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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 1/30/2026. 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.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that Rueckheim does not teach or suggest a movable panel with suckers for holding a glass pane and therefore, does not meet each and every limitation of claims 1 or 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The current claim language merely requires the movable panel to be configured to hold the first glass pane by means of suckers. The suckers are not positively recited. Since the apparatus of Rueckheim is at least capable of performing this function, each and every limitation is met. The 102 rejection over Rueckheim is maintained.
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 and suction 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 suction means is being interpreted as the blower, vacuum pump, or ejector as mentioned in para. [0052] – [0055] 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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rueckheim (US 4,909,874).
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); wherein said movable panel is configured to hold said first glass pane by means of suckers (the movable panel of Rueckheim is at least capable of performing this limitation); 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).
Regarding claim 2, Rueckheim 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 9, Rueckheim 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 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); wherein said movable panel is configured to hold said first glass pane by means of suckers (the movable panel of Rueckheim is at least capable of performing this limitation); 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).
Regarding claim 12, Rueckheim 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 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 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 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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruckheim in view of Halle (DE 4,315,986).
Regarding claim 3, Rueckheim 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rueckheim.
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.
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
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