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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornejo et al (US-20120135177-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cornejo teaches a method of manufacturing a glass ribbon comprising masking a first region and a second region of a first major surface of the glass ribbon such that the first major surface comprises a first exposed region between the first region and the second region (Fig. 3A, [0049]); masking a third region and a fourth region of a second major surface of the glass ribbon such that the second major surface comprises a second exposed region between the third region and the fourth region ([0049] both surfaces, Fig. 5). Cornejo teaches of etching the first exposed region and the second exposed region [0049] to separate a first ribbon portion from a second ribbon portion [0065-66] comprising the first region and the third region (Fig. 7A-C) and form a first tapered edge at the first ribbon portion and a second tapered edge at the second ribbon portion [0045] (Fig. 2A/B, Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Cornejo teaches prior to etching, forming an initial groove at the first exposed region [0046, 48, 60].
Regarding claim 6, Cornejo teaches a method of manufacturing a glass ribbon comprising forming an initial groove at one or more of a first major surface of the glass ribbon or a second major surface of the glass ribbon [0046-49], the initial groove formed between a first ribbon portion of the glass ribbon and a second ribbon portion of the glass ribbon (Fig. 5); and etching the glass ribbon to reduce a thickness of the glass ribbon [0049, 60] (Fig. 3B) and separate the first ribbon portion from the second ribbon portion [0065-66] along the initial groove [0039] such that a first tapered edge is formed at the first ribbon portion and a second tapered edge is formed at the second ribbon portion [0045] (Fig. 2A/B, Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 6, Cornejo teaches of etching the first exposed region and the second exposed region comprises exposing the first exposed region and the second exposed region to an etchant [0049] and concluding an exposure of the first exposed region and the second exposed region to the etchant prior to the first ribbon portion separating from the second ribbon portion [0065-66], applying a mechanical force to the glass ribbon to separate the first ribbon portion from the second ribbon portion [0071] after concluding the exposure of the first exposed region and the second exposed region to the etchant [0065-66] to yield the first tapered edge and the second tapered edge (Fig. 7D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornejo et al (US-20120135177-A1) as applied to claims 2/6 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR-101924174-B1, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 3/7, depending from claim 2/6, Cornejo teaches of laser ablating to form the grooves [0054]. Cornejo does not expressly teach that the grooves are from perforating the first exposed region at a plurality of locations. In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches of masking the first and second major surface of the glass ribbon ([0025] second step, Fig. 7) and perforating the exposed region at a plurality of locations [0060-62] prior to etching [0063]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the groove of Cornejo by perforating at a plurality of locations in the first exposed region prior to etching to form crack generating pores during the etching [0028].
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 3, Cornejo teaches of etching the first exposed region and the second exposed region comprises exposing the first exposed region and the second exposed region to an etchant [0049] and concluding an exposure of the first exposed region and the second exposed region to the etchant prior to the first ribbon portion separating from the second ribbon portion [0065-66].
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornejo et al (US-20120135177-A1) and Park et al (KR-101924174-B1) as applied to claims 4 above, and further in view of Hwang (KR-101765198-B1, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 4, Cornejo teaches applying a mechanical force to the glass ribbon to separate the first ribbon portion from the second ribbon portion [0071] after concluding the exposure of the first exposed region and the second exposed region to the etchant [0065-66] to yield the first tapered edge and the second tapered edge (Fig. 7D).
Cornejo teaches of separating the first and second ribbon portion by additional etching [0066]; Cornejo does not expressly teach of exposing the first tapered edge and the second tapered edge to a second etchant. In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches of exposing the separated first ribbon portion and second ribbon portion [0101-103] with tapered edges to a second etchant [0110]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subsequently expose the first tapered and the second tapered edge of the separated first and second ribbon portion to a second etchant to strengthen the weakened tapered edges [0108].
Claims 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1) and further in view of Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1) and Hwang (KR-101765198-B1).
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches of masking a first ribbon portion from a second ribbon portion to form a first exposed region of the glass ribbon [0028-29] along a boundary (separation path) [0038], separating the first ribbon portion from the second ribbon portion so that the first ribbon portion comprises a section of the first major surface extending along a first plane and a second of the second major surface extending along a second plane [0038-40].
Chang teaches of screen printing the mask with the boundary [0037-38] and using laser to separate [0038-39]. Chang does not expressly teach masking a central portion that is laser ablated to expose the boundary. In related etching of glass art, Marietti teaches of masking a central portion of the first major surface [0042, 43] and exposing the mask to a laser beam to ablate the mask to form an exposed region of the glass ribbon [0043]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laser ablate the mask to expose the separation boundary as a known technique to form a mask pattern.
Chang teaches of etching already formed tapered edges of the separated ribbon portion [0042-44] (Fig. 10). Chang does not expressly teach etching the exposed region to form the tapered edge of the first ribbon portion. In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches of exposing the separated first ribbon portion and second ribbon portion [0101-103] with tapered edges to a second etchant [0110]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subsequently expose the first tapered and the second tapered edge of the separated first and second ribbon portion to a second etchant to strengthen the weakened tapered edges [0108].
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 9, Chang teaches of masking the second major surface (Fig. 2). Modified Chang relies on the mask being exposed to laser to ablate along the boundary as taught by Marietti [0042-43]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the laser ablation on the second major surface as logical step to achieve the mask pattern of Chang.
Regarding claim 16, depending from claim 15, Chang teaches of etching the first exposed region comprises exposing the first exposed region to an etchant after separating [0027].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1), Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1), and Hwang (KR-101765198-B1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cornejo et al (US-20120135177-A1).
Regarding claim 10-11, depending from claim 9, modified Chang relies on the laser beam ablation of Marietti to remove a portion of the mask [0043]. Modified Chang does not expressly teach of using laser to remove material from the glass ribbon. In related etching glass art, Cornejo teaches of exposing a mask to a laser beam that removes material from the glass ribbon that also results in an initial groove being formed in the first major surface of the ribbon [0054, 60] (Fig. 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use expose the mask to the laser beam that removes material from the glass ribbon to form initial groove as steps to separate portions of glass ribbons with minimal defects [0058].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1), Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1), Hwang (KR-101765198-B1), and Cornejo et al (US-20120135177-A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR-101924174-B1).
Regarding claim 12-14, depending from claim 11, modified Chang relies on Cornejo which teaches of laser ablating to form the grooves in the boundary [0054]. Cornejo does not expressly teach that the grooves are from perforating the first exposed region at a plurality of locations. In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches of masking the first and second major surface of the glass ribbon ([0025] second step, Fig. 7) and perforating the exposed region at a plurality of locations [0060-62] which extends completely through the glass ribbon (Fig. 9, crack 50/pore 40). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the groove by perforating at a plurality of locations in the first exposed region prior to etching to form crack generating pores during the etching [0028].
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1), Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1), and Hwang (KR-101765198-B1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Aburada et al (US-20170197864-A1).
Regarding claim 17-18, depending from claim 16, Chang teaches of an initial thickness of the glass ribbon to be 250-1500 micron (Table 2). Chang teaches of separating the glass ribbon with the mask present and prior to etching [0027, 39, 44]. Logically, the thickness of the glass ribbon and the separated first ribbon portion would remain the same between the first major surface and the second major surface at allocation spaced apart from the exposed region. Chang does not expressly teach the thickness of the glass ribbon in the instantly claimed range. In related glass manufacturing art, Aburada teaches that glass substrates lower than 0.5 mm, thinner than even 0.1 mm are desirable for display applications [0003]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass substrate with thickness in the instantly claimed range as there is a market need for these glass thicknesses. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1), Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1), and Hwang (KR-101765198-B1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ahn (US-20160091636-A1) and Kubone (WO-2018117122-A1).
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 9, Chang teaches the first tapered edge comprises an edge surface extending between the first plane and the second plane; a first intermediate surface extending between a first outer edge of the section of the first major surface and a first outer edge of the edge surface; a second intermediate surface extending between a first outer edge of the second of the second major surface and a second outer edge of the edge surface (Fig. 10). Chang does not nominally teach the separating length or separating thickness. In the same field of endeavor, Ahn teaches of laser cutting the intermediate surface [0049] at a 135° angle from the edge surface (Fig. 4B [0049]); Kubone teaches a glass plate in which the intermediate surface in plan view is 0.05 mm (p. 4 Line 37-38), reading on separating thickness in the instantly claimed range. The reliance on the angle of Ahn would yield an equivalent separating length. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the separating length and separating thickness corresponding to the claimed range because changing the size/shape of the separating length/thickness is not patentably distinct from the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A/B) and 2144.05. See prosecution history of application 16/906,348.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US-20150060401-A1), Marietti et al (US-20030031842-A1), Hwang (KR-101765198-B1), Ahn (US-20160091636-A1), and Kubone (WO-2018117122-A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Aburada et al (US-20170197864-A1).
Regarding claim 20, depending from claim 19, modified Chang relies on the geometry of Ahn which edge surface extends along an edge plane that is substantially perpendicular to the first plane and the edge surface comprises a height along the edge plane that is less than the first thickness (Fig. 4B). Chang teaches of an initial thickness of the glass ribbon to be 250-1500 micron (Table 2). Chang does not expressly teach the thickness of the glass ribbon in the instantly claimed range. In related glass manufacturing art, Aburada teaches that glass substrates lower than 0.5 mm, thinner than even 0.1 mm are desirable for display applications [0003]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use glass substrate with thickness in the instantly claimed range as there is a market need for these glass thicknesses. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20130155004-A1, US-20130295333-A1, US-8787980-B2, KR-101570658-B1, US-20160127002-A1 teaches of masking and etching the exposed region to separate and chamfer the glass ribbon
US-20140130548-A1 teaches etching to form a tapered edge
US-20170352553-A1 teaches of laser ablating through a mask to form vias
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