DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: a forming device 10. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both “arm”, “vertical part of arm”, “horizontal part of arm”. 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. 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.
Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. In the specification, Background of the Invention, PGPUB paragraph [0005], Figs. 1-3 are indicated as “known” (i.e. prior art) forming device.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, lines 1-2 are interpreted as the preamble of the claim, and lines 3-12 as the body of the claim. The Examiner interprets a glass tube forming device adapted to be used in a forming machine of glass containers for medical use, as intended use of the device, and therefore, a forming machine is not required in the claim.
The Examiner interprets “a glass tube” as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
In the claims, Applicant recites the term “the base block”, the Examiner interprets “the base block” as referencing “a parallelepiped-shaped base block” in line 3 of claim 1.
In claim 1, Applicant recites “the deforming disc” of each arm or “each deforming disc”, the Examiner interprets, these terms as referencing each “idle deforming disc” in line 4 of claim 1.
In claim 1, lines 3-4, Applicant recites a pair of arms each bearing a flat roller or in the alternative each bearing an idle forming disc. Accordingly, the wherein statement, in lines 9-10 of claim 1, referencing the deforming disc or each deforming disc is only applicable in the embodiment comprising a pair of arms bearing an idle forming disc, and the wherein statement in line 11 directed to channels and ducts for each arm does not require each deforming disc. In claim 1, line 11, the channel for oil and ducts for cooling include intended use of the channels and ducts.
Claims 2 and 4 reference structure recited in line 11, and therefore, the Examiner interprets each deforming disc is not required.
Claim 3 recites intended use of the channels, but it is interpreted the deforming disc is not required.
Claim 5 states wherein the arms bear the deforming discs, and therefore, the Examiner interprets, the pair of arms each bearing an idle forming disc is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error in line 4, “idle deforming disc” should be “an idle deforming disc”. 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.
Claim 3 is/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.
Claim 3 claims “the deforming disc”, it is unclear to the Examiner which deforming disc Applicant is referencing, since each arm bears an idle deforming disc. Please clarify which deforming disc Applicant is referencing, or if the channels cause a lubrication of each deforming disc.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art (APA) (Figs. 1, 2, and 2a and [0005]-[0006]) in view of Otero et al. (US 2020/0148576A1).
The Examiner notes while text in the specification related to Figs. 1, 2, and 2a does not explicitly state it is prior art, since Figs. 1, 2, and 2a are labeled as “Prior Art”, the Examiner assumes the text in the specification that is an explanation of the prior art figures are also prior art. (See MPEP 608.02(g)).
Regarding claim 1, APA (Figs. 1, 2, 2a, and [0005]-[0006]) discloses a parallelepiped-shaped base block (“base block 11”) supporting a pair of arms 12 and discloses the arms each support a flat roller. APA discloses the arms are L-shaped and are arranged in an upper part of the base block and discloses the two arms 12 can be moved towards each other to engage and disengage a glass tube to be shaped. Accordingly, the APA provides for the embodiment of claim 1 where a pair of arms each bearing a flat roller. As stated in the claim interpretation above, the Examiner interprets, lines 9-10, are not required for the embodiment with the pair of arms each bearing a flat roller.
The APA fails to disclose each arm has channel defined therein and ducts. However, Otero ([0004]) teaches in a method of shaping glass by means of forming rollers oil and air are used to cool the forming tool in order to reduce the tool temperatures and prevent the glass from adhering to the tools. Otero (Figs. 2-4) teaches transmission channel 10 and coolant connections 15 within a heat sink, which is also interpreted as an arm. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Otero, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the APA apparatus could be improved by the addition of a channel in the arm in each arm to reduce the temperature of the flat roller and prevent glass from adhering to the flat roller. While Otero teaches one channel, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, multiple channels could be provided in each arm, and the addition of multiple channels would provide for channels and ducts. The addition of channels/ducts is merely a duplication of parts to provide for additional cooling.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (APA) (Figs. 1, 2, and 2a and [0005]-[0006]) in view of Otero et al. (US 2020/0148576A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisler (US 2,266,417).
Regarding claim 3, APA in view of Otero fails to disclose the channels cause lubrication by gravity. However, Eisler (Fig. 9 and Col. ) teaches a forming tool including a duct 32 inside of what is interpreted as an arm to supply oil to a forming tool having outlets while shaping. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified APA apparatus could be improved by such that the channels include channels to supply oil and forming tool comprising outlets, since it is known in the art to supply oil to the forming tool while forming, as taught by Eisler. Additionally, since the modified APA apparatus includes each forming tool, such as a flat roller, placed underneath a respective arm and the arm comprises multiple channels for cooling or supplying oil to the forming tool while forming, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the channels supplying oil provide for lubrication of each forming tool since channels are above the forming tool and therefore, cause a lubrication of oil by gravity, as claimed.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art (APA) (Figs. 1, 2, and 2a and [0005]-[0006]) in view of Couquelet (US 3,424,570), and Otero et al. (US 2020/0148576A1).
