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 without traverse of Group II, claims 13-20, 22, and 24 in the reply filed on Jul. 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: block 106 is not in the specificaton. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 claims “a multi-port burner configured to form the carbon soot by thermally decomposing a hydrocarbon using a flame”. The Examiner interprets the configured to language as reciting intended use of the burner, and therefore, the hydrocarbon source has not been positively recited in the claims and is not required in the claim. Additionally, claim 18, which depends from claim 15, claims the hydrocarbon is acetylene, the Examiner interprets, acetylene is not required in the claim.
Claims 16 claims configured to language that includes the hydrocarbon source, since the hydrocarbon source is not positively recited in claim 15 and is directed towards intended use of the burner, the Examiner interprets the hydrocarbon is not required in the claim.
Claims 17 claims configured to language that includes natural gas, since the natural gas is not positively recited in the claim, it is interpreted as an intended use limitation of the burner, and the Examiner interprets natural gas is not required in the claim.
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 14-18 and 20 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 14 claims properties of the solid lubricant formed by operating the apparatus. It is unclear to the Examiner what additional structural limitation to the system is being claimed. Please clarify claim 14. Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14 and are also indefinite.
Claim 20 claims limitations directed towards the material formed by the material worked upon by the apparatus. It is unclear to the Examiner what additional structural limitation to the system is being claimed. Please clarify claim 20.
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) 13-16, 18-20, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mine et al. (US 5,785,727) in view of Tsuchimoto et al. (JP11-180720A – hereinafter Tsuchimoto), Bando et al. (JP2001-335340A – hereinafter Bando and Scott et al. (US 2003/0221455 – hereinafter Scott).
Regarding claim 13, Mine (Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, lines 1-21) discloses a glass forming machine (corresponding to a system for forming a glass article) comprising: a mold assembly comprising a mold body (“bottom mold 12”) and a plunger 14, the mold body defining an open cavity and the mold body configured to receive a glass-containing material in a molten state (“gob 22”). Mine provides for the plunger is configured to be actuated towards the mold body and into the open cavity to press the glass-containing material (“gob 22”) into a closed volume defined by the mold body and the plunger to form the glass article, and the closed volume having a 3-dimentional shape, by (figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, lines 2-21) disclosing a downward movement of the plunger into the open cavity of the mold body to press gob 22 into glass article 24 and illustration of the bottom mold, plunger, and glass article.
Mine (Figs. 1 and 4, Col. 3, lines 1-21, ) discloses a lubricant spray device 16 for spraying lubricant arranged in proximity to a bottom mold and the plunger and operated and controlled to spray lubricant onto the mold surfaces of the bottom mold and the plunger. This provides for an assembly for forming a lubricant on active surfaces of the mold assembly comprising first surfaces that define the closed volume.
Mine fails to disclose one or more pairs of sliding surfaces to make contact with the plunger when the plunger is activated towards the mold body, the active surfaces comprising all of the first surfaces and at least one second surface of each of the one or more pairs of second surfaces.
However, Mine (Col. 1, lines 5-11) teaches the glass forming machine for pressing molten glass into panel glass or funnel glass for a CRT and Tsuchimoto (Figures and pg. 6) discloses manufacturing glass products such as cathode ray tube panels and funnels comprising an upper die 5 (corresponding to a plunger) including a ring mold 6 (corresponding to one or more pairs of second surfaces) including a molding surface and a lower mold 2 (corresponding to a mold body) having an open cavity. Additionally, Bando (Figs. 1-3 and pg. 3) teaches a mold having a mold body 1, similar to the bottom molds (i.e. mold body) of Mine and Tsuchimoto, a plunger 3 similar to the plunger of Mine and Tsuchimoto, and a ring mold 2 similar to the ring mold of Tsuchimoto. Bando teaches the ring mold is positioned such that the plunger moves and makes sliding contact with the ring portion when the plunger is actuated towards the mold body. Both Mine and Tsuchimoto, and Bando teach molds comprising a plunger and mold body. Mine and Tsuchimoto disclose molds for forming cathode ray tube panels and funnel glass, and Tsuchimoto and Bando teach variations of ring molds combined with a bottom mold. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Tsuchimoto and Bando, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mold of Mine modified to include a ring mold 6 as an additional molding surface that includes one or more pairs of second surfaces and modified such that the plunger moves and makes sliding contact with the ring portion when the plunger is activated towards the mold in order to mold a glass article.
The modified mold assembly of Mine in view of Tsuchimoto and Bando provides for the mold assembly further comprising one or more pairs of second surfaces configured to make sliding contact when the plunger is actuated towards the mold body, and provides for active surfaces comprising all of the first surfaces and one or more pairs of second surfaces, as claimed.
While Mine discloses a lubricant assembly and Mine in view of Tsuchimoto and Bando provides for a lubricant assembly to form lubricant on active surfaces (corresponding to all molding surfaces – including all of the first surfaces and at least one second surface of each of the one or more pairs of second surfaces), Mine fails to disclose a burner assembly configured to form solid lubricant on active surfaces of the mold assembly. However, Scott ([0002]) teaches as a substitute for oil (i.e. lubricant) a method of forming a thin layer of carbon soot, and teaches a burner whose flame is directed towards a mold to form the carbon soot coating. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Scott, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the lubricant assembly 16 could be substituted by a burner (i.e. burner assembly) whose flame is directed towards the surfaces to form carbon soot coating to provide for a solid lubricant on active surfaces of the mold assembly.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, Mine discloses spraying lubricant onto the mold surfaces of the bottom mold and the plunger and the modified method of Mine provides for a solid lubricant of carbon soot coating disposed on the active surfaces, which includes at least one second surface of each of the one or more pairs of second surfaces. Based on the molding surfaces discloses by Mine in view of Tsuchimoto and Bando, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Mine capable of providing for the solid lubricant is carbon soot disposed in a continuous layer on the active surfaces.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the rejection of claim 14 above, Scott (abstract, Figs. 4-7 and [0014]-[0018] and [0023]-[0024]) teaches an acetylene-based fuel for a burner 216 and teaches a mixing burner 216 with a tip 56 inserted coaxially into an annular cap 58 and the tip having an annular array of , passages 62. Accordingly, Scott teaches a multiport burner configured to form carbon soot by thermally decomposing a hydrocarbon (i.e. acetylene-based fuel), and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the modified method of Mine to use a known prior art burner assembly to form carbon soot in a mold, such as the multiport burner configured to form the carbon soot by thermally decomposing a hydrocarbon using a flame, as taught by Scott.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the rejections of claims 14 and 15 above, Scott (abstract) discloses the burner are provided with solenoid valves to permit the burner to be operated intermittently. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the modified burner assembly of Mine is configured to provide a pulsed supply of the hydrocarbon to the multi-port burner to form the carbon soot, as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Scott (abstract, Figs. 4-7 and [0014]-[0018] and [0023]-[0024]) teaches an acetylene-based fuel for a burner. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the hydrocarbon is acetylene.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, Mine discloses downward movement of the plunger into the bottom mold. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, this provides for the closed volume decreases until the plunger is actuated to a predetermined distance from the mold body and provides for the closed volume configured to form the glass article with a thickness when the plunger is at the predetermined distance. While Mine, Tsuchimoto and Bando fail to disclose the thickness of less than or equal to approximately 2 mm, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the thickness is a design choice of the article to be produced, and therefore, it would be obvious to configure the apparatus to provide for the desired thickness, such as less than or equal to approximately 2 mm, as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the rejection of claim 13 above, Mine (Figs. 2 and 3) suggests a thickness varies in the glass article 24 (see thickness geometry of glass article in Fig. 3). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, wherein the thickness varies, as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, the modified mold of Mine in view of Tsuchimoto and Bando provides for the mold assembly comprising a ring mold (corresponding to a ring portion). Tsuchimoto and Bando teach the ring mold covers a peripheral portion of the open cavity of the mold body, the ring portion defining a portion of the closed volume. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified mold of Mine comprises the claimed ring portion.
Regarding claim 24, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above, the modified mold of Mine in view of Tsuchimoto and Bando provides for the mold assembly comprising a ring mold (corresponding to a ring portion) and the modified mold of Mind could be further modified such that the plunger moves and makes sliding contact with the ring portion when the plunger is activated towards the mold, since it is known in the prior art.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mine et al. (US 5,785,727) in view of Tsuchimoto et al. (JP11-180720A – hereinafter Tsuchimoto) and Scott et al. (US 2003/0221455 – hereinafter Scott) as applied to claims 13-15 above, and further in view of Virey (US RE34785E).
Regarding claim 17, Mine, Tsuchimoto, and Scott fail to disclose the burner assembly is configured to provide a continuous supply of natural gas to the multi-port burner to maintain the flame, but Virey (abstract and Example 1) teaches a process for lubricating a mold using an oxy-fuel flame and injection of hydrocarbons. Virey teaches a flame is directed towards the mold and applying a pulse of acetylene into the flame. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Virey, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified lubrication assembly of Mine including a burner assembly could be modified to also include a natural gas supplied to the burner to maintain the flame for lubrication of the mold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dannoux US2010/0127420 teaches a mold assembly coated with carbon soot, but fails to disclose a burner assembly, and the glass is not in a molten state.
Eagle et al. (US5888266) teaches coating on plunger with burners 46 and receiving glass in a molten state for molding.
Seeman (US5679409) teaches nozzle 20 with natural gas provides a pilot flame for igniting the lubricating mixture.
AU618144B2 teaches acetylene torch multiport for providing a mold with carbon coating material.
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