DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6 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 1 recites the flange has planar end surfaces and forming ramps. Claim 1 further recites forming surfaces on the flange being at an angle. It is unclear if the forming ramps and the forming surfaces are two different parts or the same parts. The specification suggests the forming ramps are the forming surfaces that are angled relative to the planar end surface. Similarly, claim 1 recites planar end surfaces perpendicular to an axial axis, as well as a surface perpendicular to an axial axis. It is unclear if the planar end surfaces and a surface perpendicular to the axial axis are the same surfaces or different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mannl et al. (5,252,115). Mannl discloses a forming tool for forming an inner geometry of a glass container (col 3 lines 41-42), the forming tool comprising a mounting section 10 provided with a forming section 33/35 where an outer surface is adapted to provide an inner geometry for the glass container when rotated along a vertical axis, wherein the forming section has ramping section (col. 8 lines 46-68, col. 9 lines 1-3, 15-17, 24, “sloping surface” col. 4 lines 36-40, figures 3-4). Mannl teaches the ramping sections are sloped at an angle of 5° or 7° relative to a horizontal plane (col. 8 lines 67-68, col. 9 lines 1-3, figure 4), which provides for an angle of between 85 and 75 degrees with a vertical axis ( 90° - 5°= 85° or 90°-7°=83°).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droessler (US 2021/0363048) in view of Mannl et al. (5,252,115). Droessler discloses a forming tool for glass forming comprising an axial central mounting section 41/71 having a flange 42/72 ([0070], [0077]), the flange having planar end surfaces 43/73 perpendicular to an axial axis of the mounting section and forming ramps that are adjacent to the planar end surfaces and are forming surfaces on the flange ([0072], [0077]), wherein the forming surfaces are at an angle with the planar end surfaces (figures 4-5 and 8A, [0074], [0077]). Droessler teaches too much contact between a forming tool and a glass article can result in a roughened surface or adherence of glass particles to the glass article ([0003]). Droessler provides for a forming tool made of glass carbon, as well as provide for forming surfaces that are sloped so that only a part of the forming tool is in contact with the glass article ([0077]), so as to prevent the adherence of glass particles and reduce the amount of lubricant oil needed ([0057],[0068]). However, Droessler does not specify the angle of the sloped forming surface. In a similar field of endeavor, Mannl also teaches glass forming tool. Mannl discloses a forming tool for glass forming comprising an axial central mounting section 37 having a flange 35, with forming surfaces (40) on the flange, the forming surfaces being at an angle with a surface perpendicular to an axial axis of the mounting section (col. 8 lines 46-68, col. 9 lines 15-17, 24), the angle being 5° or 7°, which is between 5 and 15 degrees (col. 4 lines 36-40, figures 3-4). Mannl teach the sloped surface assists in draining lubricant oil from the forming tool (col. 5 lines 17-27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have angled the forming surface of the forming tool of Droessler about 5° or 7°, as the slight angle would assists in draining of lubricant oil, as suggested by Mannl, while also reducing contact with the glass article.
Regarding claim 2, Mannl teaches examples of angles, such as 5° and 7°, but doesn’t specify 10°. Droessler teaches the forming surface is angled so that only a part of the top surface of the forming tool contacts the mouth of the glass article ([0077]). Since the slopes provide for reduced contact with the glass and assists in draining lubricant oil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried an angle of 10° for the forming surface, as it is not very different from the suggested 7°, with still a reasonable expectation of success of reducing contact and helping with draining.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Droessler teaches the tool further comprises a second forming surface and a third forming surface, i.e. pin 74 and flat side surface on 74 in figure 8A ([0077]) or pin 44 and flat side surfaces on 44 in figure 4 ([0070]). Also, Mannl teaches in figures 2-3, the tool further comprises a second forming surface, i.e. circular segment 33, and a third forming surface, i.e. flat side areas 32.
Regarding claim 5, Mannl discloses in figure 4, the forming tool, comprising mounting section 37 and flange 35, is formed of a single work piece (note same hatching marks for the tool).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droessler (US 2021/0363048) in view of Acke et al. (CN 113754258 machine translation provided). Droessler teaches a forming tool for forming an inner geometry of a glass container ([0012]), the forming tool comprising a mounting section 41/71 provided with a forming section 42/72 where an outer surface is adapted to provide an inner geometry for the glass container when rotated along a vertical axis (figures 4-6 and 8A, [0070], [0072], [0077], wherein the forming section has ramping section (sloped surfaces in figures 4-5 and 8A, [0074], [0077]). Droessler teaches too much contact between a forming tool and a glass article can result in a roughened surface or adherence of glass particles to the glass article ([0003]). Droessler provides for a forming tool made of glass carbon ([0068]), as well as provide for forming surfaces that are sloped so that only a part of the forming tool is in contact with the glass article ([0077]), so as to prevent the adherence of glass particles. However, Droessler does not specify the angle of the sloped forming surface. Acke also teaches a forming tool for glass forming (top two passages on page 2), such as a shaping roller, comprising an axial central mounting section 63 having a flange 25, with a forming surfaces on the flange (top passage on page 16). As can be seen in figure 7, the forming surface is the contact surfaces of the roller with the glass article 9. Acke further teaches the forming surfaces can be substantially cylindrical or angled, wherein the angled forming surfaces have a slight taper with angles of 5° and 10° (2nd passage on page 3) relative to a horizontal plane (plane extending in the radial direction). Naturally, a sloped forming surface would reduce the contact surface with the glass article. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried employing a forming tool having forming surfaces being at an angle of 5° or 10° with a surface perpendicular to an axial axis to reduce the contact surface, while still providing shaping, and thereby eliminate adherence of glass particles and roughening of the glass article. In applying an angled surface of 10° with respect to a surface perpendicular to an axial axis, the ramping sections would have an angle of 80° (90°-10°) with a vertical axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Mannl, and under Droessler and Acke have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Droessler and Mannl.
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 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
Prosecution Insights