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.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 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 9-15 drawn to an apparatus in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending. Claims 1-8 (drawn to an apparatus), 16-20 (drawn to a method), and 65 (drawn to a method) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a method/apparatus (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 07/13/2026. Claims 21-25 are newly added and examined as part of the elected claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first surface portion of the plate must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. To note the plate 601 is noted in the specification yet the first surface portion of the plate does not have an element number in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it is replete with the following informalities:
axis 111 also labelled first axis 111
axis 113 also labelled second axis 113
axis 917 also labelled third axis 917
axis 919 also labelled fourth axis 919
travel path 119 also labelled ribbon travel path 119.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the lengthy specification (29 pages) 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 9 , 11, 12 - “the cooling apparatus” can be any apparatus that comprises regulating the removal of heat.
Claims 9 , 11, 13 - “a cooling mechanism” can be any mechanism that comprises a means to regulating the removal of heat.
Examiner Note: Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that Claim(s) 9, 11, 12 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). The manner and method in which a machine is intended to be used is not germane to the patentability of the claimed structure (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235). In this case the limitation(s) in the claim(s) below is/are considered a recitation of intended use.
Claim 9 – “a cooling mechanism to cool the protrusion, and wherein, during a cooling period of time, the protrusion is configured to cool at a faster rate than a ribbon portion of the ribbon surrounding the protrusion”.
Claim 11 – “cooling mechanism comprises one or more of air or an aerosol directed from the dispenser toward the protrusion”.
Claim 12 – “a hollow chamber within which a liquid is stored”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means”, or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the first surface portion...is configured to…move with the ribbon” in Claim 21
(functional language, “the first surface portion...is configured to…move with the ribbon””; generic placeholder, “configured to ”), not clearly associated with any structure in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 9 – parallel to the travel path / parallel to the ribbon travel path (2x).
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(s) 9, 21- 25 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.
Claim 9 recites “a forming roll extending along an axis” and “a turning roll downstream from the forming roll and extending along an axis”. It is unclear if there is one axis, or an axis for the forming roll and another/separate axis for the turning roll. The Examiner suggests “a forming roll extending along a forming roll axis” and “a turning roll downstream from the forming roll and extending along a turning roll axis”.
Claim 21 recites “The apparatus of claim 13”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “the glass manufacturing apparatus of claim 13”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “the glass manufacturing apparatus of claim 13”.
Claims 22-23 recite “The apparatus of claim 9”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “the glass manufacturing apparatus of claim 9”.
Claims 24 recites “The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the apparatus further comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “The glass manufacturing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the glass manufacturing apparatus further comprises”.
Claim 25 recites “The apparatus of claim 24”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “The glass manufacturing apparatus of claim 24”.
Claim 25 recites “the third forming roll”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests the Applicant meant to recite “the second forming roll” as Claim 25 depends on Claim 24. Confirmation in the Interview Summary dated 08/26/2026.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are “a delivery apparatus” and “an upstream portion of ribbon travel”. The omitted structural cooperative relationships of the two elements are critical to understanding the relative position of the delivery apparatus in relation to the upstream portion of the ribbon as well as the size/area of the upstream portion of ribbon travel.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
All remaining dependent claims not specifically cited are also considered to be indefinite at least because of their dependency on independent claim 9.
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).
Claims 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20130133369A1
by Lock et. al. (herein “Lock”) in further view of USPGPUB 20150099618A1 by Bisson .et al. (herein
“Bisson”) and in further view of NPL Evidentiary Reference “Air Bearing Evidentiary Reference”
Evidentiary Reference U.S. Patent 8,935,942 by Eta (herein “Eta”) and Evidentiary Reference U.S. Patent
9,598,301 by Fournel (herein “Fournel”).
Regarding Claim 9 – Lock teaches a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising,
a delivery apparatus defining an upstream portion of a ribbon travel path; Fig. 5, [0039], [0065] “…a fusion forming glass feed…to continuously feed glass…”. Fig. 5 illustrates the forming body 80 upstream from a ribbon travel path, where the ribbon travels from top to bottom (as a PHOSITA would understand), which would be the first travel direction.
extending in a first travel direction; [0065], Fig. 5, “… sloping first wedge side surface 104 connecting with the first external trough side surface 84, and a sloping second wedge side surface 106 connecting with the second external trough side surface 86. At the root 108 where the two wedge side surfaces 104 and 106 join, the two glass ribbons fuse to form a unitary glass ribbon 111…”, illustrating the delivery apparatus is extending in the first travel direction.
a forming roll extending along an axis that is parallel to the travel path and perpendicular to the first travel direction; Fig. 5, [0073], “… the sizing and texturing rolls 24, 26…”, where texturing roll 26 is the forming roll. Fig. 5 illustrates the axis of texturing roll 26 parallel to the travel path and perpendicular to the first travel direction.
the forming roll comprising,
a recess configured to impart a protrusion to a ribbon traveling along the ribbon travel path in the first travel direction; Fig. 5, Fig. 14 [0089], “…The textured features 198 may be formed…to engrave the surface of texturing roller 26…. recessed textured features are… illustrated in the drawings as recesses…in the surface of the texturing roller 26 that form correspondingly shaped raised features, such as bumps or ridges, (protrusion) on the surface of the glass ribbon.”
While Lock discloses the formed ribbon is redirected from a first direction to a second direction (Fig. 19), Lock does not disclose,
a turning roll downstream from the forming roll and extending along an axis parallel to the travel path;
the turning roll configured to direct the ribbon along the ribbon travel path in a second travel direction non-parallel to the first travel direction;
In a similar endeavor of drawing glass ribbon with a with forming rollers (Fig. 5, elements 220/222/224) one or more rollers can provide an impression in the glass ribbon [0033] during a fusion process [0034], Bisson discloses redirecting the glass ribbon from a first direction to a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 7, [0035]), located at a curved location using a curved support that contains a gas bearing (elements 310, 312, 320, [0036]) which can rotate and is on the internal side of the turn [0038]. Further, a location 420 analogous to location 320 where the curved support 310 would be located, that is downstream from the forming rolls. 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 deploy the curved support of Bisson in the apparatus of Lock, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of the common industrial reason of eliminating friction with the glass ribbon to eliminate contact induced defects in the glass, as noted by Evidentiary Reference “Air Bearing Evidentiary Reference”.
While Lock discloses a cooling structure inside a hollow texture forming roll and pull roller downstream from the texture forming roll but before a glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees (Fig . 2, Fig. 15, Fig. 19) and Bisson discloses, generically, that the ribbon near the turning roller can be cooled [0009], neither Lock nor Bisson disclose specifically,
and a cooling apparatus positioned downstream from the forming roll and upstream from the turning roll;
the cooling apparatus comprising,
a cooling mechanism;
to cool the protrusion, and wherein, during a cooling period of time, the protrusion is configured to cool at a faster rate than a ribbon portion of the ribbon surrounding the protrusion; The instant limitation is considered a recitation of intended use - See Claim Interpretation.
Evidentiary reference by Eta discloses a forming apparatus of a glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees where cooling zone 10C above the area of 90 degree turn of the glass ribbon is far below the root and 9 other pairs of rollers in annealing zone 10B (Abstract, Fig. 1) . Zone 10C contains three pairs of drive rollers (pull rollers) where the utmost roller in zone 10C is a drive roller as well as a cooling roller (Col 7 lines 1-5). Eta establishes that a drive roller, or pull roller, can also be a cooling roller, located far below the root of the draw and above, or before, the area where the glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees.
Lock discloses a textured forming roll 26, where a tangent surface can be considered a plate, where within its hollow internal space contains a spray tube with distribution holes (dispenser) for dispensing a cooling fluid (air, water, other suitable cooling fluid = cooling mechanism). Lock also discloses a pull roller 46, far below the root and before the area where the glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees, where the pull roller 46 can affect the desired surface finish of the precision formed/dimensioned glass
ribbon/sheet [0062], indicating the pull roll 46 surface, or a tangent surface that represents a plate (a first surface portion) is adjacent to, and in contact with, the protrusions (pull roller 46 illustrated in Fig. 14 but remove the recesses). Further, Fig. 2 illustrates rolls 44/46 downstream from the forming roll 26. And as pull roll 46 is driven to turn to move the glass ribbon ([0091] lines 18-19), the first surface portion is configured to move with ribbon in a first travel direction with the first surfaced portion is in contact with the ribbon. Also, the cooling fluid 246 is dispensed from the central axis of the hollow interior towards the inner surface of cylinder 192 during operation [0088], which would read on dispensing the fluid towards the protrusions (Fig. 15).
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 pull roller 46 of Lock as a cooling roller as well, based upon the internal cooling structure of the textured forming roll of Lock, that is downstream of the textured forming roll but before the turning roll. One would be motivated to do so for the common purpose of having cooling rollers support reducing attenuation/reduction in the glass width as noted by Evidentiary Reference Fournel (Col 3 lines 59-67).
Regarding Claim 10 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein the forming roll comprises,
a first surface defining the recess and comprising a first surface characteristic;
and a second surface defining an area surrounding the recess and comprising a second surface
characteristic;
the first surface characteristic different than the second surface characteristic;
wherein,
during the cooling period of time, the first surface is configured to cool at a faster rate than
the second surface.
[0087] lines 11-12, [0088] lines 4-5, [0089] lines 15-16, Annotated Fig. 5, Annotated Enlarged Fig. 5.
Lock discloses a second surface 236 on the outer cylinder 192 surrounding recesses 198. See Annotated
Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Enlarged Annotated Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1092
1078
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first surface (bottom of recess) is part of wall thickness L1 and the second surface is part of wall
thickness L2. The thicknesses represent the ability of heat rate transfer of the material based upon the
known physics mathematical equation of Fourier’s Law below:
The rate of heat transfer Q through a material is,
Q=−k · A · ΔT/L , where
k = thermal conductivity (constant for the same material)
A = cross-sectional area
ΔT = temperature difference across the material
L = thickness (distance heat must travel)
The 1st surface characteristic and second surface characteristic is the ability to transfer heat. Since there
is a difference in L1 and L2, then the characteristic of the ability to transfer heat is different between the
first surface characteristic and the second surface characteristic.
Regarding Claim 11 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein,
the cooling apparatus comprises a dispenser; This instant limitation is disclosed by Lock in Claim
9; “hollow internal space contains a spray tube with distribution holes (dispenser) for dispensing
a cooling fluid (air, water, other suitable cooling fluid = cooling mechanism [0062].
and the cooling mechanism comprises one or more of air or an aerosol directed from the
dispenser toward the protrusion; The instant limitation is considered a recitation of intended use - See Claim Interpretation. Yet this instant limitation is disclosed by Lock in Claim 9; interior towards the inner surface of cylinder 192 during operation [0088], which would read on dispensing the fluid towards the protrusions (Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 12 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein the cooling apparatus comprises,
a plate comprising a hollow chamber; The instant limitation is disclosed in Claim 9: a tangent
surface can be considered a plate, where within its hollow internal space contains a spray tube
with distribution holes (dispenser) [0062].
within which a liquid is stored; The instant limitation is considered a recitation of intended use - See Claim Interpretation. Yet the instant limitation is disclosed in Claim 1;” hollow internal space contains a spray tube with distribution holes (dispenser) for dispensing a cooling fluid (air, water, other suitable cooling fluid = cooling mechanism)”[0062].
the plate positioned adjacent to the protrusion. The instant limitation is disclosed in Claim 9; Lock also discloses a pull roller 46, far below the root and before the area where the glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees, where the pull roller 46 can affect the desired surface finish of the precision formed/dimensioned glass ribbon/sheet [0062], indicating the pull roll 46 surface, or a tangent surface that represents a plate (a first surface portion) is adjacent to, and in contact with, the protrusions (pull roller 46 illustrated in Fig. 14 but remove the recesses).
Regarding Claim 13 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL , Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 12 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Lock teaches wherein the cooling mechanism comprises,
a first surface portion of the plate configured to contact the protrusion; The instant limitation is
disclosed in Claim 9; Lock also discloses a pull roller 46, far below the root and before the area
where the glass ribbon direction turns 90 degrees, where the pull roller 46 can affect the
desired surface finish of the precision formed/dimensioned glass ribbon/sheet [0062],
indicating the pull roll 46 surface, or a tangent surface that represents a plate (a first surface
portion) is adjacent to, and in contact with, the protrusions (pull roller 46 illustrated in Fig. 14
but remove the recesses).
Regarding Claim 14 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein further comprising,
a support surface positioned downstream from the turning roll;
the support surface configured to support the ribbon;
the support surface comprising a non-planar shape;
Fig. 19, [0050], [0100]. Figure 19 illustrates a conveyor 262 supporting molds 260, where the first mold
260 represents a support surface to support the ribbon, where the support surface is non-planar in
shape.
Regarding Claim 15 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein further comprising,
a second forming roll positioned downstream from the forming roll;
the second forming roll configured to cool the ribbon and flatten the protrusion; [0062], “One or
more pairs of conventional…rolls 44 and 46 may… be provided below the sizing and texturing
rolls…”, “…The surface material and texture of these rolls must be chosen appropriately to not
adversely affect the desired surface finish of the precision formed/dimensioned glass
ribbon/sheet 41”. Here, rolls 44/46 can affect the surface finish of the formed glass, indicating
the roll surface is in contact with the protrusions. Further, Fig. 2 illustrates rolls 44/46
downstream from the forming roll 26.
Regarding Claim 21 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 13 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Lock teaches wherein,
the first surface portion is configured to move with the ribbon in the first travel direction while
the first surface portion is contacting the ribbon; The instant limitation is
disclosed in Claim 9; And as pull roll 46 is driven to turn to move the glass ribbon ([0091] lines
18-19), the first surface portion is configured to move with ribbon in a first travel direction with
the first surfaced portion is in contact with the ribbon. Also, the cooling fluid 246 is dispensed
from the central axis of the hollow interior towards the inner surface of cylinder 192 during
operation [0088], which would read on dispensing the fluid towards the protrusions (Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 22 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein,
the recess is configured to impart an elongated protrusion along a width of the ribbon
substantially perpendicular to the first travel direction;[0089], [0090], “ Recessed textured
features are…illustrated in the drawings as recesses… in the surface of the texturing roller 26
that form correspondingly shaped raised features, such as bumps or ridges, on the surface of
the glass ribbon…”, “…the textured features 198 may take many geometric forms or shapes…
textured features may be hexagonal, diamond, or other geometric or even random shapes. In
one example, the features may be 60 degree hexagonal pattern of cells with a concentration of
…cells per inch, with a cell opening…and a wall thickness. In another example, the features may
be spaced recesses …” with the underlined phrase signifying previous phrase regarding textured
features that were protrusions.
Lock discloses the claimed invention except for the exact shape and exact location/orientation
of the protrusions. 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 determine the size and location of the
protrusions since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component.
Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered
as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of
and location of the protrusions to meet the desired surface requirement, as noted by
Lock ([0003], line 1-7). Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being
scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 23 - Lock, Bisson, Evidentiary NPL, Eta and Fournel in the rejection of claim 9 above
teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein the forming roll comprises,
a first wall portion defining the recess; NOTE: “roll” removed and replaced by “wall” per
Interview Summary dated 08/27/2026.
and a second wall portion surrounding the first wall portion;
See 2nd Enlarged Annotated Fig. 15 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
1265
1043
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a material of the first wall portion is different than a material of the second wall portion;
[0094], “…a wide variety of roll types formed of a wide variety of materials such as…sizing and
texturing rolls 24, 26 made out of stainless steel with thermal insulating surfaces, such as
ceramic coatings”.
See Schematic Diagram 1 below, which aligns with 2nd Enlarged Annotated Fig. 15:
Schematic Diagram 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here, a material of the first wall portion (stainless steel) is different from a material in the second wall
portion (ceramic coating).
Regarding Claim 24 and 25 - Lock and Bisson in the rejection of claim 9 above teaches all the
limitations of claim 9.
Lock teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises,
a second forming roll positioned downstream from the forming roll, the second forming roll
comprising, a receiving recess configured to receive the protrusion as the ribbon travels along
the ribbon travel path; Claim 24.
the receiving recess extends circumferentially around an outer radial surface of the
second forming roll; Claim 25. NOTE: “third” removed and replaced by “second” per Interview
Summary dated 08/27/2026.
Fig. 2, Fig. 14, [0074], [0075], [0087] “ It will be appreciated that the
references to the sizing and texturing rolls 24 and 26 in relation to FIGS. 8-14…should also be
interpreted as references to...rolls 44, 46…”, “ …spacers rings 34 and 36 on the…sizing and
texturing rolls 24/26… to come into contact against each other precisely to define the gap
between the forming surfaces...”, “… the outer sizing and texturing roll 26 and the inner sizing
roll 24 each include an insulating cylinder or coating 192. The insulating cylinder 192 is mounted
between end caps 194 and 196. The precision formed spacer rings 34 may be mounted in
grooves formed between the ends of the insulating cylinder 192 and the end caps 194 and 196
(see FIGS. 14 and 15). Outer cylindrical bearing surfaces of the spacer rings 34 extend beyond
outer glass sizing surface 236…”. As the aspects of Fig. 14 can be applied to rolls 44/46,
Fig. 14 can be taken to represent the design of rolls 44/46, where they precisely define a gap
between the rolls. As the spacers 34 extend beyond the surface of cylinder 192, a recess is
formed on each roller around the total circumference of the rolls, which can receive protrusions
as the ribbon passes through the rolls in the first travel direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Likitvanichkul (USPGPUB 20140318184A1) discloses a fusion downdraw for glass ribbon where the ribbon is formed by cooling enabled textured rollers with pull rollers downstream of the textured rollers. The textured features can be protrusions or recesses. The textured roller can have an insulating layer.
Shiraishi et. al. ( USPGPUB 20050178159A1) discloses a fusion downdraw for glass ribbon where the ribbon is supported by a hollow plate before a 90 degree turn in direction of the glass ribbon, where the hollow plate provides water/stream to the glass ribbon.
Chang et. al. (U.S. Patent 8,397, 539) discloses a fusion downdraw for glass ribbon where the glass ribbon turns 90 degrees via and air turn where the glass ribbon is supported on the underside by a non-planer single or two-piece support (floatation table, web support shuttle).
Welles ( U.S. Patent 9,938,177 ) discloses a fusion downdraw for glass ribbon comprising a cooling device downstream from the glass delivery root.
Bisson (USPGPUB 20200290916, Bisson916) discloses a fusion downdraw for glass ribbon with forming rollers with a support structure supporting a 90 degree turn in direction of the glass ribbon.
Bermann et. al. (USPGPUB 20040255607A1) discloses a cooling device with hollow interior to supply cooling air.
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