Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/409,942

PRESS MOLDING METHOD OF GLASS OPTICAL ELEMENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 11, 2024
Examiner
SNELTING, ERIN LYNN
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nalux Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
563 granted / 808 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
843
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 808 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 01-08-2026. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba ‘477 (JP 2004-231477 A - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein) in view of Takagi ‘161 (US 5,817,161). Regarding claim 1, Baba ‘477 teaches: a press molding method of a glass optical element using a mold (¶ [0031], [0032], [0051]; Figs. 1, 8) the method including plural steps with pressurizing, in each of which load is imposed on a piece of glass material at a temperature above the glass transition temperature, and a step without pressurizing between two steps with pressurizing (¶ [0031]-[0033], [0051]-[0056]; Figs. 5-6) in the step without pressurizing between a first step with pressurizing and a second step with pressurizing, the second step with pressurizing being the next step with pressurizing after the first step with pressurizing, the temperature of the glass material is reduced by 50 degrees centigrade or greater with respect to the temperature of the glass material in the first step with pressurizing, and then the glass material is heated before the start of the second step with pressurizing (Figs. 5-6; ¶ [0031]-[0033], [0035], [0039], [0051]-[0056] - wherein the glass transition temperature is recited as 500°C in ¶ [0051]; in ¶ [0051]-[0053], the mold is at 580°C in a first step with pressurizing, and the mold temperature is then reduced to less than or equal to the glass transition point, which is a reduction of greater than 50 degrees centigrade; alternatively, in ¶ [0053]-[0054], the mold is at 550°C in a first step with pressurizing, and the mold temperature is then reduced to less than or equal to the glass transition point, which is a reduction of greater than or equal to 50 degrees centigrade). Baba ‘477 is silent regarding no load being imposed on the piece of glass material in the step without pressurizing. In analogous art of press molding glass, Takagi ‘161 suggests press molding a glass material for optical element using a mold, including a step without pressurizing between steps with pressurizing, in which no load is imposed on the glass material for the benefit of discharging gas caught in the mold and preventing concave defects in the shape of the optical element (Abstract; column 3, lines 29-48; Fig. 2). Baba ‘477 also aims to avoid concave defects in the shape of the element (¶ [0032]; Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baba ‘477 by imposing no load on the piece of glass material in the step without pressurizing for the benefit of discharging gas caught in the mold and preventing concave defects in the shape of the optical element, as suggested by Takagi ‘161. Regarding claim 2, Baba ‘477 further teaches the temperature of the mold is reduced to a temperature below the glass transition temperature in the step without pressurizing (¶ [0052]-[0055]). Regarding claims 3 and 4, Baba ‘477 is silent regarding specific values of loads imposed in the first step with pressurizing and the second step with pressurizing. However, Fig. 5 illustrates three consecutive steps with pressurizing in which there appear to be some points of a second step load value (either the second or third pressing steps) which are equal to a first step load value (either the first or second pressing steps, respectively), and some points of a second step load value which are greater than a first step load value. Additionally, a value of a load imposed in the second step of pressurizing can only have three relationships with a value of load imposed in the first step of pressurizing - namely, the value of a load imposed in the second step of pressurizing is greater than a load value imposed in the first step of pressurizing, the value of a load imposed in the second step of pressurizing is equal to a load value imposed in the first step of pressurizing, or the value of a load imposed in the second step of pressurizing is less than a load value imposed in the first step of pressurizing. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have pursued any of the three finite options with a predictable result of pressing the glass optical element. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baba ‘477 by trying making a value of a load imposed in the second step of pressurizing to be equal to or greater than o a load value imposed in the first step of pressurizing, as one of a finite number of options with a predictable result of pressing the glass optical element. Regarding claim 5, Fig. 5 of Baba ’477 illustrates temperature variations in line with steps of pressurizing and steps without pressurizing (Fig. 5). A temperature change during a first step with pressurizing (either the first or second pressing step as shown) reduces some amount, such that an interval may be arbitrarily defined therein in which the temperature is reduced by an amount that is equal to or smaller than 15 degrees centigrade, and which occurs before transition from the first step with pressurizing to the step without pressurizing. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (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. /ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600676
POLYMER-DERIVED CERAMIC FIBERS AND METHODS OF PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577171
PROCESS FOR OBTAINING COMPOSITE, ULTRA-REFRACTORY, FIBRE-REINFORCED CERAMIC MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577140
VERTICAL MELTING FURNACE FOR IGNEOUS ROCK FIBER MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565439
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN OPTICAL ELEMENT OF GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565441
OPTICAL FIBER MANUFACTURING METHOD AND OPTICAL FIBER MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 808 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month