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
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 06/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 15-20 withdrawn. No claims have been amended, canceled or added. No new matter has been added.
Note: The Examiner would like to note that technically, Claims 2-14 have been amended to remedy Claim Objections and Claim 14 has been amended to remedy a Claim Rejection under 35. U.S.C. 112(d) per the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/24/2026.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 06/23/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below:
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 6-9, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 9-10, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Claims 4-6, 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see page 10, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
I. Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
A) The Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest a "Multi-Layer Composite".
Neither Andrysek or De Lange alone or in combination teaches a glass handler holder
comprising a multi-layer composite as claimed and De Lange does not remedy the deficiencies
of Andrysek.
The term “multi-layer” in the claims is not a general description. The Specification [0060] of the
instant application defines “multi-layer”.
The Office Action characterizes steel as a "composite material". A cast
steel part is not a multi-layer composite regardless of the phases present in the alloy.
De Lange does not remedy the deficiencies of Andrysek, nor provide a sufficient motivation to
modify Andrysek in the manner required by claim 1. De Lange does not teach a structural
article comprising a multi-layer composite as claimed, but instead is relates to design
methodologies and generalized manufacturing possibilities. De Lange's references to additive
manufacturing describe general fabrication options and do not teach any specific structural
implementation of a multi-layer composite article. At most, the proposed combination would
yield the use of De Lange's design methodology to model a lattice structure for Andrysek's cast
holder. This does not result in a holder "comprising a multi-layer composite" as required by
claim 1.
The Examiner has not provided a sufficient motivation to make a modification by De Lange.
The asserted rationale-to meet weight requirements for a structural component is untethered
to the specific art of glass handling and Andrysek already addresses weight reduction. The
Examiner has not explained why a skilled person in this specific field would have made such a
leap. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring a reason to combine
elements in the manner claimed). The claimed invention adopts a fundamentally different
approach. See Spec. [ 0015]-[0016].
The Examiner treats the preamble "glass handler holder" as an intended use that does not
differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art, and the Applicant disagrees. There are
the specific components of a glass takeout holder, as described throughout the specification at
paragraphs [0007], [0014]-[0020] ( See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d
1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This distinction matters because De Lange has no connection to
glass handling equipment.
I. Regarding Claim 3 the Applicant argues that,
B. Claim 3 Is Separately Patentable
a) The Examiner's treatment of the limitation "the weight- reducing openings comprise a hollow
space at an interior of the connector, body, or base” is conclusory and does not establish that
the cited references teach or suggest the claimed "hollow space at an interior." De Lange
teaches internal lattice structures. A lattice structure and a hollow interior space are
fundamentally different. See Applicant’s Specification 1 [0026], [0036]-[0039] and illustrated in
Figs. 3A-3C (element 270). Andrysek's weight-reducing holes 7 likewise do not meet this
limitation. They are through-holes that extend completely through the wall of the holder and
are visible from the exterior. The Examiner's assertion that De Lange's lattice structures satisfy
this limitation is conclusory and lacks the required articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
II. Regarding Claims 4-6, 8-9 the Applicant argues that,
These claims depends directly or indirectly from claim 1 and for the reasons set forth above, the
base combination of Andrysek and De Lange does not render claim 1 obvious and O'Neill does
not cure the deficiencies identified above.
III. Regarding Claim 14 the Applicant argues that,
As Amended, to remedy the U.S.C. 35 112(d) rejection, Claim 14 incorporates all of the
limitations of Claim 1 and for the reasons in Section I and II above, the combination of cited
references does not render obvious Claim 1.
I. In response to the Applicant’s argument of Claim 1 the Examiner replies that,
A) The Combination Does Not Teach or Suggest a "Multi-Layer Composite". The Examiner will
address this item through a combination of addressing a)-f) below.
Respectful disagreement. Andrysek teaches a glass handler holder (Page 3, lines 19-24). De Lange
teaches a multi-layer composite where stainless steel ( a known alloy of at least chromium, iron
and carbon which would constitute a composite material) is printed in successive layers (Col 8
lines 8-12), quote “ For example, the lattice structures and the bulk structures of the structural
component are printed using a three-dimensional printer depositing or otherwise forming
successive layers of material into the structural component”. Hence, the argument is moot.
While the term “multi-layer” in the claims may not be a general description and the claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, Applicants
argument is moot.