The Examiner notes while text in the specification related to Figs. 1, 2, and 2a does not explicitly state it is prior art, since Figs. 1, 2, and 2a are labeled as “Prior Art”, the Examiner assumes the explanation of the prior art drawings are also prior art. (See MPEP 608.02(g)).
Regarding claim 1, APA (Figs. 1, 2, 2a, and [0005]-[0006]) discloses a parallelepiped-shaped base block (“base block 11”) supporting a pair of arms 12 and discloses the arms each support an idle deforming disc (“deforming disc 13”). APA discloses the arms are L-shaped and are arranged in an upper part of the base block and discloses the two arms 12 can be moved towards each other to engage and disengage a glass tube to be shaped.
The APA fails to disclose the deforming disc is arranged to be hanging from a free end of each arm and to be placed idle underneath the respective arm. However, Couquelet (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, lines 35-39) teaches forming rollers that can move together against a heated tube and illustrates the forming roller 29, which is similar to the idle deforming disc of the APA, hanging from a free end of an L-shaped armed and placed underneath the respective arm. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Couquelet, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the APA apparatus could be modified such that the deforming disc is arranged to be hanging from a free end of each arm and to be placed underneath the respective arm. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the rearranging of the deforming disc underneath the respective arm is merely rearrangement of parts.
The APA fails to disclose each arm has channels defined therein and ducts. However, Otero ([0004]) teaches in a method of shaping glass by means of forming rollers oil and air are used to cool the forming tool in order to reduce the tool temperatures and prevent the glass from adhering to the tools. Otero (Figs. 2-4) teaches transmission channel 10 and coolant connections 15 within a heat sink that is also interpreted as an arm. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Otero, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the APA apparatus could be improved by the addition of a channel in the arm in each arm to reduce the temperature of the flat roller and prevent glass from adhering to the flat roller. While Otero teaches one channel, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, multiple channels could be provided in each arm, and the addition of multiple channels would provide for channels and ducts. The addition of channels/ducts is merely a duplication of parts to provide for additional cooling.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (APA) (Figs. 1, 2, and 2a and [0005]-[0006]) in view of Couquelet (US 3,424,570), and Otero et al. (US 2020/0148576A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisler (US 2,266,417).
Regarding claim 3, APA in view of Couquelet and Otero fails to disclose the channels cause a lubrication. However, Eisler (Fig. 9 and Col. ) teaches a forming tool including a duct 32 inside of what is interpreted as an arm to supply oil to a forming tool having outlets while shaping. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified APA apparatus could be improved such that the channels include channels to supply oil and the deforming disc comprising outlets, since it is known in the art to supply oil to the forming tool while forming, as taught by Eisler. Additionally, since the modified APA apparatus includes each forming tool, such as a deforming disc, placed underneath a respective arm and the arm comprises multiple channels for cooling or supplying oil to the forming tool while forming, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the channels supplying oil provide for lubrication of each forming tool since channels are above the forming tool and therefore, cause a lubrication of oil by gravity, as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (APA) (Figs. 1, 2, and 2a and [0005]-[0006]) in view of Couquelet (US 3,424,570) and Otero et al. (US 2020/0148576A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acker et al. (US 2021/0380458A1 – hereinafter Acker).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the arms bear deforming discs and APA in view of Couquelet provides for deforming discs placed underneath the respective arm and is interpreted to provide for the arms bear the deforming discs facing downward and are arranged on the base block. Additionally, as discussed above, APA discloses the arms are arranged in an upper part of the base block and discloses the two arms 12 can be moved towards each other to engage and disengage a glass tube to be shaped. The APA in claim 1 fails to explicitly state the arms are arranged on the base block with a slide interposed therebetween, and wherein the slide is translatable above the base block on a sliding guide integral with the base block, by way of an electric or pneumatic actuator.
However, Acker (Figs. 1-3 and [0118]) discloses an apparatus comprising a pair of arms (“roller arms 59”) each bearing a flat roller (“shaping rollers 25”). Acker (Figs. 1-3 and [0118]) discloses the arms connected to translator 45 via screw connections 57. Acker (Figs. 1-3 and [0118]) discloses the translator 45 moves the arm 59 and rollers in the radial direction 37 and (Figs. 1, 3 and 4 and ([0125}) discloses translator 45 connected to a linear motor 41 and the translator is connected to guide rail 77 or guide carriage 79 of a linear guide 69, 71. Acker discloses translation in the radial direction of the arms with a guide rail and carriage which is interpreted as a slide and linear motor as an electric actuator. APA (Fig. 1) illustrates a block having a groove that is interpreted as a guide block and arm 12 attached to a support having a protrusion integrated with the guide block having the groove. Based on the additional teachings by Acker and APA, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the arms arranged on the base block with a support having a protrusion as rail integrated with a guide block and attached to a linear motor. The support and guide block attached to a linear motor could function as a sliding guide interposed between the arms and the base block where the slide is translatable above the base block on a sliding guide (i.e. guide block with groove) integral with the base block, by way of a linear motor (i.e. electric actuator).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the channels extending in the arm, as claimed in claim 2 or the ducts extending in the arm, as claimed in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741