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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-28 and 38, in the reply filed on Aug. 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 Interpretation
In claim 1, lines 1-3 are interpreted as the preamble of the claim, and lines 4-6 are interpreted as the body of the claim. Accordingly, “a non-contact supported glass material” is interpreted as intended use of the glass manufacturing apparatus and therefore not required in the claim. In the body of the claim, “the glass material” and “the molten glass material” are interpreted as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
In claim 5, the term “yield point of the glass” is interpreted as equivalent to “strain point of the glass”.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The Examiner is applying BRI for a heating unit in claims 1-26, 28, and 38.
The Examiner is applying BRI for a forming unit in claims 1-6, 17-22, 25-26, and 38.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 2. The term “the temperature” should be “a temperature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 5. The term “the molten glass material” should be “molten glass material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 2. The term “the timing” should be “a timing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in lines 2-3. The term “the temperature” should be “a temperature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 3. The term “the timing” should be “a timing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 4. The term “the yield point” should be “a yield point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 6. The term “the molten material’s top” should be “a molten material’s top”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 3. The term “the top” should be “a top”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in lines 2-3. The term “the forming process” should be “a forming process”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 2. The term “its sintered body” should be “a sintered body”. 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 1-28 and 38 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.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, Applicant recites intended use of the apparatus including “a non-contact supported glass material”, it is unclear to the Examiner if “the glass material” in line 4 is referencing “a non-contact supported glass material” or another glass material and if the forming unit is configured to form molten glass material from “a non-contact supported glass material”. Claims 2-28 and 38 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
Claim 4 claims “the measurement result of the measurement unit”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the measurement result is a temperature of the molten glass material. Please clarify claim 4.
Claims 5 and 6 claims “the condition being met” in the last line of each claim, but it is unclear to the Examiner if this term is referencing conditions using predetermined characteristics of the glass, and which condition of these conditions is being referenced. Please clarify claims 5 and 6.
Claim 6 claims “the condition”, but it is unclear to the Examiner if this term is referencing conditions using predetermined characteristics of the glass, please clarify claim 6.
Claim 8 claims the multiple forming members, but claim 7 claims a forming member, it is unclear to the Examiner if “the multiple forming members” includes the forming member of claim 7. Please clarify claim 8. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is also indefinite.
Claim 10 claims “the forming members”, but in claim 7 only recites “the forming member”. Please clarify claim 10.
Claim 16 claims “a first forming member” and it is unclear to the Examiner the relationship between “a first forming member” and “a forming member” claimed in claim 7 and whether “multiple other forming members” are part of the forming unit having a singular forming member claimed in claim 7. Please clarify claim 16.
Claim 22 claims “the forming process”, and Claim 1 from which claim 22/21 depends from claims a forming unit configured to form molten glass material while its temperature decreases, but it is unclear to the Examiner what defines “a forming process”, therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim lack clarity. Please clarify claim 22.
Claim 24 claims “the forming members”, but claim 7 claims only “a forming member”, accordingly, “the forming members” lacks antecedent basis. Please clarify the claim.
Claims 26 claims the heating unit is configured to heat the non-contact supported glass material, but in the preamble claims a process of lowering the temperature of a non-contact supported glass material, and the heating unit is configured to heat glass material. Accordingly, it is unclear how the heating unit configured to heat the ono-contact supported glass material also provides for the intended use of the apparatus for lowering a temperature of the non-contact glass material. Please clarify the claim.
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(s) 1 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eguchi (JP2020-186146).
For the Eguchi reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Eguchi (Fig. 1 and pg. 2) discloses a glass manufacturing apparatus (“melting device 9”) comprising a heating unit (“melting means 6”) configured to heat a glass raw material 1 (corresponding to a non-contact supported glass material, as claimed in claim 26) and discloses a forming unit (“melting furnace 2” for floating and forming). Eguchi (pg. 5) discloses the glass melt 1a ascending from the melting furnace 2 and the glass is obtained by cooling the solidifying glass melt and discloses when the glass melt and the melting furnace 2 come into contact with each other, the glass melt is devitrified when it is cooled and solidified. Eguchi (pg. 5) discloses the glass melt is floated from the melting furnace and (pg. 7) discloses heating and melting by a carbon dioxide laser, as the melting progresses the glass raw material 1 became a shape due to surface tension, heating the glass for 20 seconds in a floating state, stopping the laser and cooling the glass. Accordingly, based on the disclosures by Eguchi above, the forming unit (i.e. melting furnace 2) is configured to form molten glass material while its temperature decreases after the heating by the heating unit has stopped.
Regarding claim 27, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi discloses heating by a carbon dioxide laser and as melting progresses the glass raw material 1 became a shape due to surface tension, heating the glass for 20 seconds in a floating state, stopping the laser, and cooling the glass. Accordingly, based on the disclosures by Eguchi, the heating unit is configured to heat the glass material by irradiating it with laser light, and the forming unit is configured to form the molten glass material after laser irradiation has ceased, as claimed.
Regarding claim 28, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (pg. 7) discloses the glass raw material 1 as a sintered body.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimoto (WO2020/246390A1).
For the Eguchi reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
For the Yoshimoto reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (Figures, abstract, and pg. 4) discloses the flow velocity and the flow rate of the gas are controlled in the melting furnace 2 to affect the shape of the glass melt 1a, and (pg. 7) discloses the flow velocity and flow rate controlled by two mass flow controllers as the floating gas flow rate adjusting means 4, and (pg. 3) discloses the flow velocity and flow rate of the floating gas forms a spherical or gostone shape.
Eguchi fails to specifically disclose a control unit, as claimed in claim 2. However, Yoshimoto (Fig. 1, abstract, and pg. 1) teaches a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a levitation/floating furnace member 102, similar to the forming unit (i.e. melting furnace 2) of Eguchi. Yoshimoto (pg. 2) teaches control by a computer 107 and teaches the computer 107 controlling the output of the laser source based on the temperature information of a radiation thermometer 106 and the floating furnace member 102 and a gas flow rate by a controller 110. Yoshimoto (pg. 2-3) teaches a sample M (i.e. glass) arranged above the floating furnace member 102 having a gas flow rate and non-contact heating of sample M by laser light. Yoshimoto discloses monitoring the temperature of the sample M(i.e. glass) by radiation thermometer 106 and the laser light is controlled by computer 107 based on the temperature information of the sample M and the flow rate of the floating furnace member 102 is controlled by the gas flow rate controller 110 and teaches after non-contact heating of the stably floating sample M, the laser beam L is blocked, and as a result the melt is cooled and solidified. Both Eguchi and Yoshimoto teach non-contact heating a sample M (i.e. glass) by a laser light during floating in a melting furnace having a gas flow rate. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Yoshimoto, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi could be improved to include a computer 107 (corresponding to a control unit) including a radiation thermometer (corresponding to a measurement unit) to control the laser light based on temperature information of the sample M (i.e. glass) and to control the floating furnace member 102 gas flow rate. Accordingly, Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto provides for a control unit configured to control the forming unit (i.e. melting furnace for floating) to form the molten glass material (glass melt 1a) based on conditions (i.e. temperature or flow velocity and flow rate) using predetermined characteristics of the glass (i.e. shape or temperature) and a measurement unit (i.e. radiation thermometer) configured to measure the temperature of the molten glass material.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimoto (WO2020/246390A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2019/0202725 – hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto provides for a control unit (i.e. computer) configured to control the forming unit and a measurement unit (i.e. radiation thermometer) configured to measure the temperature of the molten glass material.
Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto fails to specifically state the control unit includes a calculation unit. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, the apparatus of Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto includes a computer. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi discloses heating the glass in a floating state, stopping the laser and cooling the glass. Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before or after the ejection of the floating gas, or at the same time as the ejection of the floating gas. Additionally, Yamada (Fig. 1 and abstract) teaches a method and apparatus for levitating a glass material by a forming die and heating the glass material with a laser beam. Yamada (Fig. 13) teaches a time chart of the flow rate of a gas. Yamada teaches gas flow rates during a time for melting start, gas flow rates during a time for completely melted sample, and gas flow rates increased after the laser light is stopped, and gas flow rates for cooling. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi in view of Yamada further configured to determine a timing to form the molten glass material based on a measurement result of the measurement unit and conditions, such as flow rate of gas, to control the forming unit. Since the control unit is a computer, it would be obvious the control unit includes a calculation unit configured to perform the claimed calculating the timing based on conditions, such as temperature, melting start, laser light stop, and cooling, and is configured to control the forming unit (i.e. flow velocity and flow rate) to form the molten glass material at the calculated timing.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto provides for a control unit (i.e. computer) configured to control the forming unit and a measurement unit (i.e. radiation thermometer) configured to measure the temperature of the molten glass material.
Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto fails to specifically state the control unit configured to determine the timing to form the molten glass material based on a measurement result of the measurement unit and the conditions, and to control the forming unit to form the molten glass material at the determined timing. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi discloses heating the glass in a floating state, stopping the laser and cooling the glass. Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before or after the ejection of the floating gas, or at the same time as the ejection of the floating gas. Additionally, Yamada (Fig. 1 and abstract) teaches a method and apparatus for levitating a glass material by a forming die and heating the glass material with a laser beam. Yamada (Fig. 13) teaches a time chart of the flow rate of a gas. Yamada teaches gas flow rates during a time for melting start, gas flow rates during a time for completely melted sample, and gas flow rates increased after the laser light is stopped, and gas flow rates for cooling. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi in view of Yamada further configured to determine a timing of flow rate gas during the melting step based on a measurement result (i.e. temperature) of the measurement unit and conditions, such as melting, laser stop, and cooling, and to control the forming unit (i.e. gas flow rates) to form the molten glass material during the determined timing (i.e. melting, laser stop, and cooling).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimoto (WO2020/246390A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-274898) and evidenced by Britannica (Britannica Online Encyclopedia, “Industrial Glass”, 26 pages).
For the Utsuki reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claims 5-6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (pg. 5) discloses the glass melt is floated from the melting furnace and (pg. 7) discloses heating and melting by a carbon dioxide laser, as the melting progresses the glass raw material 1 became a shape due to surface tension, heating the glass for 20 seconds in a floating state, stopping the laser and cooling the glass. As discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, obviousness that the apparatus of Eguchi could be improved to include a computer 107 (corresponding to a control unit) including a radiation thermometer (corresponding to a measurement unit) to control the laser light based on temperature information of the sample M (i.e. glass) and to control the floating furnace member 102 gas flow rate. Eguchi and Yoshimoto fail to disclose the configured to language wherein one of the conditions is that the temperature of the molten glass material is at or below the yield point of the glass, and the control unit is configured to control the forming unit to form the molten glass material under the condition being met. However, Utsuki (Fig. 4 abstract, and pg. 5) discloses molding a glass in a softened state by wind pressure in a porous body 3 of the molding die and (pg. 13) discloses after molding glass is cooled to a temperature showing a viscosity of 1012 dPa•s (1012 poise) or more, preferably 1014 dPa•s (1014 poise) or more, more preferably 1016 dPa•s (1016 poise) or more and then removing the product from the mold. Also, Britannica teaches the strain point (i.e. yield point) occurs at a viscosity of 1014.5 poise (1014.5 dPa•s) and the glass transition temperature is at the annealing point occurs at a viscosity of 1013 poise. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Utsuki, that cooling continues in the mold at temperatures preferably 1012 poise or greater, and since Eguchi teaches the forming unit having a gas flow rate and cooling, and Eguchi in view of Yoshimoto provides for a computer (i.e. control unit) to control the melting furnace gas flow rate, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the glass manufacturing apparatus wherein the condition is that of the temperature of the molten glass material is at or below the yield point of the glass and the control unit is configured to control the forming unit gas flow to form molten glass material and cool the molten glass material, prior to removing the glass material from the mold, which meets the conditions of claim 5, and the glass manufacturing apparatus wherein the condition is that of the temperature of the molten glass material is at or below the yield point of the glass and at or above the glass transition temperature and the control unit is configured to control the forming the forming unit gas flow to form molten glass material and cool the molten glass material, prior to removing the glass material from the mold, which meets the conditions of claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 12-13, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP2012-236758A – hereinafter Nakamura).
For the Nakamura reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi discloses a forming unit (“melting furnace” for floating and forming) and the forming unit is configured to form molten glass material. However, Eguchi fails to disclose the forming unit includes a forming member configured to form the molten glass material by pressing the forming member against the molten glass material. However, Nakamura (Figs. 1-2, abstract, pgs. 5-6) teaches a mold including a lower mold and an upper molding surface to change the shape of the top surface of the glass by pressing the molten glass material from above. Both Eguchi and Nakamura disclose apparatus and methods for molding glass. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi could be modified to include a forming member configured to form the molten glass material by pressing the forming member from above against top surface of the glass to change the shape of the top surface. This provides for the limitations claimed in claims 7 and 12.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12 above, Eguchi (Figs. 1 and 2 and pg. 2) teaches a recess 13 combined with stage 3 having ports 12. The recess 13 and stage 3 correspond to the support unit and ports 12 correspond to outlets configured to eject gas to support the glass material in a non-contact manner. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Eguchi includes a support unit configured to support the glass in a non-contact mode. Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before or after the ejection of the floating gas, or at the same time as the ejection of the floating gas. Accordingly, since heating may occur before ejection of the floating gas, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the support unit of the modified apparatus of Eguchi configured to support in a contact mode.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the rejection of claim 7 above, Eguchi (pg. 2) teaches materials for the forming unit that can withstand the heat received when glass raw material is melted, such as stainless steel, aluminum, carbon, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and aluminum nitride. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Eguchi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the forming unit comprises material that can withstand the heat received when glass raw material is melted, such as stainless steel, aluminum, carbon, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and aluminum nitride. These materials provide for forming members that have a melting point of 500 degrees C or more, as claimed.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the rejection of claim 7 above, Eguchi (pg. 2) teaches materials for the forming unit that can withstand the heat received when glass raw material is melted, such as stainless steel, aluminum, carbon, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and aluminum nitride. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Eguchi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the forming unit comprises material that can withstand the heat received when glass raw material is melted, such as aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP2012-236758A – hereinafter Nakamura) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-274898).
