DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are 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 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).
Regarding claims 3-4, 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. 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 1-4 are 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 discloses a forming tool for glass forming comprising an axial central mounting section 41/71 having a flange 42/72 ([0070]), with forming surfaces 43/73 on the flange ([0072], [0077]), the forming surfaces being at an angle with a surface perpendicular to an axial axis of the mounting section (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). 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.
Regarding claim 2, Acke teaches angles including 10°, as discussed above.
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]).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5-6 of copending Application No. 19/324,526 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a forming tool comprising a mounting section with a flange, the flange with forming surfaces having an angle with a surface perpendicular to an axial axis of the mounting section, the angle being between 5°-15°, or 10°, second and third forming surfaces, and formed of a single work piece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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