The Examiner is in agreement that stainless steel is not a multi-layer composite. Stainless steel is
a composite material (See a) ). De Lange cites stainless steel as material that can be printed in
successive layers (See a) ). Together a multi-layer composite material is printed. Hence, the
argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. De Lange provides for an additive manufacturing based multi-layer
composite structure (See a) ) where additive manufacturing is not a general fabrication option
as additive manufacturing is clearly stated in the Abstract of De Lange as the main option and
again, is stated as the main option (Col 8 lines 4-5) where “other manufacturing methods may be
used” is noted (Col 8 lines 12-13). Further, Fig.1 and Fig. 6 of De Lange use the term “printing”
and “printer”, respectively. As well, Fig. 6 of De Lange “illustrates an embodiment of a system
for designing, modeling and manufacturing a lattice structure” (Col 8 lines 22-23). By using the
disclosure of De Lange a multi-layer composite article can be manufactured, and in the case of
Andrysek, a glass handler holder. Hence, the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. De Lange teaches lightweight design and weight reduction options
(Col 1 lines 13-15, 26-28) for components known to be heat resistant (jet engine components) to
provide a nexus to Andrysek as to why a PHOSITA. While Andrysek addresses weight reduction
in design, further weight reduction motivation from De Lange from the manufacturing process
of additive manufacturing remains advantageous and does not discount this motivation for De
Lange. That the claimed invention adopts a fundamentally different approach per the instant
Specification, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from
the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. Claim 1 could be read “ A structural article” and the remainder of
Claim 1 and dependent claims is a description of the structural article. The preamble “A glass
handler holder merely states the environment in which the claimed invention operates. The
preamble is not a limitation on the claims if it merely states the purpose or intended use, and
the remainder of the claim completely defines invention independent of preamble. On the
other hand, if claims cannot be read independently of preamble, and preamble must be read
to give meaning to claim or is essential to point out the invention, it constitutes a claim
limitation. Stewart-Warner Corp v. City of Pontiac, Mich. 219 USPQ 1162; Marston v. J.C. Penny
Co., Inc. 148 USPQ 25; and Kropa v. Robie and Mahlman, 88 USPQ 478. Further, it has been
held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a
structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of
the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause, Kropa v. Robie, 88
USPQ 478. Moreover, when the preamble states a purpose or intended use for the invention,
it is not limiting; it merely indicates the environment in which the claimed invention operates,
Loctite Corp. V. Ultraseal Ltd., 228 USPQ 90, 94. Further, although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, the argument is moot.
The Rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
I. In response to the Applicant’s argument of Claim 3 the Examiner replies that,
B. Claim 3 Is Separately Patentable - The Examiner will address this item through a) below.
a) Respectful disagreement. Andrysek is not relied upon to disclose “the weight- reducing
openings comprise a hollow space at an interior of the connector, body, or base”. Andrysek is
relied upon to teach the appropriate claims in the instant specification. De Lange is relied upon
to teach disclose “the weight- reducing openings comprise a hollow space at an interior of the
connector, body, or base”. The Examiner has cited Col 1 lines 29-31, where the citation should
be Col 1 lines 27-31 (typographical error), as lines 27-28 state “Lattice structures are porous
materials produced by repeating a unit cell throughout the structure”. While not part of Claim
1, the porous lattice structure of De Lange was cited in Claim 7, so the hollow space of De
Lange is not a new citation. It remains that De Lange teaches a hollow space at an interior, as a
porous lattice structure contains an interior hollow space. 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,” 1.¢.,
identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Hence, the argument is moot.
Independently, the Rejection of Claim 3 is maintained.
II. In response to the Applicant’s argument of Claims 4-6, 8-9 the Examiner replies that,
The Examiner Response to Claim 1 is applied to dependent Claims 4-6, 8-9. Hence the argument
is moot.
The Rejection of Claims 4-6, 8-9 are maintained.
III. In response to the Applicant’s argument of Claim 14 the Examiner replies that,
The Examiner Response to Claim 1 is applied to dependent Claim 14. Hence the argument
is moot.
The Rejection of Claim 14 is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/23/2026 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
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
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 1-3, 7, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in
the IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”).
Regarding Claim 1 Andrysek teaches,
A glass handler holder; Page 3, lines 19-24, “…the jaw holder of a takeout mechanism for glass products, in particular container glass…the subject of present invention consists of the fact that each holder…”
that comprises,
a connector that comprises at least one tab,
a body connected to the connector and extending toward a base
a base that includes an insert opening
comprising,
a lower surface and an upper surface
See Annotated Fig. 4 of Andrysek:
PNG
media_image1.png
875
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a glass handler holder comprising,
that includes weight-reducing openings formed in the connector, body, or base; Col 7 lines 19-20, Fig. 1/2/3/4, “The vertical part 3 of the holder 1 may be supplied below the stops 6 with weight reducing holes 7….by means of two weight reducing holes 7…”. Annotate Fig. 4 of Andrysek illustrates weight reducing holes 7 in the body.
While Andrysek teaches weight reduced glass takeout holder of the jaws made from metal or from steel (i.e. steel is a composite material) (Col 8 line 21), Andrysek fail to teach a glass handler holder comprising
a multi-layer composite
In an analogous effort to obtain light weight design options and weight reduction requirements (Col 1 lines 13-15, 26-28) De Lange teaches obtaining lightweight high structural performance, particularly for aerospace engineering applications (as one skilled on the art would know this includes heat resistant components for jet engines or re-entry vehicles) Further, De Lange teaches using additive manufacturing using a 3D printer to create components by forming successive layers of material into a structural component where the successive layers of material are built into a lattice structure (Figs. 3/4/5, Col 8 lines 8-12) from materials such as titanium, steel, and stainless steel (where steel and stainless steel are composite materials) (Col 9, line 47). As well, the lattice zones of the component (i.e. the entire component does not need to be created from the 3D Additive process where the lattice is created) may be determined by the printability of the printer and lattice structure density distribution (Col 9 lines 33-36), where the additive processes could be laser sintering or laser melting among others (Col 9 lines 36-40). Further, De Lange teaches varying size of the of the unit cell as well as the geometry size of the lattice (Col 1 lines 27-31).
De Lange teaches the claimed invention except for a glass handler holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of De Lange to create a multi-layer composite that is used to form a lattice for the glass handler holder of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so to meet weight requirements for a structural component, as noted by De Lange (Col 8 lines 13-20).
Regarding Claim 2 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Andrysek teaches wherein,
the connector or body includes weight-reducing openings
Andrysek teaches Claim 2 previously in Claim 1 (See Annotated Fig. 4, element 7 which are weight reducing openings).
Regarding Claim 3 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing openings that represents a hole through the connector, Andrysek fails to teaches wherein,
the weight-reducing openings comprise a hollow space at an interior of the connector, body, or base .
De Lange teaches internal lattice structures previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.De Lange further teaches wherein,
the weight-reducing openings comprise lattice openings in a lattice structure; Col 1, lines 27-29, “Lattice structures are porous materials produced by repeating a unit cell throughout a structure…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lattice structure with lattice openings of De Lange in the holder of Andrysek as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of meeting weight reduction requirements, as noted by De Lange (Col 1 line 26).
Regarding Claim 10 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
De Lange teaches wherein,
a bulk density of the holder is less than 90 percent of the material density of the holder; Col 3 lines 7-9, Col 6 lines 38-40, 45-47, “…the topology optimization optimizes the location and density of the lattice structure”, “…above a certain density threshold such as 80% the lattice cells cannot be printed….and bulk material should be printed…a BULK zone for densities above 80%”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of De Lange’s bulk density range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 12 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
multi-layer composite comprises a metal or metal alloy, a metal composite matrix, or a ceramic (Claim 11).
the multi-layer composite comprises a metal selected from: a titanium alloy, stainless steel, a nickel alloy, and an aluminum alloy (Claim 12).
De Lange teaches both claimed inventions in Claim 1.
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 was made to use the metals of De Lange in the glass handler holder of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of using temperature resistant materials for the glass handler holder. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know those materials are common temperature resistance materials used in the glass industry. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. . Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 13 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Andrysek teaches the holder of claim 1 comprising,
a non-metal insert held within the insert opening; Col 8 lines 23-24, “Insert 2 is fabricated of any material suitable for contact with hot glass of a temperature of approx.. 600°C, e.g. graphite composites…”
Claims 4-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the
IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
11,186,077 by O’Neill et. al (herein “O’Neill”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 3 above teach all of the limitations of claim 3.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing through holes and De Lange teaches a density distribution of a lattice structure between 0% and 100% (Col 6 lines 25-30), the combination fails to teach,
from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base.
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48).
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body or base of the holder. 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 percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base of the holder , 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 percentage of weight reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable 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.
Regarding Claim 5 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches weight reducing openings in the holder itself and De Lange teaches a three- dimensional lattice structure within the composite which suggest irregular shaped lattice structures, where the lattice structure can be fabricated by a number of additive manufacturing techniques other than a 3D printer (Col 9 lines 36-42), the combination fails to specifically teach,
the weight-reducing openings comprise irregularly- shaped pores within the multi-layer composite;
In an analogous endeavor of producing decreased density/increased porosity structures (which in turn would reduce weight of the article) (Col 3 lines 1-2), O’Neill teaches,
a multi-layer composite structure comprising such metals such as titanium, titanium alloys, and stainless steel (Col 2 lines 55-67).
a lattice structure (Fig. 34B, Fig. 35).
an additive method for producing the structures in laser melting (Col 8 lines 31-33).
the method can be used to produce an article from the metals referred to which can be created to a desired shape and which may or may not require subsequent machining. Yet again, such an article can be produced so that it has a graded porosity of, e.g., non-porous through various degrees of porosity to the outer surface layer (Col 34 lines 66-67, Col 35 lines 1-5).
“The method may be applied to produce an all-porous structure using any of the aforementioned metal or metal alloys. Such structures can be used as finished or final products…” (Col 9 lines 49-51).
The above provide a nexus.
O’Neill teaches unit cells having an irregular structure; “The predetermined unit cells make take the shape of most regular or irregular structure. For example, the unit cells may be in the shape of a tetrahedron, dodecahedron or octahedron as well as other symmetrical structures. As mentioned, the unit cells may not have such uniformity and have an irregular shape.…” (Col 4 lines 56-61); “It is the object of the present invention to provide a method of fabricating porous and partially porous metallic structures with a known porosity…” (Col 3 lines 54-56);
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for a glass handler holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of O’Neill to create irregularly shaped pores in the composite structure of the combination, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of to produce an irregular porous construct with a defined level of porosity”, as noted by O’Neill (Col 10 lines 17-19). Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 6 – Andrysek, De Lange, and O’Neill in the rejection of claim 5 above teach all of the limitations of claim 5.
O’Neill further teaches,
from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings at the interior of the connector, body, or base; Col 10, lines 43-48, “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%”.
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings. 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 percentage of weight reducing openings , 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 percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable 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, the location of the weight reducing openings is a design criteria and just changes the shape of the glass handler holder elements and does not change the function. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 8 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of claim 7.
While De Lange teaches reduced weight as a reason to use a lattice structure (Col ; Col 1 lines 44-47, 26-27), De Lange fails to teach,
the lattice structure comprises from 10 to 40 percent weight-reducing openings
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48)
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings. 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 percentage of weight reducing openings , 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 percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable 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.
Regarding Claim 9 – Andrysek and De Lange in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While De Lange teaches reduced weight as a reason to use a lattice structure (Col ; Col 1 lines 44-47, 26-27), De Lange fails to teach,
the holder comprises from 10 to 40 percent weight- reducing openings based on total volume of the holder.
O’Neill further teaches “…that optimum porosity is between approximately 20% and 40%, and aim to mid value with a mean volume percent of voids of about 70%” (Col 10, lines 43-48)
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention except for the exact percentage of weight reducing openings on the total volume of the holder. 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 percentage of weight reducing openings on the total volume of the holder , 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 percentage of weight reducing openings for the purpose of thermal management of the glass handler holder, which is a common focus in the hot glass industry. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable 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
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the
IDS dated 01/13/2026) WO2013041067A1 by Andrysek (herein “Andrysek”) and in further view of
U.S. Patent 11,010, 504 by De Lange et. al. (herein “De Lange”) and in further view of U.S. Patent
11,186,077 by O’Neill et. al (herein “O’Neill”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 7,418,834 by Lang
(herein “Lang”).
Regarding Claim 14 – Andrysek, De Lange, and O’Neill in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Andrysek teaches a holder of jaw of a takeout mechanism for glass products glass (Col 10 lines 26-27) suggesting a mechanical robot or mechanical system, Andrysek fails to teach specifically,
an automated hot glass handling system comprising a robot arm operatively connected to the glass handler holder of claim 1;
In a similar endeavor of glass handler holders, Lang teaches a takeout jaw 10 with a connector area as to the combination. See Annotated Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
671
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 illustrates the takeout jaw on a robot lift arm 14. “ The number 10 represents a series of takeout jaws of the present invention, which are positioned above a series of hot bottles. The takeout jaws are connected to a lifting arm 14. Bottles 12 have just been removed from a bottle forming mold…”, Col 4 lines 23-27, Fig. 1 Fig.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect to the robot arm of Lang with the connector of Andrysek, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a typical production environment, as noted by Lang (Col 4 lines 21-22). End effectors attached to robot arms are a common industry practice, especially in the glass industry. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 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
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights