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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1/5 recites “heat absorption coefficient”. This term is understood by the layperson as “heat transfer coefficient”, relating heat flux and temperature differential wherein in the current field of endeavor would be associated with either a freshly manufactured hot piece of glass/preheated piece of glass prior to quenching by the nozzles and the heat associated by proximity of the nozzles or a glass that is to be thermally strengthened that would require to be warmed up. For the required “distribution map of heat absorption coefficient”, the glass pane would be required to be recognized when there is a temperature differential between the glass sheet/part of the glass sheet and the environment.
Claim 3/8 recites “low-emissivity glass pane”. Though the range of emissivity is not stated by the instant specification/claims, it is understood to a skilled artisan that low-emissivity glass pane is a glass pane with a metallic film coating.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 step (b) should recite “the conveyor rollers”
Claim 5 line 8 should recite “the conveyor rollers”
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 1-4 and 7 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 1 step (c) and step (f) both introduce an electronic processing unit. It is not clear if these are the same electronic processing unit and two separate electronic processing units. Dependent claims 2-4 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 7 recites “the second and third electronic processing units are a single electronic processing unit”. Parent claim 5 introduces two distinct electronic processing units. The claim 7 limitation contradicts its parent claim. The examiner believes this may be a translation issue wherein claim 7 intends to define the second electronic processing unit communicates with the third electronic processing unit. As is, there is flawed logic for claim 7.
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 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leskinen (US-20210114917-A1) and further in view of Deb (US-5067977-A) and Vehmas et al (US-20220315471-A1).
Regarding claim 1-2, Leskinen teaches a method for tempering glass panes [0002] comprising performing the following steps: acquiring an image of a glass pane conveyed on conveyor rollers [0022]; recognizing, by an electronic processing unit, a geometric shape and overall dimensions of the glass pane based on the acquired image [0036], conveying the glass pane on the conveyor rollers into a tempering furnace [0022] provided with an array of resistances and an array of nozzles [0023]; determining by the electronic processing unit, an instantaneous position of the glass pane [0032] and individually activating the resistances of the array of resistances and the nozzles of the array of nozzles as a function of their proximity (also implied by the loading recipe/operational details described in [0025] by turning on and off the resistances and nozzles in the furnace only where the glass pane is instantaneously located).
Leskinen teaches of a plurality of temperature line scanners prior to conveying the glass pane into the temperature furnace and after exiting the tempering furnace [0036] wherein the acquired temperature map is not used in the heating recipe [0036] (reading on claim 2). Leskinen does not expressly teach of acquiring a distribution map of heat absorption coefficient in the glass pane. In the same field of endeavor, Deb teaches of using the temperature data from an infrared camera and other known parameters in a tempering process to calculate local heat transfer/absorption coefficient at different parts of the glass pane (Col. 5 Line 31-Col. 6 Line 2) wherein the activation of the nozzles are recognized and would require adjustment (Col. 6 Line 3-33) and further calculated as local heat transfer coefficient (Col. 5 Line 53-Col. 5 Line 67) and a map of heat transfer (Col. 4 Line 48-51), wherein the local and high resolution description reads on “as a function of their proximity”. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mapping of heat transfer/absorption coefficient as taught by Deb (Col. 4 Line 44-51) to the tempering process of Leskinen to better control the degree of tempering to the glass pane as a whole (Col. 2 Line 40-55).
Deb teaches that for conventional tempering, the deflection of the air from the nozzles reduces heat transfer toward the edges of the glass pane, thus modifying the desired temper pattern (Col. 2 Line 36-48). Deb does not expressly state the activation is inversely proportional manner to the respective heat transfer/absorption coefficient. In the same field of endeavor, Vehmas teaches of similar heat absorption coefficient related issues in conventional tempering art [0007] wherein the edges of a glass pane heat faster than the center of the glass pane [0012] (problem 2) and the calculation for heat transfer coefficient is known [0041]. Vehmas teaches of acquiring an image of the glass conveyed on a conveyor [0040], determining the instantaneous location of the glass pane inside the furnace [0040], adjusting the nozzles to be weaker at the edges of the glass sheet moving in the tempering furnace [0011] or alternatively turning off the activation of the nozzles in those areas to enhance the heat transfer [0041, 45], and adjust the activation of the resistances [0042]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activation of the nozzles and resistances to be inversely proportional to the respective heat absorption coefficient to solve the problem of the reflection of heat radiation and overheating of edges to evenly and controllably improve the quality of tempered glass [0012]. "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 3, depending from claim 1, Leskinen does not expressly teach the glass pane is a low-emissivity glass pane. In the same field of endeavor, Vehmas teaches of using low-emissivity glass has heat reflectivity properties and edge heating difficulties for conventional tempering processes [0006] wherein their modified activation of resistances and nozzles solves the occurring problems [00012, 45]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method of modified Leskinen is compatible with a low-emissivity glass pane as suggested by Vehmas.
Regarding claim 5-7, Leskinen teaches of a furnace for tempering glass panes [0008] comprising: an image acquisition system for acquiring images configured to acquire an image of a glass pane conveyed on conveyor rollers [0022]; a system for acquiring temperature [0036]; a first electronic processing unit configured to recognize in said image a geometric shape and overall dimensions of the glass pane based on the image [0030, 32]; an array of resistances and an array of nozzles inside the furnace [0023]; the electronic processing unit configured to determine an instantaneous position of the glass pane inside the furnace [0025] (line scanner send information to computer from sensor, form loading pattern including the location in the furnace) [0011] (dimensional location information with travel direction); the electronic processing unit configured to individually activate the resistances and the nozzles (device 9c/12c [0030]).
Leskinen teaches a system for acquiring temperature [0036] (temperature scanner) and other temperature sensors [0033]. Leskinen does not expressly teach of a system for acquiring a distribution map of heat absorption coefficient. In the same field of endeavor, Deb teaches of gathering temperature information via an infrared camera and computer wherein the temperature data map is used to calculate local heat transfer coefficient in high resolution (Col. 5 Line 31-Col. 6 Line 2) and generate a heat transfer distribution map (Col. 4 Line 48-51) which is used to modify the activation of the nozzles (Col. 6 Line 3-33). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature measuring for the apparatus of Leskinen to be a system for acquiring a distribution map of heat absorption coefficient as a known arrangement to better control the degree of tempering to the glass pane as a whole (Col. 2 Line 40-55).
Leskinen teaches of the electronic processing unit configured to individually activate the resistances and the nozzles (device 9c/12c [0030]). Deb teaches the function of the resistance and nozzles proximity with respect to heat transfer/absorption coefficient (Col. 5 Line 32-Col. 6 Line 33), and that the edges of the glass pane require modified heat transfer due to reduced heat transfer toward the edges of the glass pane (Col. 2 Line 36-48; Col. 6 Line 23-Col. 6 Line 33). Modified Leskinen does not expressly state the activation is inversely proportional manner to the respective heat transfer/absorption coefficient. In the same field of endeavor, Vehmas teaches of an electronic processing unit that determines the instantaneous position of the glass pane in a furnace [0040] and adjusts the activation of the nozzles and resistances to enhance the localized heat transfer/absorption coefficient particularly the edges [0041-43]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electronic processing unit that determines the instantaneous position of the glass pane and the edge of the glass pane and activate the nozzles and resistances to be inversely proportional to the respective heat absorption coefficient to solve the problem of the reflection of heat radiation and overheating of edges to evenly and controllably improve the quality of tempered glass [0012]. "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 the three separate electronic processing units/claim 7, Leskinen teaches of a computer that controls the image acquisition system, geometric/dimension recognition, activation of the resistances and nozzles [0030]. Deb teaches of a computer that acquires the heat transfer/absorption coefficient map (Col. 4 Line 48-51, Col. 5 Line 31-Col. 6 Line 2), separate from the geometric/dimension recognition of Leskinen. Vehmas teaches of a control device that detects the instantaneous location of the glass sheet [0040] and adjusts the activation of the nozzle and current according to heat transfer coefficient [0041-42]. The modification of Leskinen can either incorporate all the electronic processing units as one processing unit (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) Making Integral) or three separate processing units (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) Making Separable) provided the skills of the artisan/engineer in control systems engineering.
Regarding claims 8-9, depending from claim 5, these claims are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus. "Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leskinen (US-20210114917-A1), Deb (US-5067977-A) and Vehmas et al (US-20220315471-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikegami (JP-6583262-B2, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Leskinen does not expressly teach the glass pane is a low-emissivity glass pane. Vehmas teaches of partially painted glass surfaces and the edge areas of the glass sheet requiring different heat requirements [0007] that are solved by their invention modifying the activation of the resistances and nozzles [0045]. In glass manufacturing art, Ikegami teaches of screen-printing an edge film on the glass pane [0058-59] prior to the tempering step [0064-66, 12]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there is a market need to temper a glass pane with a screen-printed edge as shown by Ikegami wherein the method taught by Leskinen modified by Vehmas ensures compatibility for partial coatings and consideration for the edge accordingly. "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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-6064040-A teaches of a generic image of the glass entering the furnace and adjusting the resistances
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