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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 7and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elliott (US 5108691).
Regarding claim 1, Elliott discloses a method of manufacturing a glass article Fig 7, comprising
a molding step of heating a glass base material (fiber glass mat 49) of resin and glass fibers (Col 10; lines 25-26, Col 4; lines-10) with a superheated steam to the glass base material to a thermoforming temperature, thus softening the glass base material (Col 4; line 23, Col 6; lines 49-57, Col 7; lines 5-15) and deforming the softened glass base material by bringing molding dies together (Col 4; line 18-20) Fig 5-7.
In the molding step, the glass base material is hit by a wind pressure of the superheated steam and simultaneously there is a vacuum on the lower mold (Col 7; lines 10-15, Col 10; lines 13-25) and deforming the glass forming material.
The method of claim 1 is a method “comprising” as a transitional phrase. As indicated in MPEP 2111.03 “comprising does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps and is open-ended.
Regarding claim 7, Elliott discloses an arranging step of arranging the glass base material on a lower die before the molding step (Fig 5),
And the lower die comprises a molding surface configured to mold the glass base material, wherein the molding surface is configured to jet the superheated steam in the molding step to soften the glass base material to a thermoforming temperature, and then to suck the glass base material with a vacuum (Col 7; lines 10-26).
Regarding claim 8, the lower die is considered controlled in temperature given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3-4, 9 and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US 5108691).
Regarding claim 3, Elliott does not disclose the superheated steam is jetted in a range wider than a portion of the glass base material which is to be deformed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the span of the superheated steam jet from the perforations taught by Elliott as motivated to saturate the mat glass base material contact and penetrate the glass base material (Col 7; lines 10-14)
Regarding claim 4, Elliott does not disclose the temperature of the superheated steam is equal to or more than a softening point of the glass base material however states using the superheated steam to bring the glass forming base mat to a thermoforming temperature (Col 3; lines 34-39) thus a temperature where the glass base material is pliable and may be reshaped it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of the superheated steam to the softening temperature or higher as motivated to achieve the glass base material at a thermoforming temperature.
Regarding claim 9, Elliott discloses dies are controlled in temperature to a softening point of the glass base material or less (Col 4; lines 49-55) to cause a thermoforming temperature in the glass base material and yield molding.
Regarding claim 13, Elliot discloses the apparatus in a continuous heating chamber (24) where the superheated steam is supplied thus considered a heating furnace as claimed given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
The method of claim 1 is a method “comprising” as a transitional phrase. As indicated in MPEP 2111.03 “comprising does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps and is open-ended.
Furthermore, sagging heated glass is a well-known bending method to a person of ordinary skill in the art and an obvious alternative to a skilled artisan to press molding heated glass to bend it.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US 5108691) as applied above and further in view of Souders (US 5529479)
Regarding claim 5, Elliott depicts comprising an arranging step of arranging the glass base material on a lower die before the molding step (See Fig 5),
wherein the lower die comprises a placement surface configured to support the glass base material in the center of the lower die (46) in Fig 5,
Elliott depicts a press forming mold with the male die on the bottom and female dies with a concave portion on the top in the molding step (Fig 5),
In an analogous art of molding a glass base material (Col 5; lines 36-39) Souders discloses a mold bottom female concave die (44) and a top male die (34) and the workpiece (26) will be supported by the bottom concave mold (Col 3; lines 53-55) the concave die having a space portion configured to allow deformation of a part of the glass base material, wherein the space portion comprises an opening surrounded by the placement surface at the perimeter of the concave die (Fig 1). Souders discloses a heated gas is jetted onto the workpiece glass base material (26) from above (Col 3; lines 63-66, Col 6; lines 10-24) a softened part of the glass base material is necessarily deformed due to the weight and gas in the mold of Souders.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill art to modify the method of Elliot with the mold of Souders as motivated to mold a glass base material to the desired shape.
Regarding claim 10, Souders discloses the lower die comprises a restricting mechanism (27) configured to restrict lateral displacement of the glass base material (Col 3; line 26) as shown in Fig 1 , and wherein the glass base material is deformed under a state in which the lateral displacement of the glass base material with respect to the lower die is restricted by the restricting mechanism.
Claim(s) 17-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US 5108691) and further in view of Dannoux (US 20170217815).
Regarding claims 17-18, Elliott discloses a method of manufacturing a glass article Fig 7, comprising
a molding step of heating a glass base material (fiber glass mat 49) of resin and glass fibers (Col 10; lines 25-26, Col 4; lines-10) with a superheated steam to the glass base material to a thermoforming temperature, thus softening the glass base material (Col 4; line 23, Col 6; lines 49-57, Col 7; lines 5-15) and deforming the softened glass base material by bringing molding dies together (Col 4; line 18-20) Fig 5-7.
In the molding step, the glass base material is hit by a wind pressure of the superheated steam and simultaneously there is a vacuum on the lower mold (Col 7; lines 10-15, Col 10; lines 13-25) and deforming the glass forming material.
The method of claim 1 is a method “comprising” as a transitional phrase. As indicated in MPEP 2111.03 “comprising does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps and is open-ended.
Elliot discloses heating and molding comprising an upper press.
In an analogous art of reforming glass, Dannoux discloses reforming the glass by heating the glass according to the composition [0033] and sagging the glass sheet under the influence of gravity [0034]. Dannoux further discloses reforming under gravity can also be done under vacuum, pushing element, roller, or vice versa therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Elliot by allowing the heated glass to sag instead of pushing, e.g. press working, as motivated by Dannoux’s disclosure which established them equivalent methods for reforming glass.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11-12 are allowed in view of the present amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to process the glass material without the use of pressworking. Examiner has indicated how claim 1 has not actually been amended to reflect this method. Applicant indicates Souders discloses a press molding and does not overcome the features lacking in Ellison.
Examiner’s response to this argument is the same. The method of claim 1 is a method “comprising” as a transitional phrase. As indicated in MPEP 2111.03 “comprising does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps and is open-ended.
Furthermore, sagging heated glass is a well-known bending method to a person of ordinary skill in the art and an obvious alternative to a skilled artisan to press molding heated glass to bend it.
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741