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 claims 1-10, 12-14 in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-17, 20, 24-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
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 1-10, 12-14 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 Line 14 recites “an organo-silica binder” and Line 15-16 recites “a thermal barrier coating comprising… an organo-silica binder”. It is not clear if the first recited organo-silica binder of the mold release coating is part of the thermal barrier coating or should be considered as a material component of the thermal barrier coating that also coincidentally required by both the mold release coating and the thermal barrier coating. Please specify/clarify. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-14 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 2 recites “an organo-silica binder” which already has antecedent basis from its parent claim 1.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm (US-20060021384-A1) and further in view of Diehm et al (US-20170233284-A1) and Shoji et al (WO-2015087429-A1, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Schramm teaches a pressing unit [0070] comprising: a mold and a plunger (Fig. 1a) configured to receive a gob of glass (drop 1 of liquid glass) and process the gob into a product form (finished bottle 5); and a coating configured on the surface of the mold to form a coated mold [0072] configured adjacent to the gob to form a coated mold [0070]. Schramm teaches of a first coating and a second coating [0017-18] wherein the first coating is a thermal barrier coating [0017] and a mold release coating [0018]. The mold release coating comprising a solid lubricant [0021] with a silicone resin [0018] configured as the gob-contacting surface [0073]; the thermal barrier coating comprising barrier material components [0020] with a silicone resin [0017].
Schramm teaches the mold release coating comprising a solid lubricant [0021] with a silicone resin [0018] configured as the gob-contacting surface [0073]. Schramm does not expressly teach the mold release coating requires at least two solid lubricants and the binder require silica compared to silicone. In related lubricant coating applied to glass gob-contacting surface art [0014], Diehm teaches of a mixture of solid lubricant selected from tungsten disulfide, boron nitride, and graphite [0050] and an organo-silica binder [0058]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mold release coating comprising at least two solid lubricant selected from tungsten disulfide, boron nitride, and graphite with an organo-silica binder as a known composition for a gob-contacting surface.
Schramm teaches the thermal barrier coating comprising barrier material components [0020] with a silicone resin [0017]. Schramm does not expressly teach the thermal barrier coating has an organo-silica binder. In related thermal wear coating (Line 216-219) for glass molding (Line 62-64), Shoji teaches a thermal barrier coating comprising barrier material components (Line 225-229) and an organo-silica binder (Line 319-335). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal barrier coating of Schramm with the thermal barrier coating comprising an organo-silica binder as taught by Shoji prior to the addition of a mold release coating that is configured as the gob-contacting surface (Line 458-462).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, modified Schramm relies on Shoji which teaches the barrier material components are retained in the organo-silica binder (Line 319-335).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 2, modified Schramm relies on Shoji which teaches the barrier material components are zirconia and silica (Line 311-313).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 2, modified Schramm relies on Shoji which teaches the barrier material components are present in an amount that falls within the instantly claimed range (Line 221-223; 326-328). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the weight percentage of barrier material components present in the thermal barrier coating that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 2, modified Schramm relies on Shoji which teaches the organo-silica binder is present in an amount that falls within the instantly claimed range (Line 330-332). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the weight percentage organo-silica binder present in the thermal barrier coating that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 1, modified Schramm relies on the mold release coating taught by Diehm, wherein Diehm teaches the solid lubricant in the instantly claimed range [0054, 58] without specifying which of graphite, tungsten disulfide, and/or boron nitride are included in the mixture [0050]. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture of boron nitride and tungsten disulfide in the instantly claimed range as the mixture of solid lubricants is taught in the prior art and a reasonable expectation of success to achieve from the experimentation of the known solid lubricants and their mixtures that are compatible in the art.
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 1, Schramm teaches the material composition of the coatings on their mold. Schramm does not expressly teach the mold is made of cast iron. In related thermal wear coating (Line 216-219) for glass molding (Line 62-64), Shoji teaches their mold is made from cast iron (Line 201-206). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the mold with cast iron as a non-suitable material in the art for molding glass.
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 1, Schramm illustrates the mold comprises a mold cavity (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 1, the instant claim refers to limitations of the material or article worked upon by the instantly claimed apparatus. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm (US-20060021384-A1), Diehm et al (US-20170233284-A1), and Shoji et al (WO-2015087429-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sponseller (US-3796557-A).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, Schramm illustrates a mold ring and a press (Fig. 1a). Schramm does not nominally teach these elements. In related plunger molding of glass product art, Sponseller teaches of a mold ring attached to the mold and mount on a press (Col. 4 Line 26-42). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a mold ring is attached to the mold and mounted on a press is a known apparatus arrangement in the plunger molding of glass art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramm (US-20060021384-A1), Diehm et al (US-20170233284-A1), and Shoji et al (WO-2015087429-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konishi et al (US-5266093-A).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 1, Schramm teaches of glass melt and conveying the glass melt as drops [0070]. Schramm does not expressly teach of a melting unit and a gob forming unit that dispense a plurality of metered gobs. In related molding of glass art, Konishi teaches of a melting unit configured to melt glass material to form a melt (Col. 5 Line 62-68) and a gob forming unit attached to the melting unit and receive the melt (spout 1, Col. 6 Line 1-15) and dispense portions of the melt as a plurality of metered gobs into the pressing unit (Col. 6 Line 29-58). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pressing unit with a melting unit and a gob forming unit that receives molten glass and dispensed a plurality of metered gobs into the pressing unit as a streamlined manufacturing process for efficiency and increase the yield of manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6/8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6/8, the combination of prior art stated above teaches a mixture of the solid lubricants as required in claim 1; however, the prior art does not require the specific combination of the solid lubricants requiring glassy carbon in the percent weight as required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-4039337-A) teaches of graphite with boron nitride and tungsten disulfide in the instantly claimed range, but does not require the organo-silica binder
US-20140260428-A1 can substitute the Diehm reference
US-3874862-A teaches using organo-silica binder with graphite solid lubricant in the same field of endeavor
US-3915870-A, US-4140834-A teaches using tungsten disulfide and graphite solid lubricant with an organ-silica binder in the same field of endeavor
US-5409531-A teaches at least one of boron nitride, tungsten disulfide, graphite up to 90% weight with an organo-silica binder for mold releasing coating
US-6409813-B1 teaches of using a boron nitride and zirconium oxide coating with an organo-silica binder
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