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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112d rejection is withdrawn.
P. 8-9 of the remarks argues that there is no pressing between heat working jig 16 and 24. This is false; Monji teaches that jig 16 and 24 press with each other in the working example (Col. 10 Line 42-45, Col. 11 Line 42-45, Col. 12 Line 35-40…). The second press-molding is taught by Monji (Col. 10 Line 54-58, Col. 11 Line 55-60, Col. 12 Line 50-53…).
P. 9-10 of remarks argues that Monji teaches that the resulting glass is concave per Col. 8 Line 18-21. The argument is predicated on the fact that Monji teaches either a convex mold producing a concave surface (Fig. 8) or a concave mold producing a convex mold (Fig. 7). Monji teaches both. The argument is not persuasive because the skilled artisan can choose.
Remarks on p. 11-12 do not invalidate the Monji reference. Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided a translation of the relied upon foreign art. This is false. All translations have been attached to the according Office Action that the art was first used; in this case, translations for both the Shigyo and Matsui reference are attached to the 10/27/2025 Office Action after the original document. The Examiner does apologize that Matsui et al (JP-H0742122-B2) was indicated with an additional 7 [JP-H07742122-B2] in the prior Office Action but was correctly numbered in the PTO-892.
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 17-20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monji et al (US-5120343-A) and further in view of Shigyo et al (JP-S63162539-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 17, Monji teaches of a method for producing a biconvex optical lens element (Fig. 5/7, Col. 2 Line 6-10) comprising providing a blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 45-51); heating the blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 54-56; Col. 3 Line 29-34); subsequently press-molding the blank between an upper mold and a lower mold to form an intermediate molded part having a first convex surface formed by the upper mold and a second convex surface formed by the lower mold (Fig. 7 adhesion stage; Col. 5 Line 40-42, heat working jig 16/24); subsequently removing the intermediate molded part from the lower mold by the upper mold (Col. 9 Line 40-42; Fig. 11) wherein under broadest reasonable interpretation the upper mold is heat working jig 16 (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) Reversal of Parts citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)).
Monji teaches that the shape of the intermediate molded part is not limited to the described embodiments (Col. 18 Line 26-28). In another embodiment, Monji teaches the second surface of the intermediated molded part, molded by the lower mold, is subsequently heated after removal (Col. 14 Line 33-42; Fig. 8 reversal stage heater 15). Though this embodiment does not have the second surface be convex, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the original embodiment relied upon from Monji to heat the second convex surface of the intermediate molded part formed by the lower mold as means to satisfy the heat working conditions prior to the second moulding step.
Monji teaches of subsequently press-molding the intermediate molded part between another upper mold and lower mold (Col. 7 Line 59-62) to form first convexly curved optically effective surface and a second convexly curved optically effective surface (Col. 7 Line 62-64; Fig. 7-8) before subsequently cooling the optical element in a cooling path (Col. 7 Line 64-68). Monji does not expressly teach of using the same upper mold and lower mold from the first press-molding step. In the same field of endeavor, Shigyo teaches of using the same mold (Line 52-55) for a second press-molding step on the intermediate molded part (Line 99-111). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same upper mold and lower mold for the second press-molding step as known method to improve the accuracy of the optically effective surface of the desired product (Line 24-26).
Regarding claim 18, depending from claim 17, Monji teaches a vacuum is provided in a channel of the upper mold for removing the intermediate molded part from the lower mold by means of the upper mold (Col. 6 Line 20-26; Col. 17 Line 24-35/53-55).
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 17, Monji illustrates holding the intermediate molded part by means of the upper mold when heating the surface of the intermediate molded part formed by the lower mold (Fig. 8 reversal stage, heater 15 and upper mold 16).
Regarding claim 20/27, depending from claim 17/19, Shigyo teaches that the temperature of the glass and the mold is within 20 K (Line 97-109). Though modified Monji does not expressly state the temperature difference between the sides of the blank, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the blank is uniformly heated on both sides of the blank or be motivated to optimize the heat as necessary for the press-molding.
