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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/12/2025 NPL YoutubeTM reference could not be accessed and there are not screenshots or explanation of relevance on file in this application
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 state “an first molding apparatus” instead of “a first molding apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A method of molding a window using a window molding apparatus comprising an first molding part and an second molding part, wherein the second molding part comprises a first cavity having a first curved surface, a plurality of second cavities having second curved surfaces, and a plurality of movable molds supported for movement along the second curved surfaces of the second cavities, the window molding method comprising the steps of: “ thus the claim is directed to a method. The preamble recites a molding apparatus but the claimed active method steps are really positioning a workpiece, heating the workpiece and molding the workpiece. It is clear that the mold configuration and movements of the mold give life to the claimed method and are given full weight in this examination.
Examiner would appreciate if the first paragraph of claim 1 is rewritten to recite:
A method of molding a window comprising the steps of:
Providing a window molding apparatus comprising a
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) 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo et al. et al. (US 20170100875) and Stanley (US 2882952).
Eo discloses a method of molding glass or other thermoelastic materials [0060] suitable for use as a window [0089] comprising the steps of:
6
positioning a work piece for processing between the first molding part and the second molding part; heating the work piece; and molding the work piece (Fig 2 S1-S3)
Eo does not disclose the molding apparatus of claim 1. Eo depicts one desired molded shape in Fig 3C.
In an analogous art of molding flat stock, Stanley discloses a molding apparatus for bending flat stock (Col 1; lines 15-41- typically referred to in the molding art as a press brake die or brake press die/mold) comprising parts as labeled below in Fig 6 of Stanley for ease:
a first molding part and a second molding part,
the second molding part comprises a first cavity, a plurality of second cavities (cradles Col 2) having second curved surfaces, and a plurality of movable molds (die bars Col 2) supported for movement along the second curved surfaces of the second cavities (Col 2; line 56- Col 3; line 12) as depicted in Fig 3, 4, 6 and the molding apparatus labeled below.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the molding method by moving a portion of the work piece along the first curved surface of the first cavity to form a bent portion (See Fig 3 and 4-7) to form a first substantially non-bent portion and a second substantially non-bent portion facing the first portion with the bent portion disposed therebetween (Fig 5 and 7). Stanley indicates first cavity (25) being a groove (Col 3; line10) however fails to explicitly state it to be curved. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make groove 25 any shaped cavity, rounded or angular as long as it meets the needs of “an open unobstructed area” of Stanley (Col 3; lines 7-11) as motivated to mold the flat stock to obtain the desired molded shape of desired curvature or radius (Column 1; line 30-41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding method of Eo with a molding shaped apparatus of Stanley as motivated to provide a simple inexpensive construction (Stanley Col 1; lines 45-48) and still obtain a desired radius of curvature.
Regarding claim 2, Eo discloses the work piece comprises a glass substrate [0060], and heated to be fluidized [0008], thus around 107.6 poises. Overlapping with the claimed viscosity of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Stanley discloses the first molding part comprises an inner molding part including a substantially flat molding part and a core rounded molding part (11’) disposed on one end of the substantially flat molding part as depicted in labeled Fig 6 above. The molding step comprises the core molding part is received in the first cavity with the work piece disposed therebetween cavities (Col 2; line 56- Col 3; line 12) as depicted in Fig 3, 4, 6.
Regarding claim 5, Stanley discloses each of the movable molds comprises a curved portion having a curved surface corresponding to the curved surface of each of the second cavities and a substantially flat portion facing the curved portion; wherein the step of positioning the work piece comprises positioning the substantially flat portions of the adjacent movable molds adjacent to each other below a workpiece in positions generally parallel to each other as depicted in Stanley Fig. 3, and
wherein the step of molding the work piece comprises moving the substantially flat portions of the adjacent movable molds to face each other with the work piece disposed therebetween (See Fig 4 and 6 as first molding part continues to enter the first cavity during molding).
Regarding claim 6, Stanley discloses the second cavities each having a corresponding movable mold to bend the flat workpiece around the first molding apparatus as it moves downward into the first cavity. Stanley describes in Col 2-3 that the dies/bars rotate in their cavities and permit the punch to extend into the cavity for the desired degree of bend and the dies support the side of the bend as the punch moves down (Col 3; lines 40-60). it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional movable molds in sub cavities necessarily along the second molding part in the such that the flat portion rotates to the sides of the bend as the punch extends downward as motivated to further support the sides of the bend; i.e. flat portion of the material around the bend.
the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and in this scenario additional movable molds would yield the same result of additional support to the side of the material during a deep bend.
This yields the molding steps of claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eo et al. et al. (US 20170100875) and Stanley (US 2882952) as applied above and further in view of Honjo (US 5022908)
Regarding claim 7, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chemically strengthen the workpiece glass of Eo as motivated to strengthen glass and as evidenced as a known step in the art by Hwang [0089]/[0093].
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 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12428331. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Present invention:
PNG
media_image2.png
512
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US12428331
PNG
media_image3.png
642
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
70
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
436
510
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 of US12428331 recite
A window molding method which requires a molding member to be processed, providing heat, inner molding part equivalent to the first molding part, bent and non-bent portions of the molded window, a groove equivalent to the first cavity, with inner molding part with a flat side and curved which move in their respective grooves during molding step.
Claim 5 of US12428331 requires the same viscosity as present claim 2
Claim 5 of US12428331 requires chemical strengthening like claim 7 of the present invention
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 requires that the first molding part comprises a flow path and air is injected into the flow path during molding having a pressure as indicated in present claim 4. None of the prior art available made obvious the molding apparatus and steps of claim 1 as interpreted herein with air pressure through the punch die.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gabel et al. (US 20120058303) bend angle
(US 6672127) U-Shaped bend
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
Prosecution Insights