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 06/27/2025 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.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 18 – while dependent on Claim 17, which is dependent on Claim 11, in reference to prior to “heating the region”, the Examiner understands “heating the region” depends from “heating a region” in Claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 14, 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claims 7, 8: a difference between the second stress and the third stress / a difference between the second stress outside of the predetermined stress range and the third stress within the predetermined stress range.
Regarding Claims 13, 14: a difference between the first stress and the second stress / a difference between the first stress outside of the predetermined stress range and the second stress within the predetermined stress range.
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 1-2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112279499A ) (English
language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Lin (herein
“Lin”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Lin teaches a method of manufacturing glass comprising,
determining a first location of a first region from a sample of a glass ribbon, the first region comprising a first stress outside of a predetermined stress range; lines 100-103, 382-386, Fig. 3, “…determining the width Bn and the thickness tn of the high stress distribution area of the glass ribbon to be adjusted for stress…”, “Measure the stress in selected areas of the glass with the aid of birefringent stress detection equipment. It is determined by the stress distribution that the glass has excessive stress at one location…”, “The laser beam is directly directed to the selected area of the glass ribbon…”, “…where the stress exceeds the specification…”. Fig. 3 illustrates the high stress distribution area 10 that contains the one small location of high stress.
determining a second location of a second region from the glass ribbon based on the first location from the sample, the second region comprising a second stress outside of the predetermined stress range;
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of another location in a second
region based on the first location from the sample. 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
duplicate another location of a second region, since it have been held that a mere duplication
involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate another
location in a second region based on the first location from the sample for the purpose of simply
obtaining an overall view of the stress distribution across a larger area of the glass ribbon. The
court held that mere duplication has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected
result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).Further, while Lin does
not disclose that the second location is determined based on the first location, the
determination of measurement locations is a measurement convention, not an invention. 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).
heating the second region of the glass ribbon by irradiating the second region with a laser beam while the glass ribbon travels along a ribbon travel path in a ribbon travel direction; line 178, 180, 378, 384-385, Fig. 2, “…On the down-draw forming equipment, a glass ribbon…”, “The laser beam is directly directed to the selected area of the glass ribbon, so that the laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass ribbon (indicates heating) in this area “. Fig. 2 illustrates the running direction 7 of the glass ribbon and laser beam 8 during the measurements/control scheme.
such that,
the second region is heated from a first temperature, which is greater than or equal to a transition temperature of the glass ribbon, to a second temperature;
and cooling the second region from the second temperature such that the second region comprises a third stress within the predetermined stress range.
Lines 380-381, 385-386; Lin discloses that, “.. the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser”. As a PHOSITA would know, the glass transition temperature (Tg) of any glass is actually not a temperature but a glass viscosity of ~ 1x1013 poise. Hence a viscosity of 6x108 poise (lower than Tg) means the glass temperature must be higher than the glass transition temperature (Tg). “…laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass ribbon (indicates heating) in this area…where the stress exceeds the specification, which reduces the stress in this area by 0.2 MPa”. Lin’s disclosure indicates heating, where a PHOSITA would understand heating incorporates a starting (first) temperature and an end (second) temperature. As well, at some juncture a PHOSITA would know that all heated materials are cooled for use. Further, Lin’s disclosure in general is to reduce stress in the glass to meet a specification where the 0.2MPa value would be understood to be within the range of the specification. There is no requirement that prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2 - Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lin teaches wherein,
the second region comprises a first viscosity prior to heating with the laser beam and a second viscosity after heating with the laser beam and a difference between the first viscosity and the second viscosity is less than about 1 x 1012 poise; lines 380-381, 385 “At this position, the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser (i.e. prior to being heated with laser)”, “…the, laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass (heated) ribbon in this area…”. A PHOSITA would know heating glass would change the glass viscosity. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, as the first viscosity is 6x108 poise, the maximum difference possible after heating with the laser beam is 6x108 poise, which is less than the viscosity difference of the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4 - Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lin teaches wherein,
the second region comprises a first fictive temperature prior to heating with the laser beam;
and a second fictive temperature after heating with the laser beam;
the second fictive temperature different than the first fictive temperature;
Lines 380-381, 385 “At this position, the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser (i.e.
