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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Vazquez et al. (ES2879598) in view of Belli et al. (EP 3819080 A1) and Raspone et al. (US 2024/0409378). The US-equivalent of ES2879598, US 2023/0182485, will be used for citations. Regarding claim 1, Fernandez-Vazquez et al. discloses glass printer for printing glass in a continuous motion (Figure 1), comprising: - a printer input area (Item 1); - a scanning unit (item 2) for determining a position, measurement and quality of the glass or other substrate[; - a printing bridge (item 3); and - an output area (item 4).” Fernandez-Vazquez et al. fail to disclose “wherein the glass printer includes a single transport of rollers from the input to the output of the machine passing through all the printer stations, where the rollers are actuated by a three-phase motor, where the rollers are cut in several channels in parallel arrangement leaving between them guide rails of suction cups that run along the guide rails independently of the suction cups of each guide rail, and where in addition, the suction cups are actuated independently in their displacement by means of a linear motor that moves linearly in a plane below the rollers, and are synchronised with each other in such a way that when a group of suction cups picks up a glass it moves it forward together with the rollers, and when that glass leaves the input area, the next glass arrives and is already waiting for a second group of suction cups that runs along a different guide rail.” Belli et al. disclose a similar system for processing glass plates (abstract, Figures) wherein the transport system includes: a single transport of rollers (rollers R, Figure 4) from the input to the output of the machine passing through all the printer stations, where the rollers are cut in several channels in parallel arrangement (Figure 4) leaving between them guide rials of suction cups (items V) that run along the guide rails independently of the suction cups of each guide rail (Figure 20), and where in addition, the suction cups are actuated independently in their displacement by means of a linear motor (item M) that moves linearly in a plate below the roller (paragraph 50). It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the transport system of Belli et al. in the system of Fernandez-Vazquez et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. The transport system of Belli et al. fails to disclose that “the rollers are actuated by a three-phase motor,” instead showing that the glass plate is on a carriage/trolley which is self-propelled and moves the glass plate over the rollers which are free rolling (paragraph 47). Raspone et al. disclose that motorized support rollers or a self-propelled trolley are equivalent means for moving an object on a trolley from one place to another (paragraph 47). It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use motorized support rollers to move the glass plate on the trolley because it has been shown in the art to be equivalent for the same purpose. Regarding the limitation that the motor be a three-phase motor, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, three-phase motors were well-known means for powering rollers in conveyor systems. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a three-phase motor as the motor of the driven rollers because they are known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. Regarding the remaining limitation that “when a group of suction cups picks up a glass it moves it forward together with the rollers, and when that glass leaves the input area, the next glass arrives and is already waiting for a second group of suction cups that runs along a different guide rail,” this limitation is met when the embodiment shown in Figure 20 of Belli et al. is implemented; when the glass plates reach the end, new ones are added at both tracks, thus meeting the limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, each claim element is met by a different reference and/or rationale, as laid out in the rejection.
Additionally, Applicant does not refute the rationale used in the rejection to combine the different features in the manner suggested in the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is considered valid and is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
