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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invetnion, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier (US 20210188686 A1).
Re Claim 1, Olivier discloses, on Fig. 2 (specific embodiment) and Fig. 5 (general arrangement), an apparatus for forming a sheet of glass (Fig. 2: Glass 334), comprising: a support structure (skeleton 333) comprising a first opening (Fig. 2: empty space between skeleton 333) [Par 36] bounded by a first mounting frame (Fig. 5: skeleton frame 1) [Par 55] dimensioned for supporting the glass sheet in a first region (region of glass sheet 334 between and around skeleton 333, see Fig. 5 for more complete figure with skeleton 2) on an underside of the glass sheet , and a structure (Fig. 2: counter skeleton 331) [Par 36] comprising a second opening (area between counter skeleton 331, again see Fig. 5 with counter skeleton 8) bounded by a second mounting frame (Fig. 5: counter skeleton frame 7) in a second region on a top surface of the glass sheet (Fig. 2: counter skeleton 334 and Fig. 5: counter skeleton 8 are in a second region above the glass) [Par 55] ; so that slumping of the glass sheet at a slumping temperature forms a mirrored surface on the top surface (Counter skeleton provides specific thermal benefits for glass slumping) [Par 16] when the first region is the only contact region with the glass [Fig. 2: skeleton 333 is the only region in contact with glass 334), the mirrored surface is formed during exposure to an atmosphere through the second opening (Fig. 5: there is clearly an opening in the second region between counter skeleton 8, curved glass is inherently reflective and thus at least slightly mirrored), the mirrored surface comprises an aperture bounded by the second region (Fig. 5: counter skeleton 8 forms an aperture), and the first region is outside the second region (Fig. 2: skeleton 333 is outside counter skeleton 331).
But Olivier does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein, the second mounting frame in the second region dimensioned for loading a glass sheet with a load distribution, the first region and second region are the only contact regions with the glass sheet.
However, Olivier teaches an optional arrangement of the embodiment in Fig. 2, wherein the second mounting frame in the second region dimensioned for loading a glass sheet with a load distribution (“…it is on the one hand quite possible for the counter-skeleton to be in partial contact with the glass, in particular at the middle or close to the middle of the top and bottom sides of the glass”, “…it is possible to force the glass to bend due to the descent of the counter-skeleton.”)[Par 33], the first region and second region are the only contact regions with the glass sheet (See Fig. 2 and 5 where if the counter skeleton was in contact with the glass, skeletons 333 and 2 and counter skeletons 334 and 8 would be the only contact points) [Par 36 and 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Olivier, in order to provide, to facilitate the main bending of the glass and thus to reduce the forming cycle time, as taught by Olivier [Par 33].
Re Claim 2, modified Olivier discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Olivier further discloses on Fig. 2 and 5, wherein the first mounting frame (Fig. 5: skeleton frame 1 ) comprises a first ring or annulus (Fig. 5: skeleton 2 forms a ring) [Par 45] and the second mounting frame (Fig. 5: Counter skeleton frame 7) [Par 45] comprises a second ring or annulus having a diameter smaller than the first ring or annulus (counter skeleton frame 7 has a smaller diameter when measured in Fig. 2 from the point of counter skeleton 334).
Re Claim 3, modified Olivier discloses, the apparatus of claim 2, and modified Olivier discloses, wherein the first ring and the second ring are mounted on the glass sheet concentrically (See Fig. 5: wherein counter skeleton 8 is concentric with skeleton 2, further clear in Fig. 2 with skeleton 333 and counter skeleton 334).
Re Claim 4, modified Olivier discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, and Olivier further discloses, further comprising: a kiln comprising a chamber (Fig. 5: unshown furnace) [Par 55]; wherein the kiln is configured to heat the glass sheet, supported between the load structure and the support structure (skeleton and counter skeleton form an integrated assembly to move glass through furnace) [Par 55] to the slumping temperature [Par 33-34].
Re Claim 5, modified Olivier discloses, the apparatus of claim 4, and modified Olivier further discloses, further comprising a computer or controller controlling the slumping temperature so as to form the mirrored surface (Olivier teaches multiple glass-skeleton assemblies passing through the furnace and various temperature zones to gradually heat and gradually cool the glass, this would inherently include some form of computational or controlling device, like an electronic furnace control) [Par 34].
Re Claim 14, Olivier discloses, on Fig. 2 (specific embodiment) and Fig. 5 (general arrangement), a method for forming a sheet of glass into a mirror, comprising: (a) supporting a flat or planar glass sheet (Fig. 2: Glass 334) [Par 36] with a support structure (skeleton 333) only in a first region on an underside of the glass sheet (region of glass sheet 334 between and around skeleton 333, see Fig. 5 for more complete figure with skeleton 2); (b) a load structure (Fig. 2: counter skeleton 331) [Par 36] only in a second region on a top side of the glass sheet (Fig. 2: counter skeleton 334 and Fig. 5: counter skeleton 8 are in a second region above the glass) [Par 55]; (c) heating the glass sheet, supported between the load structure and the support structure, to a slumping temperature (Counter skeleton provides specific thermal benefits for glass slumping during glass heating in furnace ) [Par 16 and 33-34] so as to form a curved mirrored surface of the glass sheet (curved or bent glass is inherently reflective and thus at least slightly mirrored) [Par 5-11], when the first region is the only contact region with the glass sheet (Fig. 5: skeleton 2 is the only contact region on the glass) other than with an atmosphere through an opening in the load structure ( Fig. 2 and 5: counter skeleton 334 and 8 have an opening for contact with an atmosphere) [Par 55]
But Olivier does not explicitly disclose, loading the glass sheet with a load distribution using a load structure, and when the first region and second region are the only contact regions with the glass sheet.
However, Olivier teaches in an alternate embodiment, that it is desirable to include loading the glass sheet with a load distribution using a load structure (“…it is on the one hand quite possible for the counter-skeleton to be in partial contact with the glass, in particular at the middle or close to the middle of the top and bottom sides of the glass”, “…it is possible to force the glass to bend due to the descent of the counter-skeleton.”)[Par 33], the first region and second region are the only contact regions with the glass sheet (See Fig. 2 and 5 where if the counter skeleton was in contact with the glass, skeletons 333 and 2 and counter skeletons 334 and 8 would be the only contact points) [Par 36 and 55].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Olivier, in order to provide, to facilitate the main bending of the glass and thus to reduce the forming cycle time, as taught by Olivier [Par 33].
Re Claim 15, modified Olivier discloses, the method of claim 14, and Olivier further discloses, further comprising: modeling a desired curvature of the curved mirror surface as a function of the load distribution and the slumping temperature (Olivier teaches preferred temperatures as well as frame thicknesses, counter skeleton contact times, and counter skeleton contact initation kinematics, which amounts to load distribution) [Par 33-34] to obtain a modeled load distribution and a modeled slumping temperature (‘advantageous kinematics’ and temperatures would inherently involve some predictive mathematical equation, or calculation) [Par 33-34]; wherein the loading comprises loading with the modeled load distribution and the slumping temperature comprises the modeled slumping temperature (the use of said preferred conditions in glass bending is taught by Olivier) [Par 33-34].
Re Claim 18, modified Olivier discloses, the method of claim 14, and Olivier further discloses on Fig. 2 and 5, wherein the support structure (Fig. 5: skeleton frame 1) comprises a first ring contacting the glass sheet in the first region (Fig. 5: skeleton 2 forms a ring) [Par 45] comprising a first annular region having a first radius (Fig. 5: skeleton 2 has a radius) and the load structure (Fig. 5: Counter skeleton frame 7) [Par 45] comprises a second ring contacting the glass sheet in the second region comprising a second annular region (Fig. 5: counter skeleton 8 has an annular region) having a second radius smaller than the first radius (counter skeleton frame 7 has a smaller diameter when measured in Fig. 2 from the point of counter skeleton 334).
Re Claim 19, modified Olivier discloses, the method of claim 14, and Olivier further discloses, wherein the slumping temperature is a transformation temperature that softens the glass sheet so as to allow the glass in the glass sheet to flow under the force of gravity and the pressure applied by the loading (“The glass is bent by gravity at a temperature within the range from 570 to 650° C., more generally in the range from 610 to 650° C. In order to achieve this bending, it is possible to convey the skeleton/counter-skeleton assembly loaded with glass through a tunnel furnace brought to the plastic deformation temperature of the glass.”)[Par 33-34].
Re Claim 20, modified Olivier discloses, the method of claim 14, and Olivier further discloses wherein the slumping temperature is in a range of 500° C.-1100° C (temperature is 570-650 ºC) [Par 34], and further teaches, a load distribution comprising a mass distributed along a perimeter of the mirror's aperture (“…it is possible to force the glass to bend due to the descent of the counter-skeleton. The counter-skeleton presses on the glass during its descent, which forces the peripheral bending. Such kinematics are advantageous since they make it possible to facilitate the main bending of the glass and thus to reduce the forming cycle time.”, this would apply a mass load to the mirror’s aperture) [Par 33]
But Olivier does not explicitly disclose, wherein the mass is in a range of 1-15 kg.
Optimizing the mass of the load on the mirror is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Ine Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Olivier teaches “advantageous kinematics” (such kinematics would include mass) [Par 33] as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting load mass and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, mass load such that between a range of 1-15 kg, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of Hennion (CN 103874579 A).
Re Claim 17, modified Olivier discloses, the method of claim 14, and Olivier further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the mirrored surface comprises an aperture bounded by the second region along a perimeter of the aperture (unlabeled glass reflective surface is bounded on all sides by counter skeleton 8 creating an aperture).
But Modified Olivier does not explicitly disclose, the method further comprising cutting the glass sheet along an inside of the second region to form the mirror comprising the aperture.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hennion teaches, that it is desirable in glass forming to include, cutting the glass sheet along an inside of the second region to form the mirror comprising the aperture (“edge cut along the cutting line determined with hole area, and has an aperture or notch in the form of the outer edge of the glass pane”) [Par 20-21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Olivier with Hennion in order to provide, uniformity, as taught by Hennion [Par 20-21].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dannoux (US 20130125589 A1) teaches an apparatus for glass sheet bending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872