DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: a punctuation is missing from the second providing step. 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.
Claims 18-20 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.
Claims 18 and 19 recite a value log(η/{Ps*s)). It is unclear what the viscosity (η) is being divided by, as the claims suggests Ps*s are the units for viscosity. Furthermore, it is unclear what units Ps*s refer to, since units for viscosity is usually represented by Poise (P) or Pascal (Pa) and seconds (s).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedosik et al. (2017/0261169) in view of Wintzer et al. (2015/0292701), Misusaka et al. (JP H07118026 machine translation provided) and Kuppe et al. (2020/0346964). Regarding claim 9, Fedosik teaches a method for producing a headlight lens, the method comprising providing a heated blank of glass, providing partial molds, and press molding the heated blank between the partial molds to form a headlight lens ([0063]-[0068]) having an integral body made of glass, the integral body comprising at least one light tunnel and a light-passage section having at least one optically active light exit surface, wherein the light tunnel comprises at least one light entry surface and, with a bend, transitions into the light-passage section configured to image the bend as a bright-dark boundary by means of light directed into the light entry surface ([0010]-[0012], [0101], i.e. figure 2).
Furthermore, Fedosik teaches press molding between a first partial mold and at least one second partial mold ([0063], [0068]), wherein the press molding includes molding at least a portion of the light tunnel that comprises the at least one light entry surface by means of a first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0064]), molding a light exit face of the light tunnel by means of a the first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0065]), molding a second light entry face of the light passage section by means of a first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0066]), and/or molding a portion of the light-passage section that has the at least one optically active light exit surface by means of a first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0067]). This suggests the used of multiple second partial molds for the different sections, given their different shapes. As can be seen in figures 2 and 10, a second partial mold used for molding the light tunnel section would not be the same mold used for molding the light-passage section, due to the complexity of their shapes; thereby suggesting the need for a third partial mold. Although the use of three partial molds is not explicitly stated, it is known in the art to employ additional molds for forming multiple optical surfaces of the lens, such as three or more molds. For example, Wintzer teaches a method for making a headlight lens, the method comprising providing a heated glass blank and press molding the heated glass blank using four partial molds (fig. 13, [0085]). Mitsusaka also teaches a method for making an optical element having multiple optical surfaces, the method comprising providing a heated glass blank and press molding the heated glass blank between three partial molds (figures 1-3, [0006]-[0007]). As can be seen in the figures, a first partial mold 5, a second partial mold 1, and a third partial mold 2 are provided for. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have molded at least a portion of the light tunnel by means of a second partial mold, and molded at least a portion of the light-passage section by means of a first partial mold and another second partial mold (a third partial mold) in order to accommodate the formation of complicated lens structure having multiple optical surfaces of Fedosik. As mentioned above, Fedosik teaches molding a portion of the light-passage section by means of a first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0067]), and molding least a portion of the light tunnel that comprises the at least one light entry surface by means of a first partial mold and a second partial mold ([0064]) different from the partial molds from the light passage section. Thus Fedosik teaches the press-molding comprises molding at least a portion of the light passage section via the first partial mold, and moving the second partial mold and the third partial mold towards each other to mold the light tunnel section.
As mentioned, Fedosik teaches providing a heated blank of glass, but doesn’t specify a protective cap cavity. Kuppe also teaches a process for manufacturing a headlight lens by press molding a heated blank of glass between molds (abstract). Kuppe teaches the method for providing for the heated blank of glass comprises providing a furnace having a furnace cavity, providing a protective cap having a protective cap cavity, releasably arranging the protective cap in the furnace cavity ([0050]-[0051]), heating a blank of glass in the protective cap cavity (fig. 14, [0022], [0053]), thereafter removing the blank from the protective cap cavity, and thereafter placing the blank on the first partial mold and press molded ([0065]). Kuppe teaches such an arrangement of a furnace cavity with a protective cap cavity releasably arranged within the furnace cavity allows for easy replacement of the protective cap, reducing downtime ([0057]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar arrangement for providing a heated blank of glass for the method of Fedoski, as it provides for an efficient means providing heated blanks with easy replacement of furnace protective caps, as taught by Kuppe.
Regarding claim 10, as shown in figure 13 of Wintzer, partial mold 402 or 403 can be interpreted to be a third partial mold for molding the light passage section.
Regarding claim 13, Mitsusaka further teaches pressing a first partial mold (5) in a direction orthogonal to the direction of movement of the second and third partial molds (see figures 1-3).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedosik et al. (2017/0261169), Wintzer et al. (2015/0292701), Misusaka et al. (JP H07118026 machine translation provided) and Kuppe et al. (2020/0346964) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sawada (JP 4094210 machine translation provided). Fedosik doesn’t specify an angle between a target pressing direction and an actual pressing direction. However, as is it commonly required for the manufacturing of lens, providing for high precision press molding is often required to produce a lens that can produce the desired refraction. Sawada teaches a method for press molding a lens between partial molds. Sawada teaches a growing demand for methods for producing lens having high precision with improved aberration values ([0003]-[0004]). Sawada teaches one of the causes for aberration is an angle (”tilt value”) between a target pressing direction of the partial mold to the actual pressing direction of the partial mold, and an offset (“decenter”) of the partial mold from its target position in a position orthogonal to the target pressing direction ([0009], [0020], fig.5). Sawada teaches minimizing such an angle to no greater than 10-2 degree, such as 0° ([0052]), and providing for no offset mold by ensuring the molds are centered ([0042]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for press molding of the lens of Fedosik, Wintzer, Misusaka, and Kuppe with zero or near zero tilt angle and offset of the all the partial molds, to ensure high precision for the lens and having little aberrations, as taught by Sawada.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,605. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a method for producing a headlight lens, the method comprising providing a first, second and third partial molds, providing a heated blank of glass, press molding the heated blank between all three partial molds to form a headlight lens having an integral body made of glass, the body comprising a light tunnel, and a light passage section having an optically active light exit surface, the light tunnel comprising a light entry surface and, with a bend, transitions into the light-passage section configured to image the bend as a bright-dark boundary via light directed into the light entry surface, wherein the press-molding comprises molding the light tunnel, the bend, and at least a portion of the light-passage section via the second partial mold, molding at least a portion of the light passage section via the first and third partial molds, and moving the second and third partial molds towards each other. Both further recited providing a ram to press against the second and third partial molds in a direction orthogonal to the movement of the second and third partial molds, and moving the first partial mold in a direction counter to the pressing ram.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wintzer teaches using four partial molds for molding the light tunnel section, and thus fails to specify molding of the light tunnel, the bend, and at least a portion of the light passage section via the second partial mold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights