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 Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending with Claims 1, 8 and 17 being independent. Claims 8, 10, 16 and 17 have been amended.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 12/05/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 11-12, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
Lin is not analogous to the currently-claimed invention. The field of endeavor of the current invention is glass slumping, and the field of endeavor of Lin a bending die in which microstructures are disposed on a surface of a working portion of a bending punch and on a forming surface of a die and a bending punch thereof. The Applicant cites MPEP 2141.01 (a)(1) and (a)(2).
it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lin and Yang as suggested by the Office Action because decreasing the force of friction between the sheet and the forming tool is not a concern for the inventor of the claimed invention. As discussed above, air being trapped between the sheet of glass and the contact surface of the mold is a concern since it leads to bulges and roundness on surfaces and making it difficult to achieve well-defined 90-degree edges or folds.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
MPEP 2141.01 (a)(1) states “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). Here the Examiner offers that Lin is from the same field of endeavor, as Lin is forming a thin sheet of material on a die, where a slumping fixture can also be considered a die. Or, as MPEP 2141.01 (a)(2) states, “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Here the Examiner offers that Lin is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor: the problem of material being in contact with the surface of the forming device. In the case of the Applicant, the outcome of the problem of material being in contact with the surface of the forming device is bulges and roundness on surfaces. In the case of Lin, the outcome of the problem of material being in contact with the surface of the forming device is friction between the sheet and the forming tool. Further, the Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that Claim 1 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details); a recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. In this case, the glass slumping process of the apparatus is considered a recitation of intended use. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is moot.
The Examiner addresses Applicant’s argument the same as a). Hence Applicant’s argument is moot.
The rejection to Claim 1 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 2-7 is also maintained.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 12-13, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claims 8-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 8 the Applicant argues that,
Amended claim 8 to now recites that the first side surface and the second side surface are configured to contact the glass sheet at the end of the slumping process and this feature is not disclosed by Shim (or Shibaoka).
It would not be obvious to modify Shim to include this feature since the first and second side surfaces, as annotated, are beyond the surface over which the glass is bent (prior art not combinable).
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
a), b) Shim (or Shibaoka) are not relied upon to teach the first side surface and the second side surface are configured to contact the glass sheet at the end of the slumping process. Shim and Shiboaka are relied upon to teach the structural aspects of the mold (slumping fixture) and a slumping weight structure. Further, the Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that Claim 8 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details); a recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. In this case, the glass slumping process of the apparatus is considered a recitation of intended use. That said, Annotated Fig. 6 does provide for a first side surface and a second side surface to contact a glass sheet at the end of the forming process if the glass sheet were large enough (there are absent limitations on size of glass sheet). Further, the Examiner wishes to point out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See (MPEP 2145(III)). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is moot.
The rejection to Claim 8 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 9-16 is also maintained.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 13-14, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claims 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 17 the Applicant argues that,
the amended the claim recites that the glass holding fixture is separable from the glass slumping fixture, the glass holding fixture and that the glass holding fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass sheet in order to hold a portion of the glass sheet against one of the angled surfaces during the slumping process (underline added by Applicant) and that this feature is not disclosed by Creative2, Weinstein, or any other prior art reference of record. Examiner wishes to note the Applicant noted amendment does not reflect the amended language in the context of the claim. The amended language on the context of the Claim 17 reads “separable from the glass slumping fixture, the glass holding fixture including a multi-surface structure having a length roughly equivalent to a length of the glass slumping fixture, the glass holding fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass sheet in order to hold a portion of the glass sheet against one of the angled surfaces during the slumping process”. The Examiner intends to use the claim language in Claim 17 as a basis for response to Applicant’s Arguments.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
to express thanks for identifying the error regarding Claim 17 and that the Applicant is correct that a rejection under U.S.C. 103 was intended. The Examiner will make this correction. Applicant’s Amendment is not supported in the specification and necessitates U.S.C. 35 112(a) rejection and a new drawing for Fig. 14. The specification cites “the glass holding fixture is configured to hold a portion of the glass sheet against one of the angled surfaces during the slumping process” [0007] and “the glass holding fixture 304 is positioned adjacent to the first angled surface 308 or the second angled surface 310 and in contact with the lower edges of the glass sheets 100, so as to hold the glass sheets 100 in place”, [0064]. The specification is absent the Amendment in the claim “ the glass fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass sheet”. In Fig. 14, it is unclear if the edge of the glass sheet is resting on the glass holding fixture or if the glass sheet is situated between the glass holding fixture and the glass slumping fixture, such that the glass holding fixture is in contact with the upper surface of the glass sheet. Further, providing the glass holding fixture separable from the glass slumping fixture is not inventive under In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
The rejection to Claim 17 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 18-20 is also maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CNTF are maintained with the additions below.
Claim 8, the phrase “the first side surface and the second side surface configured to contact the glass sheet at the end of slumping process”, cites intended use.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the glass holding fixture in contact with an upper surface of the glass sheet must be illustrated clearly in Fig. 14 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification cites “the glass holding fixture is configured to hold a portion of the glass sheet against one of the angled surfaces during the slumping process” [0007] and “the glass holding fixture 304 is positioned adjacent to the first angled surface 308 or the second angled surface 310 and in contact with the lower edges of the glass sheets 100, so as to hold the glass sheets 100 in place”, [0064]. The specification is absent the Amendment in the claim “ the glass fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass sheet”. Further, in Fig. 14, it is unclear if the edge of the glass sheet is resting on the glass holding fixture or if the glass sheet is situated between the glass holding fixture and the glass slumping fixture, such that the glass holding fixture is in contact with the upper surface of the glass sheet.
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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of NPL “Alumina
ceramic lining pieces, blocks and tile mat”, YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq547XhZ0y8, 10/26/2016, 0:35, by Yang (herein “Yang”) and in
further view of U.S. Patent 9,003, 858 by Lin et. al. (herein “Lin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches:
A glass slumping fixture comprising,
a structure including a first side surface, a spaced-apart second side surface, and a top surface
positioned therebetween and connected to each side surface; Fig. 1 illustrates a 6-sided block
with two side surfaces spaced apart and a top surface positioned between the two sides. The
second side is front facing, the first side is on the back side of the block
wherein the structure is configured to retain a glass sheet; Fig. 1 illustrates a 6
sided block with flat sides/flat faces/a flat top, any of which can retain a glass sheet.
during a slumping process including the glass sheet being placed on the top surface over the
slots and heated until a first portion of the glass sheet contacts the first side surface and a
second portion of the glass sheet contacts the second side surface; See Claim Interpretation.
Yang fails to teach:
the structure further including a plurality of slots spaced apart from one another and
positioned on the first side surface, the second side surface, and the top surface, each slot
being an indentation that extends below the surface on which it is positioned;
In an analogous endeavor of bending a sheet with a forming tool, Lin teaches a forming tool (Fig. 6) that contains grooves spaced apart on the surface of the tool which contacts the sheet, as well as the grooves on each side of the tool. The grooves extend below the surface of the tool (Fig. 9). 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 add the grooves of Lin to the structure of Yang to decrease the force of friction between the sheet and the forming tool, as noted by Yang ( Col 3 lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 2 - Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lin further teaches wherein,
each slot extends vertically along at least a portion of a height of the first side surface, vertically
along at least a portion of a height of the second side surface.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 illustrate elements D1 and D, which represent locations of the grooves on the forming
tool; “The surface of the working portion 2211 at least has a turning point D, and a plurality of
microstructures G2 of the bending punch 221 are disposed on the turning portion and a neighboring
portion surface region D1 thereof” (Col 5 lines 25-28).
While Lin teaches the slots on portions of the first and second sides as well as a portion across of the
working surface, Lin fails to teach the slots across the top surface from the first side surface to the
second side surface. 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 extend the slots of Lin from the first side, across the top
surface, and to the second side of Yang, to further decrease the force of friction between the sheet and
the forming tool, as noted by Yang ( Col 3 lines 8-10). "The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3 – Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein,
the structure further includes a first end surface and a spaced-apart second end surface, each
connected to end edges of the first side surface, the second side surface, and the top surface;
Fig. 1 illustrates a 6-sided block with two end surfaces spaced apart and a top surface
positioned between the two end surfaces. The first end is annotated to be on the left.
Yang fails to teach the below but Lin teaches:
and the slots extend from the first end surface to the second end surface along the top
surface, the first side surface, and the second side surface. Fig. 6 illustrates a cut-away version
showing the slots along the length of the forming tool. Further, “A plurality of microstructures
G1 and G2 are disposed on the forming surface 2111…or the surface of the working portion
2211 or the forming die surface”.
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 extend the slots of Lin from the first end to the second end, along the top surface
of Yang, to decrease the force of friction between the forming tool and the sheet.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007).
Regarding Claim 4 - Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lin further teaches wherein,
wherein each slot has a generally rectangular cross-sectional shape with generally orthogonal
first, second, and third surfaces; Fig. 9, element F.
Regarding Claim 5 - Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination teaches wherein,
each glass sheet being placed on the top surface over a successive one of the groups of slots and heated until a first portion of the glass sheet contacts the first side surface and a second portion of the glass sheet contacts the second side surface. See Claim Interpretation.
The combination teaches the structure is configured to retain a glass sheet but fails to teach wherein
such that,
the structure is configured to receive a plurality of glass sheets. 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 configure to receive a plurality of sheets, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art, One would have been motivated to scale the size of the structure of the combination to be larger in order to increase efficiency. Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
The combination teaches the structure has slots but fails to teach,
the slots are divided into a plurality of groups of slots with a space between adjacent groups
The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the groups of slots. 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 groups of slots, 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 groups of slots for the purpose of retaining larger sheets, or a plurality of sheets, and to ensure the force of friction between the larger sheet, or plurality of sheets, is decreased. 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 6 - Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein,
the top surface is connected to each of the first side surface and the second side surface with an interior angle that is approximately 90 degrees; Fig. 1 illustrates a 6-sided block with all sides/faces/top/bottom orthogonal.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of NPL “Alumina
ceramic lining pieces, blocks and tile mat”, YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq547XhZ0y8, 10/26/2016, 0:35, by Yang (herein “Yang”) and in
further view of U.S. Patent 9,003, 858 by Lin et. al. (herein “Lin”) and in further view of NPL “Wayback
Machine Creative1 Paradise Molds Hex Drape”, Page 2-5, (Wayback Machine- “GM31 Lg Hex
Drape”,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220930003633/https://www.creativeparadiseglass.com/product-
p/gm31.htm), (herein “Creative1”).
Regarding Claim 7 - Yang and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches the top surface is connected to each of the first side surface and the second side surface with an interior angle that is approximately 90 degrees, but the combination fails to teach wherein,
the top surface is connected to each of the first side surface and the second side surface with an interior angle that is greater than 90 degrees.
In a similar field of endeavor as structures that can retain a glass sheet, Creative1 teaches a mold where the top surface is connected to the first side surface and the second side surface with an interior angle that is greater than 90 degrees. See the annotated GM31 Large Hex Drape figure below:
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
196
296
media_image1.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 use the design of Creative in the combination to possibly retain sheets of different
shapes. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007).
Claims 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of U.S. Patent 11,180,406
by Shim (herein “Shim”) and in further view of JPH01242429A (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Shibaoka (herein “Shibaoka”).
Regarding Claim 8, Shim teaches:
A glass slumping apparatus comprising,
a glass slumping fixture configured to retain a glass sheet during a slumping process; Fig. 15 , Col 16 lines 10-11, “flat glass 20 interposes between lower mold 101 and the upper mold 300…”
the glass slumping fixture including a first side surface, a spaced-apart second side surface, and a top surface positioned therebetween and connected to each side surface; See annotated Fig. 14 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1040
1360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the top surface configured to receive the glass sheet; See annotated Fig. 15
PNG
media_image3.png
857
1403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first side surface and the second side surface configured to contact the glass sheet at the end of the slumping process; See Claim Interpretation; although recited intended use, Annotated Fig. 6 illustrates a first side surface and a second side surface configured to contact a glass sheet, if the glass sheet is large enough, at the end of the forming process.
a first end wall connected to a first end of the top surface, and a second end wall connected to a second end of the top surface, the first end wall and the second end wall each extending above the top surface; See annotated Fig. 7 below; end wall 201 (both ends) is above the top surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
619
1116
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the slumping weight configured to be positioned,
on the glass sheet at the start of the slumping process; See 2nd annotated Fig. 15 below;
PNG
media_image5.png
856
1403
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and around a lower end of the glass slumping fixture at the end of the slumping process; See annotated Fig. 18 below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image6.png
784
989
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Shim fails to teach:
and a slumping weight including a first side wall, a second side wall, a first end wall, and a second end wall connected to one another to form a rectangular weight with an open center,
In a similar field of endeavor as structures that can retain a glass sheet, Shibaoka teaches a weight with a first side wall, a second side wall, a first end wall, and a second end wall connected to one another to form a rectangular weight with an open center; See annotated Fig. 1, element 2 below; G is a glass sheet and 4 is a lower mold with surface 3.
PNG
media_image7.png
696
450
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 have used the open weight of Shibaoka in the apparatus of Shim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purposes of weight reduction.
Regarding Claim 9 – Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 8.
Shim further teaches wherein,
the glass slumping fixture further includes a first end surface connected to a first end of the first side surface and the second side surface, a second end surface connected to a second end of the first side surface and the second side surface, a first pedestal extending outward from a lower edge of the first end surface, and a second pedestal extending outward from a lower edge of the second end surface, wherein the slumping weight is positioned on the first pedestal and the second pedestal at the end of the slumping process; See annotated Fig. 14 and annotated Fig. 18
Regarding Claims 10, 11 and 12, Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Claim 10 - each of the edges between the first side surface, the second side surface, the first end surface, and the second end surface of the glass slumping fixture are rounded;
Claim 11- each of the four interior corners of the slumping weight is rounded;
Claim 12 - the two outer edges of the first end wall and the two outer edges of the second end wall of
the glass slumping fixture are each rounded;
As a whole for Claims 10-12, 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 chamfer, bevel, or round edges of structural elements, as this is a standard manufacturing practice. Once would have been motivated to do to reduce/eliminate dings, chipping, or cracking that may affect the integrity of structural elements. "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).
Regarding Claim 13, Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Shibaoka teaches inner side surface and inner end surface dimensions of the weight are large enough to pass over the outer dimensions of all 4 sides of a mold (See Fig. 2) but fails to teach,
a dimension between inner side surfaces of the slumping weight is larger than a dimension between outer side surfaces of the glass slumping fixture, and a dimension between inner end surfaces of the slumping weight is larger than a dimension between outer end surfaces of the glass slumping fixture.
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 enlarge all of the inner dimensions of the weight of Shibaoka, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of weight to be large enough in order to slide down over the glass fixture. Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 14, Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Shim further teaches wherein,
the top surface of the glass slumping fixture is connected to each of the first side surface and
the second side surface of the glass slumping fixture with an interior angle that is approximately
90 degrees; See annotated Fig. 6 below, where the dark black contour line connects the first
side surface, the top surface, and the second side surface.
PNG
media_image8.png
633
1035
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15 - Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Shim teaches wherein,
the slumping weight is formed from material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion which
is approximately equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of a material used to form the glass
slumping fixture; Col 12 line 6-9, “For examples, the upper mold 300 may include a graphite
material. The material of the upper mold maybe the same as…that of the lower mold…”
Since the upper and lower mold may be the same material, then the upper and lower mold have the same properties, which includes coefficient of thermal expansion. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding Claim 16 - Shim and Shibaoka in the rejection of claim 8 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 8.
Shim further teaches a glass slumping apparatus that further comprises, and see 2nd annotated Fig. 15 and 2nd annotated Fig. 18
a glass positioning fixture; Fig. 15, element 150
including a base having a contact surface that is generally planar and generally vertically oriented; Fig. 15, base line and vertical line (dotted).
and a vertical wall extending upward from the base and having a first horizontal distance from the contact surface, the first horizontal distance varying according to a distance from an end of the glass sheet to a line of a first fold of the glass sheet ; Fig 15 horizonal arrow shows the horizontal distance to the fold along the length of the sheet. Fig. 18 horizontal arrows illustrate the change in distance related to the fold.
PNG
media_image9.png
684
972
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
654
709
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Shim teaches the glass positioning fixture except for the contact surface configured to contact a lower edge of one of the side surfaces of the glass slumping fixture. 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 separate the positioning fixture from the glass slumping fixture, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of flexibility and reducing the number of glass slumping fixtures. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of NPL “Wayback Machine Creative2 Paradise Molds Bend It”, Page 1-2, (Wayback Machine- “GM81 Bend It Mold”,
https://web.archive.org/web/20220930002940/https://www.creativeparadiseglass.com/product-
p/gm109.htm, (herein “Creative2”) and in further view of “An Overview of Insulating Firebricks”,
(https://thermalprocessing.com/an-overview-of-insulating-firebricks/), Ceramic Works, by Weinstein,
(herein “Weinstein”).
Regarding Claim 17, Creative2 teaches,
A glass slumping apparatus comprising,
a glass slumping fixture configured to retain a glass sheet during a slumping process; See Claim Interpretation,
and a first end surface and a spaced apart second end surface each connected to an opposing
end of the bottom surface, the first angled surface, and the second angled surface,
one of the angled surfaces configured to receive the glass sheet,
the glass holding fixture including a multi-surface structure having a length roughly equivalent
to a length of the glass slumping fixture,
For a) – d) , see the annotated “Bend It” figure below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image11.png
564
704
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Creative2 fails to teach,
a glass holding fixture separable from the glass slumping fixture;
Creative 2 discloses the claimed invention except for a glass holding fixture separable from the
glass slumping fixture; 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 separate the glass holding fixture from the
glass slumping fixture, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various
elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements
separable for the common industrial purposes of modular design and maintenance cost of the glass
holding fixture and glass slumping fixture assembly.
Creative2 fails to teach,
the glass holding fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass
sheet in order to hold a portion of the glass sheet against one of the angled surfaces during the
slumping process.
Creative2 discloses the claimed invention except for the glass holding fixture configured to contact an
upper surface of the glass sheet. 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 the glass holding fixture configured to
contact an upper surface of the glass sheet, 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 (which is to hold the glass sheet on the angled
surface of the glass slumping fixture). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of
the glass holding fixture configured to contact an upper surface of the glass sheet for the purpose of
preventing glass edge warpage or glass edge chipping.
Creative 2 fails to teach,
the glass slumping fixture including a bottom surface, a first angled surface, and a second
angled surface connected to one another to form a triangle cross section,
In an analogous endeavor of structure elements, Weinstein teaches side feather structure as standard (Fig. 2, Page 22). By orienting the brick with the large angled side facing down, sides C and B form the angled sides of a triangle. 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 have a triangle shape of the glass slumping fixture 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 obtain a triangle shape for purpose of using standard common angles and ease of manufacture. 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 18, Creative2 and Weinstein in the rejection of claim 17 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 17.
Weinstein further teaches the oriented brick with the large angled sides facing down (Fig. 2, sides C and
B) form the angled sides of a triangle with angled sides with a 90-degree angle between.
Regarding Claim 19 , Creative2 and Weinstein in the rejection of claim 17 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 17.
The combination teaches wherein,
the glass holding fixture includes a top surface, a bottom surface, a first end surface, a second end surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface connected to one another to form a generally rectangular box shape,
except that the first side surface is oriented between the top surface and the bottom surface at an angle that is supplementary to an angle between either one of the angled surfaces and the bottom surface of the glass slumping fixture.
For a) – b), see the “Bend It” figure below, the schematic of the “Bend It” fixture of the combination and a magnified schematic of the “Bend It” fixture of the combination.
“Bend It” fixture”
PNG
media_image11.png
564
704
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Schematic of the “Bend It” fixture of the combination:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: oval]
Magnified schematic of the “Bend It” fixture combination:
PNG
media_image12.png
428
695
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The combination discloses the claimed invention except for a separate first side surface of the glass holding fixture. 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 have separated the glass holding fixture since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of use on multiple glass slumping fixtures. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding Claim 20, Creative2 and Weinstein in the rejection of claim 17 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 17.
Creative2 further teaches wherein the glass holding fixture is formed from material that has a
coefficient of thermal expansion which is approximately equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of a
material used to form the glass slumping fixture. As the “Bend It” mold is a monolith, the glass holding
fixture and glass slumping fixture have the same material and the same properties, which includes
coefficient of thermal expansion. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually
exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior
art teaches the identical chemical structure; the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are
necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP
§2112.01.
Conclusion
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