For the Utsuki reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 7 above, the modified apparatus of Eguchi provides for a forming configured to press against the molten glass material. However, Utsuki (Fig. 4 abstract, and pg. 5) discloses molding a glass in a softened state by wind pressure in a porous body 3 of the molding die and (pg. 11) teaches an upper molding die 8 and a cylindrical side wall 4 in contact with the molten glass material for molding a shape. Eguchi, Nakamura, and Utsuki teach apparatus and methods for molding glass. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the forming unit may include an additional forming member, such as a side wall, to surround the molten glass material so that during pressing of the forming member against molten glass material the additional forming member surrounds the molten glass material to mold the shape of the molten glass material. Accordingly, the modified apparatus of Eguchi in view of Nakamura and Utsuki provides for the forming unit includes multiple forming members and is configured to form the molten glass material by pressing multiple forming members against the molten glass.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the rejection of claim 7 and 8 above, Nakamura and Utsuki teach forming members, such as a lower mold surface and upper mold surface having a curved surface. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, one or the forming members having an arcuate form to provide for a desired shape for molding.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP2012-236758A – hereinafter Nakamura) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-274898) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tomita (JP2005231946A).
For the Tomita reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the modified apparatus of Eguchi in view of Nakamura and Utsuki teaches multiple forming members configured to press against the molten glass material. The references fail to disclose the forming unit includes four or more forming members and is configured to form the molten glass material by driving the multiple forming members within a predetermined plane. However, Tomita (Figures and pg. 6) teaches upper and lower molds for shaping where the upper mold includes an upper trunk mold and a lower mold including a lower trunk mold for shaping. Eguchi, Nakamura, Utsuki, and Tomita teach apparatus for molding glass. Based on the additional teachings by Tomita that an upper mold and lower mold may include additional molding bodies, such as trunk molds, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Eguchi including additional forming members, such as four or more forming members configured to form the molten glass material and multiple forming members that can be driven within a predetermined plane, since it has been taught by Tomita.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, the modified apparatus of Eguchi in view of Nakamura and Utsuki teaches multiple forming members configured to press against the molten glass material. The references fail to disclose the cross-section of the forming member in the direction of gravity is L-shaped. However, Tomita (Figures and pg. 6) teaches upper and lower molds for shaping where the upper mold includes an upper trunk mold and a lower mold including a lower trunk mold for shaping. The lower trunk mold 3 in a cut cross-section appears to be L-shaped in the direction of gravity. Based on the additional teachings by Tomita, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, additional mold members as having an L-shaped cross-section in the direction of gravity.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP2012-234578A – hereinafter Nakamura) as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-274898).
For the Utsuki reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus of Eguchi fails to disclose the forming unit includes an auxiliary member configured to surround the molten glass material and the forming unit is configured to press the forming member against the molten glass material surrounded by the auxiliary member. However, Utsuki (Fig. 4, abstract, and pg. 5) discloses molding a glass in a softened state by wind pressure in a porous body 3 of the molding die and discloses an upper mold 8-1 used in conjunction with a cylindrical side wall 4 for molding a shape. Eguchi, Nakamura, and Utsuki teach apparatus for molding glass. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Utsuki, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified forming unit of Eguchi may include an auxiliary member to surround the molten glass material so that during pressing of the forming member against molten glass material the auxiliary member surrounds the molten glass material to mold the shape of the molten glass material.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above, Utsuki discloses a cylindrical side wall. Therefore, the modified apparatus of Eguchi provides for the auxiliary member is configured to be tubular, as claimed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP2012-234578A – hereinafter Nakamura) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-274898) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of JP2005-281106A – hereinafter JP’106.
For the JP’106 reference the Examiner is referencing the machine translation provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above, the modified apparatus of Eguchi includes a forming member configured to press against the top of the molten glass material and provides for a cylindrical forming member to press against the molten glass material to form the molten glass material. Eguchi in view of Nakamura and Utsuki fail to disclose the cylindrical forming member as multiple other forming members that drive in a predetermined plane intersecting the gravity direction. However, JP’106 (Figures) discloses cylindrical guide members 50 and 60 made of multiple parts with the ability to open and close in a direction that intersects gravity. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cylindrical forming members of Utsuki made of multiple parts to form a cylindrical forming member and the ability to open and close the multiple parts to provide for the cylindrical mold. The obviousness is based on a prior art teachings by JP’106 of providing a cylindrical member in a molding apparatus.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Utsuki et al. (JP2009-256127A – hereinafter JP’127) and Utsuki et al. (JP2001163627A – hereinafter JP’627).
For the JP’127 and JP’627 references the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 17, Eguchi fails to disclose the forming unit includes a suction device configured to form the molten glass material by suction. However, JP’127 (Figs. 1-3 and abstract) teaches a glass manufacturing device for molding a glass by floating a molten glass gob. JP’127 (pg. 13) teaches to shape the upper surface of the glass a suction of the upper surface by applying a negative pressure to the upper surface and JP’627 teaches a suction nozzle (pg. 3 and Figures) to generate a negative pressure on the upper surface of a glass gob to rais the upper surface. Eguchi, JP’127, and JP’627 teach apparatus for molding and shaping glass. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi could be modified to provide the capability of shaping the upper surface of the molten glass material by suction with a suction unit.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the rejection of claim 17 above, Eguchi (Figs. 1-2) discloses the forming unit having a cylindrical like shape. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Eguchi wherein the forming unit is cylindrical.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the rejection of claim 17 above, JP’127 (Fig. 1 and pg. 11) also discloses a side-wall portion 4 having a surface 4-1 to provide for a cylindrical surface shape in contact with the glass, and therefore, pressing against the molten glass material. Accordingly, in addition to a suction unit, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Eguchi including a side-wall portion to provide for the ability to provide for a cylindrical side surface shape. This provides for a suction unit and a forming member configured to form molten glass material and molten glass material is formed by suctioning the molten glass material with the suction unit and pressing the forming member against the molten glass material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, based on the teachings by JP’127 and JP’627 discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the suction unit of the forming unit disposed around the forming member in a plane perpendicular to the gravity direction in order to shape the upper surface of the molten glass material.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146).
For the Eguchi reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (Figs. 1 and 2 and pg. 2) discloses a recess 13 combined with stage 3 having ports 12. The recess 13 and stage 3 correspond to the support unit and ports 12 correspond to outlets configured to eject gas to support the glass material in a non-contact manner. Accordingly, Eguchi discloses the support unit configured to support the glass in a non-contact mode. Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before or after the ejection of the floating gas, or at the same time as the ejection of the floating gas. Accordingly, since heating may occur before ejection of the floating gas, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the support unit (recess 13 and stage 3) configured to support in a contact mode.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before the ejection of the floating gas. This is interpreted as providing for the support unit is configured to stop the gas before a forming process by the forming unit.
Regarding claim 38, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (pg. 5) discloses the glass melt is floated from the melting furnace and (pg. 7) discloses heating and melting by a carbon dioxide laser, as the melting progresses the glass raw material 1 became a shape due to surface tension, heating the glass for 20 seconds in a floating state, stopping the laser and cooling the glass. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the apparatus of Eguchi, the forming unit is configured to form the molten glass material while floating the gas, and therefore, this would include the forming unit is configured to form during at least a part of the period in which gas is ejected from the outlet and blown onto the molten glass material in the support unit.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (JP2020-186146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yono et al. (US 2006/0205095A1).
Regarding claim 25, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Eguchi (Figs. 1 and 2 and pg. 2) discloses a recess 13 combined with stage 3 having ports 12. The recess 13 and stage 3 correspond to the support unit and ports 12 correspond to outlets configured to eject gas to support the glass material in a non-contact manner. Accordingly, Eguchi discloses the support unit configured to support the glass in a non-contact mode. Eguchi (pg.3) also teaches the timing of starting heating before or after the ejection of the floating gas, or at the same time as the ejection of the floating gas. Accordingly, since heating may occur before ejection of the floating gas, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the support unit (recess 13 and stage 3) configured to support in a contact mode.
Eguchi fails to disclose the support unit is configured to support the glass material in a non-contact manner using electrostatic force. However, Yono (abstract) teaches it is known in the art that a ferroelectric glass levitated using an electrostatic levitation process or a gas levitation process. Yono and Eguchi teach methods of levitation with forming molten glass. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, for a ferroelectric glass, the apparatus could be modified to provide for the capability to use electrostatic force as an alternative force to support the glass in a non-contact manner.
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 8:15am-4:15pm.
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
Prosecution Insights