prior to being heated with laser)”, “…the, laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass (heated) ribbon
in this area…”. As prior to heating, a PHOSITA would know the viscosity is significantly lower than the
glass transition viscosity for glass (Tg) of ~ 1x1013 poise, where the temperature is above Tg at a
temperature commensurate to viscosity of 6x108 poise. As viscosity relates to the structure of the glass
and fictive temperature by definition is the temperature where a glass structure is created, at
temperatures above Tg , the temperature commensurate with any viscosity (glass structure) is the fictive
temperature of that any viscosity. As before and after heating with the laser provides for two different
viscosities above Tg, those two different viscosities provide for two different fictive temperatures at those two different viscosities. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5 - Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lin teaches wherein the determining the first location comprises,
measuring one or more of a first distance between the first region and a first edge of the
sample;
or
a second distance between the first region and an opposing second edge of the sample;
Determining a location based on referenced measurements is a convention, not an invention. 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 6 - Lin in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 5.
Lin teaches wherein the determining the second location comprises,
locating one or more of the first distance from the first edge of the glass ribbon;
or
the second distance from the opposing second edge of the glass ribbon;
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of a second location from the sample. 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 duplicate another location of a second region, since it have been held that a
mere duplication of involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate
another location in a second region based on the first location from the sample for the purpose of
simply obtaining an overall view of the stress distribution across a larger area of the glass ribbon.
The court held that mere duplication has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Further
determining a location based on referenced measurements is a convention, not an invention. 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 7 and 8 - Lin in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 5.
Lin teaches wherein the heating the second region comprises,
setting a wavelength of the laser beam irradiating the second region based on a difference
between the second stress and the third stress; Claim 7.
setting a power of the laser beam irradiating the second region based on a difference between
the second stress and the third stress; Claim 8.
Lines 381-387, “Measure the stress in the selected area of the glass with the aid of birefringent
stress detection equipment. It is determined by the stress distribution that the glass has
excessive stress at one location. With this information, a scanning program is generated, which
includes the laser beam wavelength and laser beam power. The laser beam is directly directed
to the selected area of the glass ribbon, so that the laser beam is obviously absorbed by the
glass ribbon in this area. Here, an average laser generator power of 3 watts is set on the 2 mm
area where the stress exceeds the specification, which reduces the stress in this area by 0.2
MPa.” Here, the initial measured stress (out of specification) is reduced by a certain amount
(0.2MPa) to obtain stress within specification, as the purpose of Lin is to obtain stress values
within specification (lines 343-345). The wavelength and power are set due to the initial
(second) stress and to obtain a (third) stress within specification.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and in further view of
WO2019040858A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 06/27/2025) by Ellison et. al. (herein “Ellison”)
Regarding Claim 3 - Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Lin discloses using a CO2 laser (line 379-380) on a glass ribbon in line with a down draw (line 237,
Fig. 3) where the laser energy (power/wavelength) is absorbed into the glass (heat) to alter local stress
in the glass to specification (lines 385-387) by changing temperature and viscosity of the glass
before/after laser application (See responses to Claims 1 and 2), Lin does not disclose with any
specificity,
a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature is less than about 10°C;
In an analogous endeavor of using a CO2 laser with a power and a wavelength ([00036])to alter glass ribbon properties and structure ([00017]) on a down draw apparatus ([0034]) in two separation locations ([00040]), Ellison discloses using a laser to irradiate a glass substrate ([00045], lines 10-13) from a first temperature to a target peak temperature, and the cooled such that a target fictive temperature is obtained ([00036 lines 3-6]). Here, Ellison explicit that there is a “target peak temperature” ( second temperature) to obtain a target fictive temperature after cooling.
Ellison discloses the claimed invention except for the exact temperature difference of less than about 10°C. 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 optimize the temperature difference, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the temperature difference for the purpose of modifying the thermal history of the glass alter the fictive temperature such that the glass compaction is controlled/ minimized during post glass article production thermal processing [0006]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further as a note, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and in further view of USPGPUB 20070140311A1 by House et. al. (herein “House”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 8,904,822 by LeBlanc et. al. (herein “LeBlanc”)
Regarding Claims 9 and 10 - Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
While Lin discloses measuring stress across the width of the glass ribbon and a stationary laser beam
generator imparted onto a vertically oriented moving glass of ribbon by an optical path meter with
emitting surface (Fig. 3, elements 2, 8, 10, 9a; Fig. 3 illustrates a reflective surface that the laser beam
impinges) and then is directed to the surface of the glass ribbon), Lin fails to disclose,
moving the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon in a first laser travel direction along the
ribbon travel path in the ribbon travel direction; Claim 9.
moving the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon in a second laser travel direction across the
ribbon travel path perpendicular to the ribbon travel direction; Claim 10
In an analogous endeavor of measuring stress (birefringence) or temperature in a glass ribbon from a
down draw ( [0029] lines 1-6) that can be used in a control the glass making process [0012], House
discloses measuring the attribute (with the example of temperature) in a width-wise manner or length-
wise manner ([0029], lines 31-32) to provide a continuous profile of the attribute ([0029], lines 26-29).
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 measure stress in a width-wise manner and length-wise manner of House in
the method of Lin, to provide the impetus to move the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon along the
ribbon travel direction and across the ribbon travel path perpendicular to the ribbon travel direction, as
one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of gaining more valuable process information, per
House ([0029], lines 53-54) .
While House does not disclose moving a laser beam relative to glass ribbon in a first laser travel
direction along the ribbon travel path in the ribbon travel direction, House does disclose wherein
regarding temperature measurement, a ribbon having varying thickness can result in different portions
of the ribbon having a temperature different than other portions of the ribbon, and consequently, the
spatially varying temperatures of the ribbon both across the width of the ribbon and along the length of
the ribbon can cause the ribbon to assume a shape which is non-planar (induced stress)[0039]. Here,
House has analogously linked temperature measurements to varying glass thickness which causes
varying stress in the glass.
In an analogous endeavor of a thickness of at least one preselected portion of a glass substrate is
controlled as a laser beam is directed to the at least one preselected portion of the substrate in a
viscous state of a down draw process, thereby increasing a temperature and reducing a viscosity of the
at least one preselected portion of the substrate in a viscous state sufficiently to cause the at least one
preselected portion of the glass substrate to attain a desired thickness (Abstract, Fig. 1), Leblanc
discloses CO2 laser with selected wavelength and power is used to increase the temperature and
decrease the viscosity of a selected portion of a glass ribbon (Col 5 lines 43-51). Further that the laser
beam can be reflected from a reflecting surface and that the reflecting apparatus can function as a
scanning device as controlled by the reflecting apparatus 14 (Col 6 lines 2-6, 29-45); the laser beam can
be directed to a plurality of preselected portions of the substrate that are arranged across the entire
width of the substrate (Col 7 lines 35-45. Fig. 1).
Moreover, that the reflected laser beams can be directed to glass ribbon at any location, which indicates
the laser beam can be move not just horizontally as illustrated Fig.1 but also in a vertical direction
aligned with the direction of the ribbon flow. While Leblanc does not disclose using a laser to directly
control stress in the glass, 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 laser beam reflecting apparatus device of
Leblanc, due to the impetus of House, in the method of Lin. One would be motivated to do so for the
purpose of having the reflected beam continuously placed in contact with two or more portions of the
substrate where non-uniformities exist, per Leblanc (Col 8 lines 54-61). This would reduce the time for
the process to remove non-uniformities. It has been held that an implicit motivation to combine exists
not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’
is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more
durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a
product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the
references themselves. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See
also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d
1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Claims 11-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112279499A
(English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Lin
(herein “Lin”) and in further view of WO2019040858A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 06/27/2025) by
Ellison et. al. (herein “Ellison”).
