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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 8/26/2026. Claims 1-18 remain pending. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite wherein the movable panel comprises suction pads has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection over Rueckheim have not been found persuasive. Rueckheim in view of Donohue (US 9,951,553) as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including wherein the movable panel comprises suction pads.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
Claim Interpretation
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 use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: closure means in claim 1 and blowing means in claim 2.
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. The corresponding structure of the closure means is being interpreted as the sealing windows or a rubber membrane as disclosed in para. [0047] – [0051] of the original specification. The corresponding structure of the blowing means is being interpreted as the gas injection manifold as disclosed in para. [0062] of the original specification.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rueckheim (US 4,909,874) in view of Donohue (US 9,951,553).
Regarding claim 1, Rueckheim discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) for filling insulating glass with gas, comprising: a fixed panel (81) and a movable panel (126); said fixed panel and said movable panel having respective working surfaces configured to hold glass panes (72; Fig. 2); said fixed panel and said movable panel being configured to be juxtaposed along a direction perpendicular to the two working surfaces to join said glass panes to each other (Figs. 1-3); wherein said apparatus further comprises closure means (18, 20; Col. 3, lines 18-46) configured to form a chamber between said fixed panel and said movable panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2); and suction means (34, 38) configured to establish and maintain a predetermined pressure value inside said chamber as the glass panes are joined for making the insulating glass (Col. 3, lines 18-46), but fails to disclose wherein said movable panel comprises suction pads configured to hold said first glass pane.
Donohue teaches an apparatus wherein said movable panel (90) comprises suction pads configured to hold said first glass pane. (Figs. 2-8; Col. 7, line 65 through Col. 8, line 6)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the movable panel of Rueckheim to include suction pads as taught by Donohue in order to provide a means to selectively grip the glass pane as desired by the user. (Col. 7, line 65 through Col. 8, line 6)
Regarding claim 2, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the apparatus for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 1, further comprising blowing means (36, 40) designed configured to blow gas into said chamber. (Col. 3, lines 18-46)
Regarding claim 4, Rueckheim further discloses the apparatus for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said closure means are made with a rubber membrane.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the closure means of Rueckheim to be made with a rubber membrane since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a suitable material that is cost effective and durable.
Regarding claim 9, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the apparatus for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 1, further comprising a pressure sensor connected to a control unit, configured to measure pressure inside the chamber, said control unit being signed configured to act accordingly on said suction means. (Col. 6, line 28-57)
Regarding claim 10, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the apparatus for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 1, wherein said gas is a gas other than air. (MPEP 2115 states: "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).)
Regarding claim 11, Rueckheim discloses a method for filling insulating glass with gas, the method comprising: providing an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) for filling insulating glass with gas, comprising: a fixed panel (81) and a movable panel (126); said fixed panel and said movable panel having respective working surfaces configured to hold glass panes (72; Fig. 2); said fixed panel and said movable panel being configured to be juxtaposed along a direction perpendicular to the working surfaces to join said glass panes to each other (Figs. 1-3); wherein said apparatus further comprises closure means (18, 20; Col. 3, lines 18-46) configured to form a chamber between said fixed panel and said movable panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2); and suction means (34, 38) configured to establish and maintain a predetermined pressure value inside said chamber as the glass panes are joined for making the insulating glass (Col. 3, lines 18-46); and maintaining inside the chamber between said fixed panel and said movable panel a predetermined pressure value lower than pressure outside the chamber, during juxtaposition of said fixed panel and said movable panel and subsequent joining of the glass panes of the insulating glass (Col. 6, line 28 - Col. 7, line 25), but fails to disclose wherein said movable panel comprises suction pads configured to hold said first glass pane.
Donohue teaches an apparatus wherein said movable panel (90) comprises suction pads configured to hold said first glass pane. (Figs. 2-8; Col. 7, line 65 through Col. 8, line 6)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the movable panel of Rueckheim to include suction pads as taught by Donohue in order to provide a means to selectively grip the glass pane as desired by the user. (Col. 7, line 65 through Col. 8, line 6)
Regarding claim 12, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the method for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 11, wherein the predetermined pressure value maintained inside the chamber is such that during joining and pressing of the glass panes following squeezing of a spacer, the value of the gas pressure inside the insulating glass is the same as the pressure outside the insulating glass. (Col. 6, line 28 - Col. 7, line 25)
Regarding claim 13, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the method for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 11, wherein the predetermined pressure value maintained inside the chamber is such that during joining and pressing of the glass panes following squeezing of a spacer the value of the gas pressure inside the insulating glass is the same as the pressure of an installation site where the insulating glass is to be installed. (Col. 6, line 28 - Col. 7, line 25)
Regarding claim 15, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the method for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 11, the method further comprising blowing gas into said chamber before the glass panes form the insulating glass. (Col. 6, line 28 - Col. 7, line 25)
Regarding claim 16, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the method for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 11, wherein, if a thermoplastic spacer is used, the method comprises a step wherein, as the movable panel is brought to the fixed panel after the glass panes and the thermoplastic spacer have been joined together to squeeze the thermoplastic spacer, pressure in the chamber varies in proportion to movement of the movable panel. (in the event that the thermoplastic spacer is not used, this limitation is met)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckheim in view of Donohue and Halle (DE 4,315,986).
Regarding claim 3, Rueckheim in view of Donohue further discloses the apparatus for filling insulating glass with gas according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said closure means comprise an upper sealing window, lateral sealing windows, and a lower gasket, said upper and lateral sealing windows and said lower gasket acting between said fixed panel and said movable panel, said upper and lateral sealing windows being movable between a closed position in which the upper and lateral sealing windows make said chamber impermeable to fluids between said fixed panel and said movable panel; and an open position in which said chamber is in fluid communication with an external environment.
Halle teaches a closure means that comprises an upper sealing window (13), lateral sealing windows (10, 12), and a lower gasket (11), said upper and lateral sealing windows and said lower gasket acting between said fixed panel and said movable panel, said upper and lateral sealing windows being movable between a closed position in which the upper and lateral sealing windows make said chamber impermeable to fluids between said fixed panel and said movable panel; and an open position in which said chamber is in fluid communication with an external environment. (as best shown in Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Rueckheim to include the sealing windows as taught by Halle in order to provide a stable and sealed frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 14, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights