DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “105” has been used to designate both abutment actuator means (Figures 6a and 6b) and anti-adhesive material (Figure 7) and further reference character “103” has been used to designate both anti-adhesive material (Figures 6a and 6b) and abutment actuator means (Figure 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Figures 5a and 5b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see paragraph 0010 of the instant specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: heating means 110 (see paragraph 0042). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“padding means comprising a pad”, sufficient structure, materials, or acts of a pad, and “actuator means adapted to move said pad”, sufficient structure, materials, or acts of an actuator, in claim 1;
“abutment actuator means for moving said abutment”, sufficient structure, materials, or acts of an actuator, in claim 6;
“heating means”, interpreted as a heater and considered sufficient structure, materials, or acts of a heater, in claim 10;
“actuator means are adapted to move the pad”, sufficient structure, materials, or acts of an actuator, in claim 13; and
“abutment actuator means”, sufficient structure, materials, or acts of an actuator, in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenhardt et al. (EP 0823531 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Lenhardt discloses a method for applying a thermoplastic (e.g. polyisobutylene) spacer to a glass sheet (33) for making an insulating glass, the method comprising steps of: (a) applying a first section (45) of thermoplastic material of reduced and substantially constant thickness by means of a nozzle (17) (Figure 7); (b) applying a second section (36) in which the thickness of the thermoplastic material gradually increases from the thickness of the first section to an operating thickness (Figure 8); (c) applying a third section (35) in which the thermoplastic material has the operating thickness (Figure 9); (d) applying a fourth section, of thermoplastic material substantially superimposed on the first section in which the thickness is substantially the same as that of step (c) (Figure 22); and (e) applying a fifth section substantially superimposed on the second section in which the thickness of the fifth section gradually decreases until closure of the nozzle so that a sum of the thicknesses of the second section and the fifth section is substantially equal to the operating thickness (Figure 22); wherein the method comprises a step (f) in which the first section is pressed towards the glass sheet through a pad (slide 26 is a flat structure and considered a pad attached to the nozzle) in an extracted (open) position (the tip of the slider acts like a spatula when applying the first section pressing the first section against the glass sheet in step (a)); the step (f) being before step (d) (Paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0026, and 0034 of the machine translation).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0305973) in view of Schubert (DE 4433749 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Schuler discloses an apparatus configured for applying a first material or article worked upon (e.g. thermoplastic spacer 2) to a second material or article worked upon (e.g. glass sheet 4), the apparatus comprising a lower support (conveyor 29) and a lateral support (wall 31) for the second material or article worked upon, a nozzle (1), and feeding means (hollow shaft 5 for feeding the first material or article worked upon and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a feed supply 15 shown in Figure 8) for feeding the nozzle with the first material or article worked upon; wherein the apparatus further comprises padding means positioned to act at a first section of first material or article worked upon the padding means comprising a pad (flat die 38) and means adapted to move the pad according to an axis (Z) substantially perpendicular to a position of the lateral support, from a retracted position to an extracted position in which the pad is adapted to apply a pressure at the first section of the first material or article worked upon distributed on the second material or article worked upon (Figures 1-5, 10, and 14-16 and Paragraphs 0050-0052, 0062-0064, and 0067-0070).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “positioning means for moving said nozzle with respect to said glass sheet”, Schuler teaches the nozzle is moved with respect to the glass sheet (Paragraph 0053) without expressly teaching “positioning means”. Schuler teaches moving the nozzle in accordance with Schubert (Paragraph 0011). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to move the nozzle (17) with respect to the glass sheet (33/4)/second material or article worked upon by positioning means (a support 1 and drive 3 on a traverse 2 and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a support 14 and traverse shown in Figure 8) as evidenced by Schubert (Figure 2 and Pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the apparatus taught by Schuler comprise positioning means configured for conventionally and predictably moving the nozzle with respect to the second material or article worked upon/glass sheet as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Schubert.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “actuator means adapted to move said pad” and claim 9, Schuler necessarily teaches means adapted to move the pad according to the axis (Z) substantially perpendicular to a position of the lateral support, from a retracted position to an extracted position in which the pad is adapted to apply a pressure at the first section of the first material or article worked upon distributed on the second material or article worked upon (see arrow 39 of Figures 14-16 and Paragraphs 0065 and 0066) without expressly teaching actuator means. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to move a pad (slide) according to the axis (Z) substantially perpendicular to a position of the glass sheet/second material or article worked upon, from a retracted position to an extracted position in which the pad is adapted to apply a pressure at the material/first material or article worked upon distributed on the glass sheet by actuator means (actuator comprising electric motor and rack and pinion) as evidenced by Schuler (Paragraph 0051) and Schubert (Figure 3 and Pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the apparatus taught by Schuler comprise actuator means (and regarding claim 9 wherein the actuator means are of electric type) adapted to conventionally and predictably move the pad as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Schuler and Schubert.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “a thermoplastic spacer”, “a glass sheet”, and “a first section of thermoplastic material, with a reduced thickness”, the claim is directed to an apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). Schuler as modified by Schubert teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “a thermoplastic spacer”, “a glass sheet”, and “a first section of thermoplastic material, with a reduced thickness” wherein as the first material or article worked upon is a thermoplastic spacer with a first section of thermoplastic material with a reduced thickness placed opposite the pad and a glass sheet as the second material or article worked upon.
Regarding claim 2, Schuler as modified by Schubert teach the actuator means are adapted to move the pad from the extracted position to the retracted position necessarily at a speed so that the pad is then positioned to act on another section of the first material or article worked upon or the applied and pressed materials or articles worked upon are removed from the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the actuator means are adapted to move the pad from the extracted position to the retracted position as taught by Schuler as modified by Schubert at a speed sufficient to move the pad so that the pad is then positioned to act on another section of the first material or article worked upon or the applied and pressed materials or articles worked upon are removed from the apparatus such as of at least 5 m/s it being noted there is no evidence of record the claimed range is critical and Schuler and Schubert do not each away from the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Schuler teaches surfaces to contact the first material or article worked upon comprise a material such as polytetrafluoroethylene so that residues of the first material or article worked upon do not remain adhered to the surface (Paragraph 0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pad taught by Schuler as modified by Schubert is covered, on its surface intended to come into contact with a material of the first material or article worked upon, with an anti-adherent material wherein the anti-adherent material is polytetrafluoroethylene so that residues of the first material or article worked upon do not remain adhered to the surface as taught by Schuler.
Regarding claim 5, Schuler teaches an abutment (considered either a lower part of the lateral support 31 and/or an unlabeled support behind the lateral support 31 see Figure 10) adapted to act substantially according to the axis (Z) in antagonism with respect to the pad to counteract a thrust of the pad against the second material or article worked upon.
Regarding claim 8, Schuler teaches the padding means moveable (up and down) on a rail (32) without expressly teaching the structure to move the padding means. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to move a means on a support (1 and analogous to the rail) using a drive (3) as evidenced by Schubert (Figure 2 and Pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the padding means taught by Schuler as modified by Schubert comprise a second actuator (of a drive) for conventionally and predictably moving the pad (up and down) as is well understood in the art as evidenced by Schubert.
As to the limitation in claim 8 of “for moving said pad along an application direction of the thermoplastic spacer, but in an opposite orientation” this limitation is a functional limitation. Schuler as modified by Schubert above teach all of the structural limitations of the claim and is configured “for moving said pad along an application direction of the thermoplastic spacer, but in an opposite orientation” wherein when the application direction of the thermoplastic spacer on the glass sheet was in a direction corresponding to down in Figure 11 the apparatus operated to move the pad up or when the application direction of the thermoplastic spacer on the glass sheet was in a direction corresponding to up in Figure 11 the apparatus operated to move the pad down.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Schuler teaches surfaces to contact the first material or article worked upon are heated to a temperature of about 130°C at which the first material or article worked upon can be plastically shaped (Paragraphs 022 and 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pad taught by Schuler as modified by Schubert comprises heating means (i.e. a heater) wherein the heating means are adapted to increase a temperature of the surface of the pad up to a temperature about 130°C at which the first material or article worked upon can be plastically shaped as taught by Schuler.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler and Schubert as applied to claims 1-5 and 8-11 above, and further in view of Mader (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0102622).
Regarding claim 7, Schuler as modified by Schubert above do not expressly teach a series of idle wheels having a rotation axis parallel to an axis (Y), perpendicular to the axis (Z) and to an axis (X) along which the second material or article worked upon is moved. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to include a series of idle wheels (rollers 4 and/or wheels 7 see Figures 1 and 2 of Mader) having a rotation axis parallel to an axis (Y), perpendicular to the axis (Z) and to an axis (X) along which the second material or article worked upon is moved to ensure the exact course of the second material or article worked upon in the apparatus as evidenced by Mader (Paragraphs 0029-0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the apparatus taught by Schuler as modified by Schubert comprise a series of idle wheels having a rotation axis parallel to an axis (Y), perpendicular to the axis (Z) and to an axis (X) along which the second material or article worked upon is moved to ensure the exact course of the second material or article worked upon in the apparatus as taught by Mader.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenhardt in view of Mader.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lenhardt discloses an apparatus configured for applying a first material or article worked upon (e.g. thermoplastic spacer) to a second material or article worked upon (e.g. glass sheet 33), the apparatus comprising a nozzle (17) and positioning means (a support 1 and drive 3 on a traverse 2 and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a support 14 and traverse shown in Figure 8) for moving the nozzle with respect to the second material or article worked upon, and feeding means (refillable piston-cylinder units 11 and 12 for feeding the first material or article worked upon and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a feed supply 15 shown in Figure 8) for feeding the nozzle with the first material or article worked upon; wherein the apparatus further comprises padding means positioned to act at a first section of first material or article worked upon, with a reduced thickness, the padding means comprising a pad (slide 26) and actuator means (actuator comprising electric motor 31, toothing 29, and pinion 30 and regarding claim 9 the actuator means are of electric type) adapted to move the pad according to an axis (Z) substantially perpendicular to a position of the second material or article worked upon, from a retracted (closed) position to an extracted (open) position in which the pad is adapted to apply a pressure at the first section of the first material or article worked upon distributed on the second material or article worked upon (Figures 5-9 and 19-22 and Paragraphs 0021, 0022, 0026, 0029, and 0034 of the machine translation).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “a lower support and a lateral support for said glass sheet”, Lenhardt does not expressly teach the structure to support the second material or article worked upon. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the structure to support the second material or article worked upon (e.g. glass sheet) for applying the first material or article worked upon (e.g. spacer) to the second material or article worked upon is a lower support (horizontal conveyor 5) and a lateral support (support field 2) for the second material or article worked upon as evidenced by Mader (Figures 1 and 2 and Paragraphs 0028-0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the apparatus taught by Lenhardt further comprise a lower support and a lateral support for the second material or article worked upon to support the second material or article worked upon for applying the first material or article worked upon as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Mader.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “a thermoplastic spacer”, “a glass sheet”, and “a first section of thermoplastic material, with a reduced thickness”, the claim is directed to an apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations as discussed above (see MPEP 2114 and 2115). Lenhardt as modified by Mader teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim as set forth above and is configured for “a thermoplastic spacer”, “a glass sheet”, and “a first section of thermoplastic material, with a reduced thickness” wherein as the first material or article worked upon is a thermoplastic spacer with a first section of thermoplastic material with a reduced thickness below the pad and a glass sheet as the second material or article worked upon.
Regarding claim 5, Lenhardt as modified by Mader teach an abutment (considered either a lower part of the lateral support and/or machine frame 1 and/or rollers 4 and/or wheels 7 see Figures 1 and 2 of Mader) adapted to act substantially according to the axis (Z) in antagonism with respect to the pad to counteract a thrust of the pad against the second material or article worked upon.
Regarding claim 7, Lenhardt as modified by Mader teaches the apparatus comprising a series of idle wheels (rollers 4 and/or wheels 7 see Figures 1 and 2 of Mader) having a rotation axis parallel to an axis (Y), perpendicular to the axis (Z) and to an axis (X) along which the second material or article worked upon is moved.
Regarding claim 14, Lenhardt is described above in full detail regarding claim 12. Lenhart as modified by Mader above teach an abutment (considered either a lower part of the lateral support and/or machine frame 1 and/or rollers 4 and/or wheels 7 see Figures 1 and 2 of Mader) and thus, Lenhardt as modified by Mader teach a step (g) in which the pad, thermoplastic material, glass sheet, and an abutment is driven together by the actuator means which abutment is adapted to act substantially according to an axis (Z) in antagonism with respect to the pad to counteract a thrust of the pad against the glass sheet.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenhardt and Mader as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 14 above, and further in view of Saint-Gobain (IE 43649). Additionally, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenhardt in view of Saint-Gobain.
Regarding claim 2, Lenhardt as modified by Mader above teach the actuator means are adapted to move the pad from the extracted position to the retracted position necessarily at a speed without expressly teaching the speed wherein the speed is necessarily at least equal to the speed for applying the spacer so that movement of the pad corresponds with movement of the nozzle. Regarding claim 13, Lenhardt is described above in full detail including the actuator means are adapted to move the pad from the extracted position to the retracted position necessarily at a speed without expressly teaching the speed wherein the speed is necessarily at least equal to the speed for applying the spacer so that movement of the pad corresponds with movement of the nozzle. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art conventional and predictable speed for applying the spacer is at least 0.3 m/s as evidenced by Saint-Gobain (Page 9, lines 19-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the actuator means are adapted to move the pad from the extracted position to the retracted position as taught Lenhardt as modified by Mader and Lenhardt at a speed of at least 0.3 m/s (and including at least 5 m/s it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) as is conventional and predictable speed for applying the spacer (and thus coordination of the movement of the pad therewith) as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Saint-Gobain.
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenhardt and Mader as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 14 above, and further in view of Schuler.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lenhardt as modified by Mader above teach all of the limitations in claims 3 and 4 except for specific teaching the pad is covered, on its surface intended to come into contact with a material of the first material or article worked upon, with an anti-adherent material. Schuler is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pad taught by Lenhardt as modified by Mader is covered, on its surface intended to come into contact with a material of the first material or article worked upon, with an anti-adherent material wherein the anti-adherent material is polytetrafluoroethylene so that residues of the first material or article worked upon do not remain adhered to the surface as taught by Schuler.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Lenhardt as modified by Mader above teach all of the limitations in claims 10 and 11 except for specific teaching the pad comprises heating means (the first material or article worked upon is heated as taught by Lenhardt). Schuler is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pad taught by Lenhardt as modified by Mader comprises heating means (i.e. a heater) wherein the heating means are adapted to increase a temperature of the surface of the pad up to a temperature around about 130°C at which the first material or article worked upon can be plastically shaped as taught by Schuler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15, and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an apparatus for applying a thermoplastic spacer to a glass sheet as claimed and including wherein the abutment comprises abutment actuator means for moving the abutment between a retracted position and an active position in which the abutment approaches the pad to support the glass sheet from a stress of the pad.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for applying a thermoplastic spacer to a glass sheet for making an insulating glass as claimed and including wherein the abutment is moved between a retracted position and an active position in which the abutment approaches the pad to support the glass sheet from a stress of the pad thanks to abutment actuator means.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for applying a thermoplastic spacer to a glass sheet for making an insulating glass as claimed and including a step in which the pad is moved along an axis (Y), in an opposite direction with respect to that of application of the thermoplastic spacer, after the pad has been brought into the extracted position and is in a step of crushing the thermoplastic material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