Regarding Claim 11 – Lin teaches a method of manufacturing glass comprising,
heating a region of a glass ribbon comprising a first stress outside of a predetermined stress range by irradiating the region with a laser beam as the glass ribbon moves along a ribbon travel path in a ribbon travel direction; lines 100-103, 382-386, Fig. 3, “…determining… the high stress distribution area of the glass ribbon to be adjusted for stress…”, “Measure the stress in selected areas of the glass with the aid of birefringent stress detection equipment. It is determined by the stress distribution that the glass has excessive stress at one location…”, “The laser beam is directly directed to the selected area of the glass ribbon…”, “…where the stress exceeds the specification…”. Fig. 3 illustrates the high stress distribution area 10 that contains the one small location of high stress; lines 178, 180, 378, 384-385, Fig. 2, “…On the down-draw forming equipment, a glass ribbon…”, “The laser beam is directly directed to the selected area of the glass ribbon, so that the laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass ribbon (indicates heating) in this area “. Fig. 2 illustrates the running direction 7 of the glass ribbon and laser beam 8 during the measurements/control scheme.
such that the region is heated from a first temperature greater than or equal to a transition temperature of the glass ribbon to a second temperature and cooling the region from the second temperature such that the region comprises a second stress within the predetermined stress range; Lines 380-381, 385-386; Lin discloses that, “.. the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser”. As a PHOSITA would know, the glass transition temperature (Tg) of any glass is actually not a temperature but a glass viscosity of ~ 1x1013 poise. Hence a viscosity of 6x108 poise (lower than Tg) means the glass temperature must be higher than the glass transition temperature (Tg). “…laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass ribbon (indicates heating) in this area…where the stress exceeds the specification, which reduces the stress in this area by 0.2 MPa”. Lin’s disclosure indicates heating, where a PHOSITA would understand heating incorporates a starting (first) temperature and an end (second) temperature. As well, at some juncture a PHOSITA would know that all heated materials are cooled for use. Further, Lin’s disclosure in general is to reduce stress in the glass to meet a specification where the 0.2MPa value would be understood to be within the range of the specification. There is no requirement that prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
the region comprising a first viscosity prior to heating with the laser beam and a second viscosity after heating with the laser beam;
such that a difference between the first viscosity and the second viscosity is less than about 1 x 1012 poise;
Lines 380-381, 385 “At this position, the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser (i.e. prior to being heated with laser)”, “…the, laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass (heated) ribbon in this area…”. A PHOSITA would know heating glass would change the glass viscosity. “The reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, as the first viscosity is 6x108 poise, the maximum difference possible after heating with the laser beam is 6x108 poise, which is less than the viscosity difference of the claimed range.
While Lin discloses using a CO2 laser (line 379-380) on a glass ribbon in line with a down draw
(line 237, Fig. 3) where the laser energy (power/wavelength) is absorbed into the glass (heat) to
alter local stress in the glass to specification (lines 385-387) by changing temperature and
viscosity of the glass before/after laser application (See responses to Claims 1 and 2), Lin does
not disclose with any specificity,
and a difference between the first temperature and the second temperature is less than about 10°C;
In an analogous endeavor of using a CO2 laser with a power and a wavelength ([00036])to alter glass ribbon properties and structure ([00017]) on a down draw apparatus ([0034]) in two separation locations ([00040]), Ellison discloses using a laser to irradiate a glass substrate ([00045], lines 10-13) from a first temperature to a target peak temperature, and the cooled such that a target fictive temperature is obtained ([00036 lines 3-6]). Here, Ellison explicit that there is a “target peak temperature” ( second temperature) to obtain a target fictive temperature after cooling. Ellison discloses the claimed invention except for the exact temperature difference of less than about 10°C. 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 optimize the temperature difference, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the temperature difference for the purpose of modifying the thermal history of the glass alter the fictive temperature such that the glass compaction is controlled/ minimized during post glass article production thermal processing [0006]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further as a note, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding Claim 12 - Lin and Ellison in the rejection of claim 11 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 11.
Lin teaches wherein,
the region comprises a first fictive temperature prior to heating with the laser beam and a second fictive temperature after heating with the laser beam;
the second fictive temperature different than the first fictive temperature;
Lines 380-381, 385 “At this position, the glass ribbon 3 has a viscosity of 6x108 poise without laser
(i.e. prior to being heated with laser)”, “…the, laser beam is obviously absorbed by the glass
(heated) ribbon in this area…”. As prior to heating, a PHOSITA would know the viscosity is
significantly lower than the glass transition viscosity for glass (Tg) of ~ 1x1013 poise, where the
temperature is above Tg at a temperature commensurate to viscosity of 6x108 poise. As viscosity
relates to the structure of the glass and fictive temperature by definition is the temperature where
a glass structure is created, at temperatures above Tg , the temperature commensurate with any
viscosity (glass structure) is the fictive temperature of that any viscosity. As before and after heating
with the laser provides for two different viscosities above Tg, those two different viscosities provide
for two different fictive temperatures at those two different viscosities. “The reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e. identity of terminology is not required”, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the
specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14 - Lin and Ellison in the rejection of claim 11 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 11.
Lin teaches wherein heating the region comprises,
setting a wavelength of the laser beam irradiating the region based on a difference between the
first stress and the second stress; Claim 13
setting a power of the laser beam irradiating the region based on a difference between the first
stress and the second stress; Claim 14
Lines 381-387, “Measure the stress in the selected area of the glass with the aid of birefringent
stress detection equipment. It is determined by the stress distribution that the glass has
excessive stress at one location. With this information, a scanning program is generated, which
includes the laser beam wavelength and laser beam power. The laser beam is directly directed
to the selected area of the glass ribbon, so that the laser beam is obviously absorbed by the
glass ribbon in this area. Here, an average laser generator power of 3 watts is set on the 2 mm
area where the stress exceeds the specification, which reduces the stress in this area by 0.2
MPa. Here, the initial measured stress (out of specification) is reduced by a certain amount
(0.2MPa) to obtain stress within specification, as the purpose of Lin is to obtain stress values
within specification (lines 343-345). The wavelength and power are set due to the initial
(first) stress and to obtain a (second) stress within specification.
Regarding Claim 17 - Lin and Ellison in the rejection of claim 11 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 11.
Lin teaches wherein further comprising,
determining a first location of a first region from a sample of the glass ribbon,
the first region comprising the first stress outside of the predetermined stress range;
Lines 100-103, 382-386, Fig. 3, “…determining the width Bn and the thickness tn of the high
stress distribution area of the glass ribbon to be adjusted for stress…”, “Measure the stress in
selected areas of the glass with the aid of birefringent stress detection equipment. It is
determined by the stress distribution that the glass has excessive stress at one location…”, “The
laser beam is directly directed to the selected area of the glass ribbon…”, “…where the stress
exceeds the specification…”. Fig. 3 illustrates the high stress distribution area 10 that contains
the one small location of high stress.
the determining the first location comprising,
measuring one or more of a first distance between the first region and a first edge of the
sample;
or
a second distance between the first region and an opposing second edge of the sample;
Determining a location based on referenced measurements is a convention, not an invention. 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 18 - Lin in the rejection of claim 17 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 17.
Lin teaches wherein further comprising,
prior to heating the region, determining a location of the region based on the first location from
the sample;
Determining a location based on referenced measurements is a convention, not an invention. 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).
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin
and in further view of Ellison et.al. and in further view of USPGPUB 20070140311A1 by House et. al.
(herein “House”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 8,904,822 by LeBlanc et. al. (herein “LeBlanc”).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16 - Lin and Ellison in the rejection of claim 11 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 11.
