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 Group I, Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1-12 recite “the male and female portions of the mold” which the Examiner interprets as “the male portion of the mold and the female portion of the mold”.
Claims 3-4 use the term “aligned” and “mated” which is given broadest reasonable interpretation as these terms are used in a use-case scenario of the apparatus being examined. The guide holes 131/138 and the not shown but nominally described guide pin in the instant specification are not explicitly claimed. Similarly, claims 5/7/8/11 refer to the material worked upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the female portion of the mold has a second recess. Claim 12, which depends from claim 1, requires the female portion of the mold has “a mold recess”. It is not clear whether these two recesses are referring to the same element. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gindele et al (US-20210230041-A1) and further in view of Sannokyou (US-20150247959-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gindele teaches an apparatus comprising a male portion of a mold (mold half 7) having a first recess (recess 50, Fig. 8); a female portion of the mold having a second recess (mold half 8, recess 4); and the first recess is configured to form a first gas pocket and the second recess is configured to form a second gas pocket when the male and female portions of the mold are mated (Fig. 8, white space above and below glass sheet 9 and between mold halves 7/8).
Gindele teaches that the first recess of the male potion and the second recess of the female portion (Fig. 8). Gindele does not expressly teach the nominal cross sectional area of each of the first recess and the second recess. In the same field of endeavor, Sannokyou teaches of a molding apparatus wherein the recess has a cross sectional area of 6.2 square millimeters [0051]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross sectional area of the first recess and the second recess that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches disposing a sheet of glass between the male and female portions of the mold [0014].
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches at least one first wall of the first recess (projection 5) is aligned with a second wall of the second recess (recess 4) when the male and female portions of the mold are mated (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches first recess is aligned with the second recess when the male and female portions of the mold are mated (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches an embodiment in which a reformed glass disposed between the male and female portions of the mold [0037] which can be compatibly used as a portion of the reformed glass is positioned between the first gas pocket and the second gas pocket (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 5, Gindele teaches the first recess is positioned on a first press surface (convex glass surface 51) and the second recess is positioned on a second press surface (convex glass surface 14).
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 6, Gindele teaches the first press surface contacts a first surface of the reformed glass and the second press surface contacts a second surface of the reformed glass (Fig. 8-9) [0036].
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 7, Gindele teaches the reformed glass includes a projection (Fig. 11 between pre-stamped features 18 OR features 14/15/51 in Fig. 9; under broadest reasonable interpretation both interpretations fall within the scope of the claim language).
Claim 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gindele et al (US-20210230041-A1) and Sannokyou (US-20150247959-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brockmeier et al (US-20200385264-A1)
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches the male portion of the mold having a projection extending from a base surface (Fig. 8, projection 5, base of mold half 7), the projection including a press surface (convex glass surface 51). Gindele does not expressly teach the press surface is positioned at an angle relative to the base surface. In related molding of glass for electronic device art, Brockmeier teaches of a male portion of the mold (Fig. 5A. mold 90) having a projection (protrusion 94) extending from a base (upper base in Fig. 5A) including a press surface positioned at an angle relative to the base surface (Fig. 5B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the male portion of Gindele’s mold to have the press surface position at an angle relative to the base surface as a known shape in the molded glass for electronic device art [0006].
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 9, Gindele teaches the first recess being positioned on the press surface (convex surface 51).
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 9, Gindele teaches an embodiment in which a reformed glass disposed between the male and female portions of the mold [0037] which can be compatibly used as a portion of the reformed glass is positioned between the first gas pocket and the second gas pocket (Fig. 8) wherein the press surface contacting the reformed glass at a plurality of points surrounding the first recess (Fig. 8 projections 5).
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 1, Gindele teaches the male portion of the mold having a projection extending from a base surface (Fig. 8, projection 5, base of mold half 7), the projection including a press surface (convex glass surface 51); the female portion of the mold having a mold recess (convex glass surface 14) and has its own base surface (mold half 8, upper surface). Gindele does not expressly teach the female portion of the mold has press surface that is positioned at an angle relative to its base surface. In related molding of glass for electronic device art, Brockmeier teaches of a female portion of the mold (Fig. 5A. mold 92) having a mold recess (recess 96) extending from a base (lower base in Fig. 5A) including a press surface positioned at an angle relative to the base surface (Fig. 5B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the male portion of Gindele’s mold to have the press surface position at an angle relative to the base surface as a known shape in the molded glass for electronic device art [0006].
Brockmeier does not nominally state the angle of the press surface relative to the base surface for the embodiment in Fig. 5A. Brockmeier teaches the inclination angle of the produced article have a range of 5-20° [0036]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the inclination angle of the produced article is logically the same as the press surface angle relative to the base surface of the mold. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the angle of the press surface relative to the base surface that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2007302484-A teaches of a mold base plate that is angled relative to its base as alignment means for a molding apparatus
US-20110126588-A1 teaches angling a mold for aligning a glass sheet to be gravity bend against an edge of the mold
US-20160207818-A1 teaches tilting a mold between 0-30° so the glass sheet would abut and align with a stopper
US-20170029311-A1 is a suitable substitute for the Gindele reference
KR-20140085901-A teaches a tilted mold for glass for alignment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741