Claims 21-26 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monji et al (US-5120343-A) and Shigyo et al (JP-S63162539-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) as applied to claims 17/20/27 above, and further in view of Matsui et al (JP-H0742122-B2, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 21-22/24-25/30-31, depending from claim 20/17/27, Monji teaches of a lower mold (working jig 24, Fig. 7). Monji does not expressly teach the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower part. In the same field of endeavor, Matsui teaches the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part (transfer die 21-27/44; Fig. 1-5) and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part (guide member 31-37/54; Fig. 1-5) that transport the blank to a press for press-molding (transport table 1, movable shaft 10, Fig. 4, Line 105-107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower mold to comprise a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part wherein the blank is transported on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding as known means to align the molds (Line 77) along the transport path for a press-molding process (Line 105-106).
Regarding claim 23/26, depending from claim 21/24, Monji teaches providing a housing to adjust the atmosphere during the process (Col. 7 Line 24-29). Matsui teaches transporting the blank on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding (transport table 1, movable shaft 10, Fig. 4, Line 105-107).
Regarding claim 32, depending from claim 17, Monji teaches an embodiment wherein the lower mold is concavely shaped (Col. 13 Line 1-3) with a radius of curvature larger than that of the upper mold (Col. 12 Line 66-67). Monji does not expressly teach the provided blank has a radius of curvature wherein a gob or chunk of molten glass is the starting blank (Col. 5 Line 47-49). In the same field of endeavor, Matsui starts with a substantially flat blank (Fig. 1) which reads on a larger radius of curvature. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flat blank as taught by Matsui and mold into the biconvex optical lens of Monji as a known starting option within the art (Line 65-67).
Claims 33 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monji et al (US-5120343-A) and further in view of Shigyo et al (JP-S63162539-A) and Ito (US-5378255-A).
Regarding claim 33, Monji teaches of a method for producing a biconvex optical lens element (Fig. 5/7, Col. 2 Line 6-10) comprising providing a blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 45-51); heating the blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 54-56; Col. 3 Line 29-34); subsequently press-molding the blank between an upper mold and a lower mold to form an intermediate molded part having a first convex surface formed by the upper mold and a second convex surface formed by the lower mold (Fig. 7 adhesion stage; Col. 5 Line 40-42, heat working jig 16/24); subsequently removing the intermediate molded part from the lower mold (Col. 9 Line 40-42; Fig. 11).
Monji teaches that the shape of the intermediate molded part is not limited to the described embodiments (Col. 18 Line 26-28). In another embodiment, Monji teaches the second surface of the intermediated molded part, molded by the lower mold, is subsequently heated after removal (Col. 14 Line 33-42; Fig. 8 reversal stage heater 15). Though this embodiment does not have the second surface be convex, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the original embodiment relied upon from Monji to heat the second convex surface of the intermediate molded part formed by the lower mold as means to satisfy the heat working conditions prior to the second moulding step.
Monji teaches of subsequently press-molding the intermediate molded part between another upper mold and lower mold (Col. 7 Line 59-62) to form first convexly curved optically effective surface and a second convexly curved optically effective surface (Col. 7 Line 62-64; Fig. 7-8) before subsequently cooling the optical element in a cooling path (Col. 7 Line 64-68). Monji does not expressly teach of using the same upper mold and lower mold from the first press-molding step. In the same field of endeavor, Shigyo teaches of using the same mold (Line 52-55) for a second press-molding step on the intermediate molded part (Line 99-111). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same upper mold and lower mold for the second press-molding step as known method to improve the accuracy of the optically effective surface of the desired product (Line 24-26). According to the combination made, the removal of the intermediate molded part from the lower mold is satisfied under broadest reasonable interpretation and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) Reversal of Parts wherein the intermediate mold part is removed from the lower mold of Monji (Col. 9 Line 59-65; Col. 10 Line 49-54) to the same mold as combined with Shigyo.
Shigyo teaches that the temperature of the glass and the mold is within 20 K (Line 97-109). Though modified Monji does not expressly state the temperature difference between the sides of the blank, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the blank is uniformly heated on both sides of the blank or be motivated to optimize the heat as necessary for the press-molding.
Monji teaches of molding a biconvex optical lens element (Fig. 7). Monji does not expressly teach of molding an integrally formed rim having a volume. Shigyo illustrates integrally formed rim having a volume (Fig. 4) without nominally addressing how it is made. In related molding glass art, Ito teaches of an upper mold that forms a first convex surface (upper mold part 50, molding surface 51; Col. 7 Line 39-42) and a lower mold that forms a second convex surface (lower mold part 47, upper surface 53; Col. 8 Line 18-20) wherein the upper and lower molds are used to make optically effective surfaces (Col. 8 Line 2, Col. 14 Line 40-42) and the an integrally formed rim having a volume (Fig. 1, step portion 33, Col. 6 Line 4-13). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the upper mold and lower mold taught by Ito to mold a desired biconvex optical lens element with optically effective surfaces and the integrally formed rim to prevent defects and increase productivity [0018]. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727.82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Ito does not expressly teach their produced biconvex lens are for vehicle headlights. The biconvex “vehicle headlight” lens are treated as products of the method wherein there is intended use of the intermediate product/product in the production process but does not hold patentable weight until there is sufficient structure to differentiate the intermediate product/product from the prior art wherein Ito teaches a generic optical element that would broadly encompass the instantly claimed biconvex vehicle headlight lens.
Regarding claims 36-37, depending from claim 33, Monji, Shigyo, and Ito teach of forming biconvex optical elements (Fig. 7; Fig. 4; Col. 9 Line 56-57 respectively). Modified Monji relies that their upper/lower mold 20a/20b is modified to be the same mold as taught by Shigyo, see the combination made in claim 33 above.
Regarding claim 38, Monji teaches of a method for producing a biconvex optical lens element (Fig. 5/7, Col. 2 Line 6-10) comprising providing a blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 45-48); heating the blank of glass (Col. 5 Line 54-56; Col. 3 Line 29-34); subsequently press-molding the blank between an upper mold and a lower mold to form an intermediate molded part having a first convex surface formed by the upper mold and a second convex surface formed by the lower mold (Fig. 7 adhesion stage; Col. 5 Line 40-51, heat working jig 16/24); subsequently removing the intermediate molded part from the lower mold (Col. 9 Line 40-42; Fig. 11).
Monji teaches that the shape of the intermediate molded part is not limited to the described embodiments (Col. 18 Line 26-28). In another embodiment, Monji teaches the second surface of the intermediated molded part, molded by the lower mold, is subsequently heated after removal (Col. 14 Line 33-42; Fig. 8 reversal stage heater 15). Though this embodiment does not have the second surface be convex, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the original embodiment relied upon from Monji to heat the second convex surface of the intermediate molded part formed by the lower mold as means to satisfy the heat working conditions prior to the second moulding step.
Monji teaches of subsequently press-molding the intermediate molded part between another upper mold and lower mold (Col. 7 Line 59-62) to form first convexly curved optically effective surface and a second convexly curved optically effective surface (Col. 7 Line 62-64; Fig. 7-8) before subsequently cooling the optical element in a cooling path (Col. 7 Line 64-68). Monji does not expressly teach of using the same upper mold and lower mold from the first press-molding step. In the same field of endeavor, Shigyo teaches of using the same mold (Line 52-55) for a second press-molding step on the intermediate molded part (Line 99-111). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same upper mold and lower mold for the second press-molding step as known method to improve the accuracy of the optically effective surface of the desired product (Line 24-26). According to the combination made, the removal of the intermediate molded part from the lower mold is satisfied under broadest reasonable interpretation and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) Reversal of Parts wherein the intermediate mold part is removed from the lower mold of Monji (Col. 9 Line 59-65; Col. 10 Line 49-54) to the same mold as combined with Shigyo.
Monji teaches of molding a biconvex optical lens element (Fig. 7). Monji does not expressly teach of molding an integrally formed rim having a volume. Shigyo illustrates integrally formed rim having a volume (Fig. 4) without nominally addressing how it is made. Both Monji and Shigyo do not expressly teach the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part. In related molding glass art, Ito teaches of an upper mold that forms a first convex surface (upper mold part 50, molding surface 51; Col. 7 Line 39-42) and a lower mold that forms a second convex surface (lower mold part 47, upper surface 53; Col. 8 Line 18-20) wherein the upper and lower molds are used to make optically effective surfaces (Col. 8 Line 2, Col. 14 Line 40-42) and an integrally formed rim having a volume (Fig. 1, step portion 33, Col. 6 Line 4-13) and the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part (receiving molt part 30) and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower old part (annular supporting member 36). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the upper mold and lower mold comprising a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part taught by Ito to mold a desired biconvex optical lens element with optically effective surfaces and the integrally formed rim to prevent defects and increase productivity [0018]. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727.82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Ito does not expressly teach their produced biconvex lens are for vehicle headlights. The biconvex “vehicle headlight” lens are treated as products of the method wherein there is intended use of the intermediate product/product in the production process but does not hold patentable weight until there is sufficient structure to differentiate the intermediate product/product from the prior art wherein Ito teaches a generic optical element that would broadly encompass the instantly claimed biconvex vehicle headlight lens.
Claims 34-35 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monji et al (US-5120343-A), Shigyo et al (JP-S63162539-A), and Ito (US-5378255-A) as applied to claims 33 and 38 above, and further in view of Matsui et al (JP-H0742122-B2).
Regarding claim 34-35, depending from claim 33, Monji teaches of a lower mold (working jig 24, Fig. 7). Monji does not expressly teach the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower part. In the same field of endeavor, Matsui teaches the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part (transfer die 21-27/44; Fig. 1-5) and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part (guide member 31-37/54; Fig. 1-5) that transport the blank to a press for press-molding (transport table 1, movable shaft 10, Fig. 4, Line 105-107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower mold to comprise a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part wherein the blank is transported on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding as known means to align the molds (Line 77) along the transport path for a press-molding process (Line 105-106).
Regarding claim 39, depending from claim 38, Ito teaches the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part (receiving molt part 30) and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower old part (annular supporting member 36). Ito’s at least one second lower mold part transports the blank to a press for press-molding (Col. 8 Line 38-54), which is the converse of the instant claim. In the same field of endeavor, Matsui teaches the lower mold comprises a first lower mold part (transfer die 21-27/44; Fig. 1-5) and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part (guide member 31-37/54; Fig. 1-5) that transport the blank to a press for press-molding (transport table 1, movable shaft 10, Fig. 4, Line 105-107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower mold to comprise a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part wherein the blank is transported on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding as known means to align the molds (Line 77) along the transport path for a press-molding process (Line 105-106).
Regarding claim 40, depending from claim 38, Monji teaches providing a housing to adjust the atmosphere during the process (Col. 7 Line 24-29). Ito’s at least one second lower mold part transports the blank to a press for press-molding (Col. 8 Line 38-54), which is the converse of the instant claim. In the same field of endeavor, Matsui teaches transporting the blank on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding (transport table 1, movable shaft 10, Fig. 4, Line 105-107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lower mold to comprise a first lower mold part and at least one second lower mold part enclosing the first lower mold part wherein the blank is transported on the first lower mold part to a press for press-molding as known means to align the molds (Line 77) along the transport path for a press-molding process (Line 105-106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Office Action dated 04/22/2025 for additional prior art made of record but not relied upon
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 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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights