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 .
Status of claims
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 are pending. Claim(s) 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoine (CN 102307821) as cited in the machine translation provided herein Kamihori (US 20080028795), Wei et al. CN 1948196 as cited in the machine Translation provided by PE2E Penberthy (GB 804505) and further in view of Murakami CN 103080026 in the machine Translation provided by PE2E and Kumar as previously cited.
Regarding claims 1-2, Antoine discloses discloses a float glass production line (Figure 4, [0105]) for producing a glass substrate and capable of the intended use of producing a “high-generation TFT-LCD glass substrate” (see for example [0004]).
Antoine discloses a melter (402), claimed kiln, with fuel-oxygen burners equivalent to oxygen burning guns above the feed surface [0024], [0035] and electrodes along the wall [0025]
It would be obvious for a skilled artisan to determine the placement of the electrodes as indicated in claim 1 because MPEP 2144.04 indicates:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
In the present instance the placement of the electrodes in the wall symmetrically on both sides as indicated in present claim 1 is an obvious matter of design choice and as motivated to properly melt the glass feed.
Antoine discloses a precious metal channel [0053] comprising connecting pipe (404) considered a heating section given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a clarifying section (406) and a cooling section (409) leading to a stirring section (410) connected to a liquid supply tank (412/414).
Antoine indicates the same structure may be used for a float glass manufacturing process instead of fusion downdraw [0105].
In the analogous art of manufacturing plate glass Kamihori indicates a float bath structure where the liquid glass is connected to a liquid inlet to a tin bath (See fig 2, glass (27) on molten tin (11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the overflow fusion structure with the float bath structure as indicated by Antoine [0105]. Furthermore, Kamihori indicates the glass is drawn at 1-200 tons/day [0074] thus the combined teachings of Antoine and Kamihori overlap the claimed teachings of the production capacity of claim 1. Antoine further indicates the tons of glass per day is determined by the capacity of the furnace/kiln [0024]
The mere scaling up or down of a known method or structure is obvious to a skilled artisan
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, Kamihori indicates an annealing kiln and cutting device [0075].
The combined teachings of Antoine and Kamihori do not disclose two heating-clarifying-cooling sections connected in parallel leading to the stirring section.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced
In the present instance it would be obvious to duplicate the heating-clarifying-cooling section with the predictable result of glass from the furnace being clarified in both sections. Additionally this structure is known in the art as taught by Wei discussed below.
In analogous art for melting and refining glass Wei discloses a structure sending molten glass from the melter through a clarification of a noble metal material- equivalent to the precious metal channel- for refining/clarifying the glass comprising a mixed flow stirring section labeled below for ease:
PNG
media_image1.png
250
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wei Fig 2 shows the claimed mixed flow stirring section; Wei Fig 2 shows two molten glass heating-clarifying-cooling sections (33-1 and 33-2 respectively) are connected in parallel at one end and connected to the kiln to receive the molten glass the other end of the parallel sections are connected to the stirring section (Fig 2 at least 34-1, 34-2) and then to the liquid supply tank of (35 and 36).
Wei states:
from the tank furnace to stir zone with at least two parallel clarifier, clarifying and homogenizing channel in parallel and then to stir in the stir zone. The beneficial effect of the method is further homogenized glass temperature. Because the error of heating and control system cannot be avoided, according to the precision deviation of deviation of the thermocouple detection precision, control system and finally cause a still has some of the temperature difference on the microscopic glass different from clear channel is clarified. Therefore, they are converged together, and performing appropriate stirring, make the further uniform.
Thus it would further be obvious to provide two modify the device of Antoine with two clarifying sections brought back together as motivated for additional refining and homogenizing as discussed by Wei.
The combined teachings of Antoine, Kamihori, and Wei don’t specifically indicate the stirrers operate in different directions:
Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus and MPEP 2114 states apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The stirrers are considered capable of stirring in different directions given the broadest reasonable interpretation and it is known in the art by Penberthy to add stirrers and operate them in alternated directions as motivated to yield a whirlpool for sufficient mixing (Page 4; lines 97-108)
The modification of Antoine, Kamihori, Wei fails to yield the confluence channel with spoilers distributed in the confluence channel in a staggered manner yielding a serpentine flow of the glass of claim 1
In analogous art of stirring molten glass in a channel Murakami discloses spoilers, or plates 202e-f fixed on the metal channel in a staggered manner to yield a serpentine flow to stir the glass and homogenize the glass (Fig 4a included below).
PNG
media_image2.png
232
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the homogenizing channel of Wei with the addition of the plates taught by Murakami as motivated to further agitate and homogenize the molten glass as desired by both Kumar and Wei.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The combined teachings of Wei and Murakami disclose the claimed invention except for the placement of the spoilers of Murakami in reference to the agitators of Wei in the confluence channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange parts, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the spoilers and stirring tank for the purpose of still yielding homogenous glass.
As indicated above, Antoine discloses the overall production line.
The claim is drawn to an apparatus and MPEP 2114 states apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Nevertheless, Kamihori does not indicate the separate temperature zones as recited in present claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rate of cooling, i.e., the temperatures in each section of the lehr, as motivated to reduce stresses in the float glass.
Antoine does not disclose the dimensions of the heating channel, clarification tank, cooling channel, MPEP 2144.04 recites
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In summary of the rejections The prior art shows:
USE OF A KNOWN TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE SIMILAR METHOD OR PRODUCT IN THE SAME WAY
Antione discloses "base" device with a clarifying section to a mixing section to a forming fusion device and suggests the substitution of a fusion structure with a known float structure of Kamihori upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" the float glass production line with a refining section (see rejection of claim 1 )
Wei discloses duplicate parallel clarifying sections for glass from a melter to homogenize and refine glass as shown
PNG
media_image1.png
250
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, Murakami discloses structure in a channel to further mix and homogenize, mix and clarify molten glass:
PNG
media_image3.png
228
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A skilled artisan could easily have applied these known techniques of Wei and Murakami to the base device of Antoine to further refine, clarify, homogenize the molten glass
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, The temperature at the liquid inlet to the float bath does not structurally limit the claimed production line however Kamihori suggest forming temperature for float glass to be 1210 or 1268 deg Celsius [0020] and a skilled artisan would be inclined to optimize the forming temperature based on the glass.
Regarding claim 9, the introduction of the protective atmosphere claimed in claim 9 is an active step. The claim is drawn to an apparatus and MPEP 2114 states apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, Kumar discloses it is known to provide it is critical that oxidation of tin is prevented in the float chamber by using a protective atmosphere of nitrogen/hydrogen. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the proportions of nitrogen to hydrogen as motivated to prevent oxidation in the float bath.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues feature A the production capacity of the kiln and the claimed amount yields a cost reduction. Applicant's arguments against feature A fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The tons/day of glass production is addressed by newly cited Antoine and Kamihori. Furthermore, Antoine recognizes that the capacity size of the furnace controls the production of tons/day. This is not a novel feature, merely an optimization and does not yield an unexpected result.
Applicant argues feature D provides high-quality glass. In response, “high-quality” is relative and the structure taught by Antoine is considered to produce high quality glass.
Applicant argues feature E prevents laminar flow and stagnation, this feature is addressed by
Murakami.
Applicant argues feature F of different stirring directions leaves no blind angle leads to a driving force or resistance to a flow direction of the molten glass. Applicant fails to address the fact that there is no actual limiting structure in stirring in different directions., however this limitation has been addressed by newly cited Penberthy.
Applicant argues feature G of an annealing kiln is multiphase by indicating different temperature. Applicant fails to point to any structural claim limitations that differentiate the claimed annealing kiln from any annealing kiln. Applicant’s arguments discuss a temperature control system and “space stereoscopic mesh” this feature is not claimed and thus is not pertinent to the claimed invention. Any unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Specific arguments regarding Kumar and Zhang are moot in view of the present rejection required in view of the amendments
Applicant’s arguments in view of Wei are moot in view of the present rejection.
The present rejection relies on Antione disclosing the heating-clarifying-cooling channel from the furnace to stirring section to the forming device and obvious duplication of parts, where Wei is cited as indicating it is known to provide two parallel clarification channels conforming to a stirring section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130239618 [0132] 1-100 tons/day, [0065] melting tank (30), [0068] tubular forehearth, [0075] cooling channel 15A
US 20190322563 [0055] Pt tube heating
DE 102005050871 stirrers (5) rotate opposite directions
CN 108698878
The glass manufacturing apparatus 10 may also optionally include a downstream glass manufacturing apparatus 30 downstream of the glass furnace 12. In some embodiments, a portion of the downstream glass manufacturing device 30 can be used as a portion of the glass furnace 12. However, in some cases, the first connection pipe 32 described below, or other part of the downstream glass manufacturing device 30, can be used as a part of the glass furnace 12. The elements of the downstream glass manufacturing apparatus 30 including the first connecting conduit 32 may be formed of a noble metal And connecting device can be further heated to continue the melting process, or can be cooled to a temperature lower than the temperature of the molten glass in the melting container, and then enters the clarifying container.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights