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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frebourg ‘278 (US 2024/0158278 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frebourg ‘278 teaches:
a support that is configured to be installed in a glass bending furnace (base 40 of pressing frame 5 and/or bending mold 6, Figs. 1, 2, 2’, 6, 6’)
rods that are located adjacent to one another and spaced from each other to define a perimeter that encloses an open space (translational elements 70, Figs. 2’, 6’)
actuators that are attached to the support, each of the actuators configured to move a corresponding one of the rods (actuators 71; ¶ [0072]-[0074])
a pad that is carried by the rods and defines an engagement surface upon which a glass substrate is placed (flexible sheet 60 and/or pressing ring 50 with glass sheet 2 thereon, Figs. 1, 2, 2’, 6, 6’; ¶ [0060], [0075], [0095])
a geometry of the engagement surface is reconfigurable based on movement of one or more of the rods (¶ [0062], [0076], [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the rods are arranged in a first boundary and a second boundary, the second boundary having a length that is shorter than that of the first boundary (Figs. 2’, 6’: for a first boundary defined by an outer perimeter of translational elements 70 and a second boundary defined by an inner perimeter of translational elements 70, the second boundary has a length that is shorter than the first boundary; alternatively, in Fig. 2’, an outer ring of translational elements 70 defines a first boundary and an inner ring of translational elements 70 defines a second boundary that has a length that is shorter than the first boundary, wherein ¶ [0078] describes that the translational elements 60 of bending mold 6 are arranged in a grid).
Regarding claim 3, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the second boundary is nested within the first boundary (Figs. 2’, 6’, wherein an inner perimeter of translational elements 70 is nested within an outer perimeter of translational elements 70; alternatively, in Fig. 2’, the inner ring of translational elements 70 is nested within the outer ring of translational elements 70).
Regarding claim 4, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches each of the rods is fixedly attached to the pad (Figs. 4, 4’, 5; ¶ [0083]-[0088]; Figs. 9, 10; ¶ [0095], [0107]-[0110], [0116]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches each of the rods is removably attached to the pad (Fig. 5’; ¶ [0089]-¶ [0091] - wherein a magnetic attachment is removable).
Regarding claim 6, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches each of the actuators is configured for manual translation of a corresponding one of the rods along a transverse direction relative to the support (Figs. 2, 6; ¶ [0073]-[0074], [0081], [0095], [0109], [0130]).
Regarding claim 7, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the actuators comprise linear actuators, and each of the linear actuators is configured to translate a corresponding one of the rods along a transverse direction relative to the support (Figs. 2, 6; ¶ [0073]-[0074], [0081], [0095], [0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the linear actuators are configured to control positioning of the rods individually relative to each other to reconfigured the engagement surface of the pad during a forming process of the glass substrate (¶ [0076], [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Frebourg ‘278 teaches:
a support that is configured to be installed in a glass bending furnace (base 40 of bending mold 6, Figs. 1, 2, 2’)
rods that are arranged in an array upon which a glass substrate is placed, each rod coupled to the support (translational elements 70 with glass sheet 2 thereon, Figs. 1, 2’; ¶ [0075], [0078])
actuators that are attached to the support, each of the actuators configured to move a corresponding one of the rods independently from other rods along a transverse direction relative to the support (actuators 71; ¶ [0072]-[0076], [0081]; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches engagement pads, each engagement pad coupled to an end of one of the rods (hinging means 72, or runner 742, or cage 740, or magnetic runner 742’, or magnetic inserts 744, Figs. 4, 4’, 5, 5’; ¶ [0083]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 13, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches a pad that is carried by the rods and configured to define an engagement surface on the array upon which the glass substrate is placed, the engagement surface reconfigurable based on movement of the rods (flexible sheet 60, Figs. 2, 2’; ¶ [0062], [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the rods are oriented parallel to one another along the transverse direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the actuators comprise linear actuators, and each of the linear actuators configured to translate a corresponding one of the rods along the transverse direction, and the linear actuators are controllable to position the rods individually relative to each other during a forming process of the glass substrate (Fig. 2; ¶ [0073]-[0074], [0076], [0081]).
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) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frebourg ‘278 (US 2024/0158278 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Frebourg ‘278 teaches:
a first glass forming tool having a first rod that extends from an engagement end to an attachment end (one of the translational elements 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6’, extending from an engagement end proximate flexible sheet 60 or pressing ring 50 to an attachment end proximate base 40 of pressing frame 5 and/or bending mold 6)
a second glass forming tool having a second rod that extends from an engagement end to an attachment end (another one of the translational elements 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6, extending from an engagement end proximate flexible sheet 60 or pressing ring 50 to an attachment end proximate base 40 of pressing frame 5 and/or bending mold 6)
a support that is installable in a glass bending furnace (base 40 of pressing frame 5 and/or bending mold 6, Figs. 1, 2, 2’, 6, 6’), the support comprising
a first receptacle that is configured to receive the first glass forming tool (portion of 40 which receives the first translational element 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6’)
a second receptacle that is configured to receive the second glass forming tool (portion of 40 which receives the second translational element 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6’)
a first actuator that is carried by the support and that is attachable to the attachment end of the first glass forming tool via the first receptacle, the first actuator configured to move the first glass forming tool in a transverse direction relative to the support (actuator 71 of first translational element 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6’; ¶ [0072]-[0074], [0081], [0095], [0109])
a second actuator that is carried by the support and that is attachable to the attachment end of the second glass forming tool via the second receptacle, the second actuator configured to move the second glass forming tool in a transverse direction relative to the support (actuator 71 of second translational element 70, Figs. 2, 2’, 6, 6’; ¶ [0072]-[0074], [0081], [0095], [0109]).
Frebourg ‘278 is silent regarding the first and second receptacles being configured to removably receive the first and second glass forming tools, respectively. However, it has been held constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, 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 apparatus of Frebourg ‘278 to make the first and second receptacles configured to removably receive the first and second glass forming tools, respectively, for the benefit of enabling easy servicing or replacement of individual glass forming tools in the apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches a pad that is carried by the first glass forming tool and the second glass forming tool, and that defines an engagement surface upon which a glass substrate is placed, the engagement surface reconfigurable based on movement of one or both of the first glass forming tool and the second glass forming tool (flexible sheet 60 and/or pressing ring 50 with glass sheet 2 thereon, Figs. 1, 2, 2’, 6, 6’; ¶ [0060], [0062], [0075], [0076], [0095]).
Regarding claim 18, Frebourg ‘278 further teaches the engagement end of the first rod of the first glass forming tool is removably attachable to the pad, and the engagement end of the second rod of the second glass forming tool is removably attachable to the pad (Fig. 5’; ¶ [0089]-¶ [0091] - wherein a magnetic attachment is removable).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frebourg ‘278 (US 2024/0158278 A1) in view of Woodward ‘934 (CA 2 146 934 C).
Regarding claim 10, Frebourg ‘278 suggests applying vacuum force to the glass substrate (¶ [0067]-[0070]), but is silent regarding at least one of the rods being configured to apply vacuum force to the glass substrate. In analogous art of glass forming, Woodward ‘934 suggests configuring rigid structure of a glass mold to apply vacuum force to a glass substrate for the benefit of conforming the glass substrate to the rigid shaping surface and supporting the glass substrate thereon for further processing (paragraph spanning pp. 12-13). 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 apparatus of Frebourg ‘278 by configuring at least one of the rods to apply vacuum force to the glass substrate for the benefit of conforming the glass substrate to the rigid shaping surface and supporting the glass substrate thereon for further processing, as suggested by Woodward ‘934.
Regarding claim 11, Frebourg ‘278 is silent regarding at least one of the rods being configured to apply heat to the glass substrate. Woodward ‘934 suggests configuring supporting structure of a glass mold to apply heat to a glass substrate for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the glass substrate for effective forming (paragraph spanning pp. 13-14, first full paragraph of p. 14). 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 apparatus of Frebourg ‘278 by making at least one of the rods being configured to apply heat to the glass substrate for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the glass substrate for effective forming, as suggested by Woodward ‘934.
Regarding claim 19, Frebourg ‘278 suggests the support is configured to provide vacuum force to the glass substrate (¶ [0067]-[0070]; Fig. 3), but is silent regarding providing vacuum force to the glass substrate through at least one of the first glass forming tool or the second glass forming tool. Woodward ‘934 suggests configuring rigid structure of a glass mold to provide vacuum force to a glass substrate for the benefit of conforming the glass substrate to the rigid shaping surface and supporting the glass substrate thereon for further processing (paragraph spanning pp. 12-13). 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 apparatus of Frebourg ‘278 by configuring the support to provide vacuum force to the glass substrate through at least one of the first glass forming tool or the second glass forming tool for the benefit of conforming the glass substrate to the rigid shaping surface and supporting the glass substrate thereon for further processing, as suggested by Woodward ‘934.
Regarding claim 20, Frebourg ‘278 is silent regarding the support being configured to provide heat to the glass substrate through at least one of the first glass forming tool or the second glass forming tool. Woodward ‘934 suggests configuring supporting structure of a glass mold to provide heat to a glass substrate for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the glass substrate for effective forming (paragraph spanning pp. 13-14, first full paragraph of p. 14). 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 apparatus of Frebourg ‘278 by configuring the support to provide heat to the glass substrate through at least one of the first glass forming tool or the second glass forming tool for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the glass substrate for effective forming, as suggested by Woodward ‘934.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art describes glass forming systems with reconfigurable engagement surfaces and adjustable supporting structures.
US 4,784,681
US 4,018,589
JP 2003-212574 A
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