While Lin discloses measuring stress across the width of the glass ribbon and a stationary laser beam
generator imparted onto a vertically oriented moving glass of ribbon by an optical path meter with
emitting surface (Fig. 3, elements 2, 8, 10, 9a; Fig. 3 illustrates a reflective surface that the laser beam
impinges) and then is directed to the surface of the glass ribbon), Lin fails to disclose,
moving the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon in a first laser travel direction along the
ribbon travel path in the ribbon travel direction; Claim 15
moving the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon in a second laser travel direction across the
ribbon travel path perpendicular to the ribbon travel direction; Claim 16
In an analogous endeavor of measuring stress (birefringence) or temperature in a glass ribbon from a
down draw ( [0029] lines 1-6) that can be used in a control the glass making process [0012], House
discloses measuring the attribute (with the example of temperature) in a width-wise manner or length-
wise manner ([0029], lines 31-32) to provide a continuous profile of the attribute ([0029], lines 26-29).
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 measure stress in a width-wise manner and length-wise manner of House in
the method of Lin, to provide the impetus to move the laser beam relative to the glass ribbon along the
ribbon travel direction and across the ribbon travel path perpendicular to the ribbon travel direction, as
one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of gaining more valuable process information, per
House ([0029], lines 53-54) .
While House does not disclose moving a laser beam relative to glass ribbon in a first laser travel
direction along the ribbon travel path in the ribbon travel direction, House does disclose wherein
regarding temperature measurement, a ribbon having varying thickness can result in different portions
of the ribbon having a temperature different than other portions of the ribbon, and consequently, the
spatially varying temperatures of the ribbon both across the width of the ribbon and along the length of
the ribbon can cause the ribbon to assume a shape which is non-planar (induced stress)[0039]. Here,
House has analogously linked temperature measurements to varying glass thickness which causes
varying stress in the glass.
In an analogous endeavor of a thickness of at least one preselected portion of a glass substrate is
controlled as a laser beam is directed to the at least one preselected portion of the substrate in a
viscous state of a down draw process, thereby increasing a temperature and reducing a viscosity of the
at least one preselected portion of the substrate in a viscous state sufficiently to cause the at least one
preselected portion of the glass substrate to attain a desired thickness (Abstract, Fig. 1), Leblanc
discloses CO2 laser with selected wavelength and power is used to increase the temperature and
decrease the viscosity of a selected portion of a glass ribbon (Col 5 lines 43-51). Further that the laser
beam can be reflected from a reflecting surface and that the reflecting apparatus can function as a
scanning device as controlled by the reflecting apparatus 14 (Col 6 lines 2-6, 29-45); the laser beam can
be directed to a plurality of preselected portions of the substrate that are arranged across the entire
width of the substrate (Col 7 lines 35-45. Fig. 1).
Moreover, that the reflected laser beams can be directed to glass ribbon at any location, which indicates
the laser beam can be moved not just horizontally as illustrated Fig.1 but also in a vertical direction
aligned with the direction of the ribbon flow. While Leblanc does not disclose using a laser to directly
control stress in the glass, 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 laser beam reflecting apparatus device of
Leblanc, due to the impetus of House, in the method of Lin. One would be motivated to do so for the
purpose of having the reflected beam continuously placed in contact with two or more portions of the
substrate where non-uniformities exist, per Leblanc (Col 8 lines 54-61). This would reduce the time for
the process to remove non-uniformities. It has been held that an implicit motivation to combine exists
not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’
is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more
durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a
product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the
references themselves. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See
also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d
1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
a) U.S. Patent 7,920,257 by An et. al. discloses a method to determine the shape of a glass sheet using a laser that reflects of a mirror element enable an array of laser beams across the glass ribbon surface.
b) U.S. Patent 4,619,681 by Tetaz et. al. discloses a method of measuring stress in glass by scanning a laser over the glass and simultaneously measuring the glass temperature at each location, where a double refraction represents stresses combined with temperature measurement to establish stress in the glass.
c) WO2021080766A1 by Gaj et. al. discloses a method for controlling glass ribbon thickness using a laser to heat a portion of the glass ribbon.
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
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights