Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/766,290

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GLASS ARTICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 04, 2022
Examiner
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
519 granted / 839 resolved
-3.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 839 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fransson (SE 454587 machine translation provided) in view of Ueta et al. (WO 2014013885 machine translation). Fransson discloses a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a melting furnace configured to produce a molten glass (2nd and 4th passage on page 2), and a treatment device configured to perform a predetermined treatment on the molten glass (bottom of page 1), the treatment device comprising a treatment tank 14 that extends vertically, the treatment tank to be supplied with the molten glass (bottom full passage on page 2, 3rd passage on page 3), a casing 11 configured to hold the treatment tank (bottom full passage on page 2), and a suspension and support device configured to support the casing in a suspended manner while the treatment device performs the predetermined treatment (bottom two lines on page 2, top passage on page 3, figures 1-2). Fransson teaches treating the molten glass by stirring the molten glass and removing the treated glass afterwards (bottom paragraph of page 1). Fransson doesn’t specify a forming device configured to form the molten glass into a predetermined shape, however, such a device and step is common in the art. For example, Ueta teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a glass article comprising a glass melting furnace (2) configured to produce molten glass, a treatment device (5, 6) configured to perform a predetermined treatment on the produced molten glass, and a forming device (3) configured to form the molten glass into a predetermined shape that has been subjected to the predetermined treatment (figure 1, abstract). Like Fransson, Ueta also teaches the treatment comprises stirring (abstract). Ueta further teaches forming the molten glass into a glass plate after the treatment using a forming body. Naturally, the treatment of the molten glass in the treatment device is not the last processing step for molten glass, as a glass article is usually desired. 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 forming device for forming the molten glass into a glass article having a desired shape, as further processing is often required to provide for a final glass article. Regarding claims 2-3 and 7, as can be seen in figures 1-2 of Fransson, the casing appears to be a cube, which would naturally have a rectangular shape in plan view and a vertical cross section with a shape symmetrical with respect to a vertical line passing through a center, in a transverse direction, of the vertical cross section. Furthermore a cube shape would provide for a bottom portion and a pair of side wall portions being upright with respect to the bottom portion, such that the inner surface of each side wall is perpendicular to the upper surface of the bottom portion. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 8-10 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: While Ueta teaches the treatment tank comprises a plurality of stirring tanks, wherein a stirrer is accommodated in each of the stirring tanks and the molten glass supplied to stirring tanks is stirred through rotation of the stirrer (figure 2, 4th passage on page 3), it would not be obvious to modify the treatment device of Fransson comprising a treatment tank and a casing holding the treatment tank, wherein the casing is supported in a suspended manner, to comprise of multiple tanks having rotating stirrers. This is because replacing the stirring motion of Fransson with rotating stirrers would eliminate the need to suspend the casing and tank, as Fransson provides stirring by pivoting the casing with the tank. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed January 29, 2026, with respect to Snyder have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection of claim 1 under Ueta and Snyder has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fransson. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 31, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 31, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 29, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600658
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PLATINUM FREE MELTING OF HIGH INDEX GLASSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595200
MOLTEN GLASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590025
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING GLASS ELEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590028
METHOD FOR TREATMENT OF A GLASS SUBSTRATE WITH IMPROVED EDGE STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570565
GLASS TUBE CONVERTING PROCESS WITH PIERCING DURING INDEX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+11.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 839 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month