DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that all the groups share the same special technical feature of a mold having two parts and a molding surface with a cavity for producing an external shape and protuberance on the molded article and Bewer does not disclose this feature. This is not found persuasive for two reasons. First, group III, claims 10-11 is a product claim for the glass article and the mold (and it special technical features) is not required. Thus, the glass article does not share the same special technical feature as groups I and II. Second, Bewer does disclose a two part mold (2/3) having a molding surface that forms a cavity in which an external surface of the glass is shaped. As can be seen in figure 1, some of the concavities of the molding surface of the mold produces protuberance on the molded article. Accordingly, the restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the term the term “hollow glass” in “producing an article of hollow glass or hollow glass” is redundant. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies with some terms. For example, “an external shape” and “the final external shape”. Also, “a cavity” and “the respective cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recite in several locations the terms “lower” and upper”. It is unclear what is being reference with the these terms. Is lower a description for the part or a location for the part. For example, is it an upper plunger, or is the plunger located at an upper part of the apparatus?
Claims 2-4 by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1, are also considered indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “integral with the forming body” in line 4. It is unclear what is integral with the forming body, the guiding element or the support body. Please clarify.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “elastic means” which will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (2018/0215643). Takahashi discloses a method for producing a glass article, the method comprising providing a molding apparatus, the molding apparatus comprising:
a preparatory mold 20 at a lower area of the molding apparatus, composed of two parts, and adapted to be separated from each other, wherein a upper area of the preparatory mold has a molding surface (inner periphery surface of mold 20) and a cavity 22a ([0221]) formed along the molding surface for producing an external shape and shaped protuberance on the glass article ([0207]-[0210], figures 10A-10C), as illustrated below,
a forming member 10, composed of two parts that can be separated from each other, the forming member surmounts and engages with the preparatory mold ([0207]-[0210], figures 10A-10C),
a pressing member 60 that is arrange in an upper area of the molding apparatus (figure 6B, [0270]-[0271]) and a plunger 50 ([0259]), and
a finishing mold 80/82 (figure 8, [0174]).
Takahashi further teaches depositing a molten glass in the preparatory mold ([0138]), closing the pressing member 60 and plunger 50 against the preparatory mold so as to form the external shape and shaped protuberance of the glass article, as well as a hollow area of the glass article ([0145]-[0150], figures 6B, 7A), extracting the pressing member 60 and plunger 50, and opening the two parts of the forming member (10) so as to disengage from the preparatory mold holding the hollow glass article ([0171]-[0172], [0175]-[0176]). Takahashi further teaches holding the hollow glass article with the preparatory mold, moving the hollow glass article by overturning it so as to transfer it to the finishing mold to cool the hollow glass article ([0177], [0180]-[0182]), opening the two parts of the preparatory mold so as to free the hollow glass article ([0178]), and extracting the hollow glass article from the finishing mold once cooled ([0182]). Although extraction was not explicitly disclosed, Takahashi teaches obtaining the finished glass article. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the method for producing the hollow glass article to naturally comprise of the step of extracting the hollow glass article from the finishing mold in order to obtain the finished product for use.
[AltContent: textbox (Cavities on molding surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
326
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (2018/0215643) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tatsukoshi et al., (JP H0748132 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches the pressing member 60 comprising a support body (upper portion of 60) and a forming body having a forming surface (lower portion of 60) and integral with the support body. However, Takahashi doesn’t specify a guiding element and elastic means associated with the pressing member. Tatsukoshi teaches a process for molding a glass article using a molding apparatus comprising a lower mold, and upper mold that is a pressing member. Tatsukoshi teaches the pressing member comprises a support body 4, a forming body 5 that is integral with the support body and having a forming surface, a guiding element (11-15) that can guide the forming body while also allowing for relative movement of the forming body when the forming body is being pressed against the lower mold, and an elastic means, such as compression coil springs 10 (claim 4), interposed between the guiding element and the support body of the pressing member (figure 1, on page 3 [0014] to the bottom). Tatsukoshi further teaches the spring is configured to oppose the relative movement of the forming body and the guiding element, such that the guiding element stops against the mold ring 17 (forming member) during downward axial movement of the pressing member when press molding the glass article (figure 3, 6th-9th passages on page 4). Regarding claim 3, Tatsukoshi further teaches the guiding element is connected slidingly with the support body by means of a plurality of pins 8, wherein the pins are integral with the guide and able to slide in corresponding holes formed in a flange 6 of the support body element (figure1, bottom of page 3). Tatsukoshi further teaches the guiding element comprises not only springs 10 interposed between the guiding element and the support body of the pressing member, but also springs 11 that also opposes the relative movement of the forming body and the guiding element. Tatsukoshi teaches such arrangement allows stable press molding of the glass article and alignment of the pressing member with the lower mold, thereby improving pressing accuracy (abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a similar arrangement of a guiding element, pins, and elastic member, wherein the elastic member is disposed between the support body and the guide element, in the process of Takahashi, so as to provide stable pressing of the glass and enhance accuracy of the molded glass article.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (2018/0215643) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (3,867,123). Takahashi doesn’t specify a cavity that provides for a ring shaped. Hamilton teaches a method for producing a hollow glass article using a mold having two parts. Hamilton teaches two part molds are suitable for producing hollow glass articles comprising appendages, such as handles on cups, as the opening of two parts allows proper removal of the cup with handles (col. 1 lines 60-67, col. 2 lines 1-16, 40-47). Accordingly, Hamilton teaches two parts of a mold having a cavity formed on the molding surface that is configured so as to form a shaped protuberance of the cup, the shaped protuberance having a through hole, thereby producing a ring shaped handle (see dotted lines in figures 3 and 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a mold design having a molding surface with a cavity that is configured to form a shaped protuberance of a hollow glass article having a through hole, so as provide for hollow glass article such as cups with handles, as matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741