 4
element 403, [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the edge rolls of Langensiepen for the rollers of
Anderson667, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of providing a hardened surface to
counter wear conditions that may shorten the life of the roll, as noted by Langensiepen [0046].
Regarding Claim 3 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Langensiepen in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches
all of the limitations of claim 2.
wherein,
the clamping wheels are disposed below the guide plate.
As the combination teaches the primary clamping unit 251 has upper edge rollers (wheels) 251 that
are below the root but above the secondary edge drawing unit (Anderson667) and the root location
also contains the edge directors (guide plate) (Coppola), then the clamping wheels (upper edge
rollers 251) must be below the guide plate. FIGS. 1D/1E of Anderson667 illustrate the upper edge
rollers (wheels ) 251 below the root 20.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Anderson667 in further view of Coppola and in further view of CN108996891A (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Hu et. al. (herein “Hu”).
Regarding Claim 4 - Anderson667 and Coppola in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Anderson667 teaches wherein,
the secondary edge drawing unit includes wheels; FIG. 1C/1D/1E, element 250, Col 5 lines 58-62,“… the edge rollers 250 (clamping device) include upper edge rollers 251 (primary clamping unit) and a set of lower edge rollers (wheels) 252 (secondary clamping unit) engaging the glass sheet 110 being drawn in a downdraw process.
While Anderson667 teaches a cooling system for thermal shield plates to protection of the edge rollers (Col 4 lines 22-28), where the cooling is a liquid in a continuous loop from a manifold (FIG. 5B, elements 501 and 502, Col 8 lines 36-38) and the cooling liquid is also used inside the spindle cavity where the spindles support rotation of the roll shafts where there are internal liquid cooling holes in the spindle (Col 8 lines 44-55), Anderson667 does not disclose,
the wheels for cooling and edge drawing are hollow roller wheels;
In a similar endeavor of an overflow downdraw process for manufacturing glass sheet where one set of edge clamp nip rollers are used to contact the glass at the glass edges (FIG. 1, lines 43-49), Hu discloses clamping edge nip rollers that are wheels that are hollow (Fig. 2, line 59).
Hu teaches the wheels are hollow roller wheels except for their position as wheels for cooling and edge drawing (i.e. secondary edge drawing unit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hollow clamping edge rollers of Hu for the secondary edge drawing unit of Anderson667, as one would be motivate to do so for the purposes of improving cooling efficiency on the nip roller and improving production efficiency and equipment life, as well as due to inward shrinkage tendency of the cooled glass being weakened, and the embossing direction of the left and right nip rolls at a certain angle, the frictional force with the glass surface forms an outward component, which promotes the outward extension of the glass, as noted by Hu (lines 38-39, 165-167).
Regarding Claim 5 – Anderson667, Coppola, and Hu in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 4.
Hu further teaches wherein,
a cooling air duct; lines 50-55, “…a cooling passage for cooling the holding roller is disposed…,
the cooling passage includes an intake passage and an outlet passage, the nip roller is a hollow
structure, and one ends of the intake passage and the outlet passage are respectively connected
to the cavity of the nip roller”.
is inserted into a cavity of each of the wheels for cooling and edge drawing; Intended Use, See Claim Interpretation. While this limitation is directed towards intended use, Hu does disclose clamping rollers at the front and back of the glass substrate connected to a shaft and a cooling passage for cooling the holding roller is disposed in the shaft (lines 47-50) where the ends of the intake passage and the outlet passage are respectively connected
to the cavity of the nip roller” (lines 50-55). The cooling medium is cold air or water (line 57)
and the nip rollers when in contact with the surface of the glass causes the glass to extend
outwardly (lines 152-153). Here, the cooling passage (cooling act duct) is explicitly used for
cooling and edge drawing of the nip rollers with cooling passage.
Regarding Claim 6 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Hu in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
Hu teaches wherein,
cooling air is introduced into; Intended Use, See Claim Interpretation. While this limitation is
directed towards intended use, Hu discloses “…preferably, the cooling medium in the cooling
passage is cold air or water…”, “… , while the cooling air enters the internal cavity of the nip
roller ...”, line 57, 165-166. Here, the cooling passage (cooling act duct) explicitly has cooling air
introduced to the cooling passage.
the cooling air duct; lines 50-55, “…a cooling passage for cooling the holding roller is disposed…,
the cooling passage includes an intake passage and an outlet passage, the nip roller is a hollow
structure, and one ends of the intake passage and the outlet passage are respectively connected
to the cavity of the nip roller”.
Claim(s) 7-10, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson667 in
further view of Coppola and in further view of Hu and in further view of WO2017095791A1 (English
language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Cimo et. al.
(herein “Cimo”).
Regarding Claim 7 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Hu in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
Hu further teaches wherein,
the cooling air duct is connected with a refrigeration device;
the refrigeration device is configured to generate the cooling air;
Lines 57, 92-93, “…The air flow passage (cooling duct) forms a cooling circulation passage (refrigeration
device) to increase the utilization of energy of the cooling medium…”, “…preferably, the cooling
medium in the cooling passage is cold air or water…”,
While Hu cites an overall glass width control system, Hu does not explicitly disclose,
the refrigeration device is in communication with a processor;
and the processor is configured to control the refrigeration device to generate the cooling air.
In an analogous endeavor of redrawing thick sheet of glass where sets of edge rollers are used to
control sheet width attenuation (Fig.1 , Fig. 9, Fig. 12 element 340 = rollers), Cimo discloses a redraw
system controller 150 with one or more processors 152 including any processing component configured
to receive information [0030]. Further that as part of the controller system 150, a feed unit 310 used
where edge roller assemblies are included, where the feed unit 310 may send and receive signals along
a communication path 154 [0032].
Cimo discloses the claimed invention except for a downdraw process and the refrigeration device. It
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to use the processors and control units of redraw apparatus of Cimo in the
apparatus of the combination (i.e. the nip rollers of Hu), as the Cimo processors and control units are
used to control all aspects of the edge rollers and could be used to control the refrigeration device.
Processors and control units are common in the industry to control any and all process variables.
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 Claim 8 - Anderson667, Coppola, Hu and Cimo in the rejection of claim 7 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 7.
wherein the processor is further configured to,
adjust a temperature of the cooling air by controlling a refrigeration power of the refrigeration
device;
and adjust an airflow speed of the cooling air by controlling an operation parameter of a cooling
fan.
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Regarding Claim 9 - Anderson667, Coppola, Hu and Cimo in the rejection of claim 8 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 8.
Hu teaches wherein the secondary edge drawing unit further includes,
an air outlet duct; lines 50-55, “…a cooling passage for cooling the holding roller is disposed…,
the cooling passage includes an intake passage and an outlet passage…”
and a spiral tube;
one end of the spiral tube is communicated with the cooling air duct;
and the other end of the spiral tube is communicated with the air outlet duct;
and the air outlet duct and the spiral tube are configured to discharge the cooling air;
Hu discloses the claimed invention except for the spiral tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the passage of the air duct by adding a spiral tube to the air duct, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of adding a spiral for the purpose of elongating the discharge passage for increased cooling without consuming more space.
Regarding Claim 10 - Anderson667, Coppola, Hu and Cimo in the rejection of claim 8 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 8.
Anderson667 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to,
determine the airflow speed based on the temperature of the cooling air, a liquid glass flow
speed, and a glass cooling rate.
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Regarding Claim 22 - Anderson667, Coppola, Hu and Cimo in the rejection of claim 10 above teaches all
of the limitations of claim 10.
wherein,
the processor is further configured to determine an adjusted airflow speed of the cooling air through a preset algorithm;
the adjusted airflow speed of the cooling air being negatively correlated with a temperature change rate of the cooling air and a change rate of the glass cooling rate;
and being positively correlated with a change rate of the liquid glass flow speed.
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson667 in
further view of Coppola and in further view of WO2017095791A1 (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Cimo et. al. (herein “Cimo”).
Regarding Claim 11 and 12 - Anderson667 and Coppola in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Anderson667, overall, cites the fusion downdraw process (Col 2 lines 23-26) and PHOSITA would know
the fusion downdraw process, or any glass forming process, requires temperature control of the glass.
Coppola takes the step to cite that heat may be applied to keep the glass temperature above the
liquidus temperature below the root/ at the edge director (Col 10 lines 48-52), yet the combination does
not disclose Claim 11,
the glass plate is divided into a plurality of temperature fields in sequence from the guide plate
downward according to a preset temperature range;
and the primary clamping unit clamps the edge of the glass plate located in a first temperature
field;
or Claim 12,
the glass plate is divided into a plurality of temperature fields in sequence from the guide plate downward according to a preset temperature range;
and the secondary edge drawing unit clamps the edge of the glass plate located in a second temperature field;
In an analogous endeavor of redrawing thick sheet of glass where sets of high temperature edge rollers
[ceramic, 0080] are used to control sheet width attenuation (Fig.1 , Fig. 9, Fig. 12 element 340 = rollers),
Cimo discloses redrawing glass blanks, from a choice of different glass materials (the preform glass sheet
110 may comprise any exemplary glass sheet, for example…Corning® Gorilla® Glass (Coming's code 2319
for example), Corning® EAGLE XG®, Corning® Lotus® glass, )[0024], and multiple sequential temperature
zones defined by heating units 252a-264a, where temperature zone of heating units 256a/258a/260a
are sequential slightly before and after the attenuation area of the drawn sheet (similar area to the
root/guide plate of a downdraw process), where the glass sheet temperatures are sequential, and
where the 1st roller attenuation assembly/ first roller and 2nd roller attenuation assembly (330b/330c)
each contain rollers 332a/332b which engage the glass sheet from both sides (Fig. 1, Fig. 10, [0065])
where the 1st roller attenuation assembly is positioned between heating units 256a and 258a ([0077])
and the 2nd roller attenuation assembly is positioned between heating units 258a and 260a ([0041],
[0045], [0078]). See Annotated Fig. 10 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1370
1241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to locate the first and second roller assemblies/rollers of Cimo in the same
locations in the process of Anderson667, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having
the first roller assembly contacting the glass in a temperature field where the glass temperature is
greater than or equal to the softening temperature of the glass sheet such that the pulling force applied
by the first attenuating roller assembly attenuates the thickness of glass sheet [0072], and further, both
rollers assemblies are placed below the attenuation zone to control position of the glass sheet in the
attenuation zone [0066], as noted by Cimo.
Regarding Claim 13 - Anderson667 and Coppola in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Anderson667 teaches wherein the clamping device of claim 1 further comprising,
a drawing part; FIGS. 1C-1E, Col 5 lines 58-62, “…the edge rollers 250 include upper edge
rollers 251 (primary clamping unit) and a set of lower edge rollers 252 (secondary edge
drawing unit). Each of the dual-elevation edge rollers 250 has an associated edge roller
assembly 255...” The edge roller assembly 255 is the drawing part.
the drawing part is connected with the primary clamping unit; See FIGS 1C-1E. The upper edge
rollers 251 (primary clamping unit) is connected to the edge roller assembly 255 (drawing part).
and the processor is configured to adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping
unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part; Col 5 lines 65-67, Col 6 line 1,
“ The edge roller assembly 255 is configured to be able to adjust the vertical spacing VS
between the upper edge rollers 251 and the lower edge rollers 252 to a desired spacing”.
While Anderson667 discloses the drawing part and edge rollers are controlled by drive motors (Col 6 line
49) Anderson667 does not disclose,
a processor;
wherein,
and the processor is configured to adjust a clamping distance between the primary clamping
unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the drawing part;
the processor is in communication with the drawing part;
Cimo discloses a redraw system controller 150 with one or more processors 152 including any
processing component configured to receive information [0030]. Further that as part of the controller
system 150, a feed unit 310 used where edge roller assemblies are included, where the feed unit 310
may send and receive signals along a communication path 154 [0032].
Cimo discloses the claimed invention except for a processor configuration to adjust the adjust a
clamping distance between the primary clamping unit and the secondary edge drawing unit by the
drawing part and the processor is in communication with the drawing part . It
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to use the processors of the redraw apparatus of Cimo in the apparatus of the
combination, as the Cimo processors are used to control all aspects of the edge rollers and could be
used to communicate with the drawing part to adjust the spacing of the upper and lower rollers of
Anderson667. Processors are common in the industry to control any and all process variables.
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 Claim 15 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Cimo in the rejection of claim 14 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 14.
Anderson667 teaches wherein,
the processor is further configured to determine the clamping distance;
based on an ambient temperature, a liquid glass temperature, a glass thickness, and a liquid glass flow speed through a clamping model;
the clamping model being a machine learning model.
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Regarding Claim 16 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Cimo in the rejection of claim 15 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 15.
Anderson667 teaches wherein,
and the processor is further configured to estimate a glass cooling rate through the cooling
simulation layer based on the ambient temperature, the liquid glass temperature, and the glass
thickness;
and estimate the clamping distance through the distance estimation layer based on the liquid
glass flow speed and the glass cooling rate.
the clamping model includes a cooling simulation layer and a distance estimation layer;
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson667 in
further view of Coppola and in further view Cimo and in further view of NPL Evidentiary Reference
“Screw Jacks Reference Candy Controls 1” (Wayback Machine).
Regarding Claim 14 - Anderson667, Coppola, and Cimo in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 13.
Anderson667 teaches wherein the drawing part includes,
an electronic control unit; Fig. 1C-1E, Col 5 lines 56-65, “…edge roller assemblies 255 (drawing
part) has a first set of drive motors (electronic control device) to 255a to drive the upper edge
rollers 251 (primary clamping device) and a second set of drive motors (electronic control
device) 255b for driving the lowed edge rollers 252 (secondary edge drawing unit)”.
a slide rail, a pulley, and a locking part and the locking part is configured to lock a position of the
primary clamping unit;
Col 6 lines 13-16, “…the lower edge rollers 252…is raised or lowered while maintaining
alignment using appropriate structures such as a vertical keyway and a keyway using a
jackscrew”. Analogously, in a mechanical jackscrew set-up vs. a pulley set-up, there are
functional equivalents of a slide rail, a pulley and locking part in reviewing Evidentiary
Reference “Screw Jacks Reference Candy Controls v1”:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specifically in the Evidentiary Reference:
“keyed screw jacks, a key is positioned along keyway of screw” (Keyed jacks).
“nut travels up and down screw in either direction” – screw/key are the rail for movement (Rotating or traveling nut screw jacks).
“lead screw is machined…low cost and self-locking characteristics” – threads on screw are a self-locking mechanism (Worm gear screw jacks).
“The most common jack is the worm gear screw jack……the mechanical advantage…resulting I the ability to lift/lower/push/pull significant load with a small amount of torque” – same concept/principle of a pulley (Worm gear screw jacks).
Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for the specific claimed components. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention was made to use the components of the screw jack of Anderson as one would be
motivated to do so for the purposes of using a device where the structure/components have little
effect on positioning, as noted per the Evidentiary Reference (Worm gear screw jacks, lines 5-6)
and the processor is further configured to control, through the electronic control unit, the pulley
to slide in the slide rail to drive the primary clamping unit to move to adjust the clamping
distance.
Cimo discloses a processor [0030], [0032].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson667 in further view
of Coppola and in further view of Cimo and Evidentiary Reference NPL “Corning Glass Product Sheets
Wayback Machine”.
Anderson667, overall, cites the fusion downdraw process (Col 2 lines 23-26) and PHOSITA would know
the fusion downdraw process, or any glass forming process, requires temperature control of the glass.
Coppola takes the step to cite that heat may be applied to keep the glass temperature above the
liquidus temperature below the root/ at the edge director (Col 10 lines 48-52), yet the combination does
not disclose,
the primary clamping unit is configured to clamp the edge of the glass plate located in a first temperature field ranging from 1000 °C to 1050 °C;
and the secondary edge drawing unit is configured to clamp the edge of the glass plate located in a second temperature field ranging from 900°C to 1000°C.
In an analogous endeavor of redrawing thick sheet of glass where sets of high temperature edge rollers
[ceramic, 0080] are used to control sheet width attenuation (Fig.1 , Fig. 9, Fig. 12 element 340 = rollers),
Cimo discloses redrawing glass blanks, from a choice of different glass materials (the preform glass sheet
110 may comprise any exemplary glass sheet, for example…Corning® Gorilla® Glass (Coming's code 2319
for example), Corning® EAGLE XG®, Corning® Lotus® glass, )[0024], and multiple sequential temperature
zones defined by heating units 252a-264a, where temperature zone of heating units 256a/258a/260a
are sequential slightly before and after the attenuation area of the drawn sheet (similar area to the
root/guide plate of a downdraw process), where the glass sheet temperatures are sequential, and
where the 1st roller attenuation assembly/ first roller and 2nd roller attenuation assembly (330b/330c)
each contain rollers 332a/332b which engage the glass sheet from both sides (Fig. 1, Fig. 10, [0065])
where the 1st roller attenuation assembly is positioned between heating units 256a and 258a ([0077])
and the 2nd roller attenuation assembly is positioned between heating units 258a and 260a ([0041],
[0045], [0078]). See Annotated Fig. 10 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1370
1241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cimo cites the first attenuating assembly/roller contacts the glass sheet when the glass sheet is at the
softening temperature of the glass and that the second attenuating assembly roller is in the annealing
zone [0079]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
selected the portion of Cimo’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP
2144.05. One would have been motivated to do so for the purposes of accommodating different glass
compositions, as noted by Cimo’s noted glass composition in the summary table below and the
Evidentiary Reference NPL “Corning Glass Product Sheets Wayback Machine”.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson667 in further view
of Coppola and in further view Cimo and in further view of USPGPUB 20130340481A1 by Anderson et.
al. (herein “Anderson481”).
Regarding Claim 23 - Anderson667, Coppola and Cimo in the rejection of claim 13 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 13.
While Anderson667 discloses the edge rollers engage the edges of the glass sheet (Fig. 1D/1E), and Cimo
discloses edge rollers that engage edges of the glass (Fig. 10) and low nip force on a roller to prevent the
formation of cracks in the drawn sheet [0083], the combination does not disclose,
the primary clamping unit further includes a pressure sensor configured to obtain a pressure
between the glass plate and the primary clamping unit;
and the processor is further configured to dynamically increase the clamping distance;
by controlling the drawing part to move the primary clamping unit away from the secondary
edge drawing unit;
in response to determining that the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold.
In a similar endeavor of an overflow drawdown process using sets of rollers to control sheet width
and attenuation [0005], Anderson481 discloses an apparatus for drawing glass ribbon with edge roll
assemblies where the edge rolls engage the glass. A sensor that detects a pinch force (pressure),
where the pinch force sensor provides and electrical signal which a controller receives and sends a
signal to an actuator coupled to the edge roll to change the pinch force based on the corrective
signal ([0024],[0076],[0078], [0079], Fig. 1 elements 74 represent the first two drive roller/roller
assemblies with rollers elements 28, Fig. 11 element 82 = sensor). Further, the controller compares
the magnitude of the measured force to a predetermined set point value, and develops a corrective
signal if the measured value and the set point value are not equal. The corrective signal is received
by actuator 94 that activates and moves the edge roll to vary the pinch force [0084]. In response to
the corrective signal, actuator 94 moves frame 76 away from ribbon 20 in a direction perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis of shaft 30, thereby reducing the pinch force [0080]. Here, the result of
maintaining the pinch force is moving frame 76 up or down (frame 76 is part of base 70 which is part
of the roller assembly, See Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pinch roll force (pressure)
sensing system of Anderson481 in the edge roller assemblies/edge rollers of Anderson667 as one
would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having the ability to prescribe tension forces in the
visco-elastic area of the ribbon, reducing the cycling of these forces can facilitate significant benefit
to ribbon attributes, especially warp and stress in the ribbon, as noted by Anderson481 [0005], lines
6-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Welles (U.S. Patent 9,938,177) discloses an overflow downdraw process to produce glass ribbon that includes edge rollers, where there are temperature zones along the glass ribbon in a longitudinal direction from the overflow device.
Fournel (U.S. Patent 9,598301) discloses an overflow downdraw process to produce glass ribbon that includes edge rollers, where there are temperature zones along the glass ribbon in a longitudinal direction from the overflow device.
Aburada et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,593,033) discloses an overflow downdraw process to produce glass ribbon that includes edge rollers, where there are temperature zones along the glass ribbon in a longitudinal direction from the overflow device. Further, where there are forces on the edge rollers.
Anderson et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,388,066, herein “Anderson066”) discloses an overflow downdraw process to produce glass ribbon that includes edge rollers.
Kariya et. al. (U.S. Patent 8,938,992) discloses an overflow downdraw process to produce glass ribbon that includes edge rollers, where there are temperature zones along the glass ribbon in a longitudinal direction from the overflow device. Further, one of the sets of rollers is a cooling roller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights