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 11/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application, and Claim 7 has been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein, and Claims 1-6 are amended.
Applicant' s Arguments and Amendments, filed 11/27/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification and Claims. Applicant' s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 2-6 rejected over the non-final office action have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment to Claim 1 filed on 11/27/2025. Examiner Note: The Applicant has referenced Fig. 2b in “Shinichi”. There is absent a reference for “Shinichi” in the Non-Final Office Action, where only references for Tang and Jung are of record.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1 the phrase “a molding space for a lens” is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claims 1-6, the phrase “a mold for forming a glass product” is an intended use of the apparatus and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities. The format is read/Examiner suggestion.
Claim 1: the first fixing portion comprises a first surface face to the second fixing portion,
the first surface is located between the at least one support portion and the first molding portion/ the first fixing portion comprises a first surface face to the second fixing portion,
the first surface face is located between the at least one support portion and the first molding portion; each of the support portion comprises a side surface connected to the first surface and an upper surface connected to the second fixing portion/ each of the support portion comprises a side surface connected to the first surface face and an upper surface connected to the second fixing portion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 through 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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of CN111138075A (English
language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Tang et. al.
(herein “Tang”) and in further view of CN104556644A (English language translation of the Description
and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Jung et. al (herein “Jung”) and in further view of
JP2009096648A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced
herein) by Imai et. al. (herein “Imai”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches:
A mold for forming; Page 1 lines 59, “ The first object of the present invention is to provide a glass product forming mold…”.
glass product, comprising:
a lower mold defining a first molding surface; Page 2 line 4, “ A glass product forming mold includes a lower mold core having a first molding surface…”
and an upper mold defining a second molding surface; Page 4 line 5 “A glass product forming mold includes…an upper mold core having a second molding surface…”
wherein,
the first molding surface is disposed on one side of the lower mold close to the upper mold; Page 2 line 5-6, “…the first molding surface is located on a side of the lower 5 mold core close to
the upper mold core…”
the second molding surface is disposed on one side of the upper mold close to the lower mold; Page 2 lines 6-7, “the second molding surface is located on a side of the upper mold core close to the lower mold core…”
the first molding surface comprises a first molding portion configured to mold the glass product; Page 2 lines 9-10, “the first molding surface includes a first molding portion for molding the glass product…”
the second molding surface comprises a second molding portion corresponding to the first molding portion; Page 2 lines 34-35, “, the second molding surface includes a second molding portion corresponding to the first molding portion…”
and a first fixing portion disposed on a periphery of the first molding portion; Fig. 1 (original), Page 2 lines 9-10, “ first support portion located on the outer periphery of the first molding portion…”. The instant claim uses the phrase “first fixing portion” for element 112 while the reference uses the phrase “first support portion” for element 112. In comparing the locations in Fig.1 of the instant claim and Fig. 1 of the reference, the locations are the same:
Fig. 1 Instant Claim Fig. 1 reference
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
646
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the second molding surface comprises a second molding portion corresponding to the first molding portion; Page 2 lines 34-35, “, the second molding surface includes a second molding portion corresponding to the first molding portion…”
and a second fixing portion disposed on a periphery of the second molding portion; Page 2 line 36, “A second support portion on the outer periphery of the second molding portion…”. Note, the same phrase difference of “fixing” and “support” applies to this portion of the instant as above.
the first molding portion comprises a plurality of first molding cavities; Fig. 4.
the second molding portion comprises a plurality of second molding cavities; Fig. 5
corresponding to the plurality of first molding cavities; Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Page 5 lines 1-3, 40-41, 20-21, “Preferably, the first molding surface 11 includes at least two first molding portions 111 spaced apart from each other, ““Preferably, the second molding surface 21 includes at least two second molding portions…that are spaced apart from each other, “and the second molding surface 21 includes a second molding portion 211 corresponding to the first molding portion 111.”
a molding space for a lens is formed by each of the plurality of first molding cavities and a second molding cavity corresponding thereto; Fig. 3. Element(s) 500 are molding cavities in the upper mold core 200 and the lower mold core 100.
the first fixing portion comprises a first surface face to the second fixing portion; Fig. 1, Annotate Fig. 4, Fig. 5; Annotate Fig. 4 element 112 is the first fixing portion where the shaded region can be considered the first surface face:
PNG
media_image3.png
723
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tang fails to teach a mold structure wherein the molding mold further comprises,
at least one support portion extending from an outer peripheral edge of the first fixing portion of the lower mold;
toward the second fixing portion;
the at least one support portion abuts against the second fixing portion,
so that the first molding portion and the second molding portion form a molding chamber.
each of the support portion comprises a side surface connected to the first surface (face)
and an upper surface connected to the second fixing portion.
In the same field of endeavor as molding glass articles Jung teaches a mold structure that contains peripheral structures in Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b, as shown in Annotated Fig. 2a and Annotated Fig. 2b below:
PNG
media_image4.png
439
836
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
393
786
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note: the second fixing portion b relied upon in Jung is similar to the flat second fixing portion area in Wang.
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 implement a)-e) of Jung into the mold design of Tang, to contain the molded article in a pressurized high temperature environment, as noted by Jung (lines 39-41).
The combination of Wang and Jung fails to teach,
each of the support portion comprises a side surface connected to the first surface (face)
and an upper surface connected to the second fixing portion.
the first surface (face) is located between the at least one support portion and the first molding portion.
In a similar endeavor of a structural mold to mold an array of glass lenses Imai teaches a mold for forming with a lower mold first/first molding surface, an upper mold/second molding surface, a first molding surface disposed on one side of the lower mold close to the upper mold, a second molding surface is disposed on one side of the upper mold close to the lower mold, a first molding surface comprising a first molding portion configured to mold the glass product, a second molding surface comprising a second molding portion corresponding to the first molding portion, a first molding portion with plurality of first molding cavities, a second molding portion with a plurality of second molding cavities, and molding space for lenses formed by each of the plurality of corresponding first molding cavities and a second molding cavities (Fig. 8a/8b). This provides a nexus.
Further, Imai teaches a support (element 26) next or, or connected to, a first surface face (24a) and the first surface (24a) is located between the support and a first molding portion, as in Annotated Fig. 8a/8b:
PNG
media_image6.png
1048
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In essence, Imai teaches the concept of a horizontal surface between the support and the first molding portion.
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 incorporate the concept of a first surface space between a support and the first molding portion of Imai into the mold structure of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of allowing air to be pushed out from the center toward the periphery, as noted by Imai ([0031], line 5).
Regarding Claim 2 - Tang, Jung and Imai in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Jung further teaches wherein,
one support portion is provided; Fig. 2a.
Jung teaches the support portion is a solid ring integrated as part of the lower mold but does not teach:
the support portion is a hollow circular ring 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 ring design of Jung, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of the ring of Jung for the purpose of ease of manufacture of the lower mold. 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 3 – Tang, Jung and Imai in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
The combination of Tang and Jung as applied above discloses a singular support portion disposed at a single interval at the periphery of the lower mold, but does not teach the claimed invention of the support portion duplication at intervals. 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 duplicate the support portions at intervals, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the support portions at intervals for the purpose of a mold useable for a variety of diameter dimensions of material to be molded. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 4 – Tang, Jung and Imai in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Jung further teaches wherein,
the at least one support portion and the lower mold are integrally formed; Fig. 2a
Regarding Claim 5 -Tang, Jung and Imai in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tang teaches a mold design but does not teach, specifically, the motion of the lower mold and upper mold. Jung further teaches the molding mold of the glass product according to claim 1 wherein,
the lower mold is a fixed mold and the upper mold is a movable mold; Fig. 2b., Fig. 10, element 32, 200, 203, Page 5 lines 27-31, “and a plurality of molding cylinders 31 that move the molding piston 32 up and down…and is coupled to the molding upper heater 34, and heated to the molding state in the state where the molding upper heater 34 is in contact with the upper portion of the mold body 200.” The molding cylinder moves up and down while in contact with the top side of the molded body 200, where the top side of molded body 200 is also the top side of upper mold 201. Further, Fig. 10 illustrates lower mold 203 on top of element 43 without mechanical means of motion.
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 provide movement of the upper and lower molds per Jung in the process of Tang, such that a flat plate of material placed between the upper and lower molds can be formed by pressurization, as noted by Jung (Page 3 lines 39-41).
Regarding Claim 6 – Tang, Jung and Imai in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Jung further teaches wherein,
a groove matched with the at least one support portion is defined on the upper mold; Page 3 lines 49-50, “ and the groove in the shape of the glass lens is preferably formed in the upper mold 201…”
when the upper mold is connected to the lower mold,
the at least one support portion is embedded in the groove for positioning.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (a))]See Fig. 2b below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (b))][AltContent: textbox (c))]
PNG
media_image7.png
345
689
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 provide movement of the upper and lower molds per Jung in the process of Tang, such that a flat plate of material placed between the upper and lower molds can be formed by pressurization, as noted by Jung (Page 3 lines 39-41).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741