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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 01-14-2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 18 recites “an adjacent group of two inlet ports”. It appears this should be --an adjacent group of at least two inlet ports-- in order to be consistent with the rest of lines 16-19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, it appears “convention” should be --convective--. 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.
Claim 28 is 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 28 recites the limitation "the convective cooling system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 28 should now depend from amended claim 27.
However, if claim 28 is amended to depend from claim 27, another clarity issue would arise. Specifically, claim 28 recites “a plurality of nozzles” in line 3. Claim 27 also recites “a plurality of nozzles” in line 4, and it would be unclear if the plurality of nozzles in claim 28 is the same as or different than the plurality of nozzles in claim 27.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima ‘373 (US 2009/0205373 A1) in view of Sensi ‘275 (US 3,355,275).
Regarding claim 6, Kojima ‘373 teaches:
a glass feed unit configured to supply a stream of glass in a first direction, wherein the glass is molten when supplied by the glass feed unit (furnace 1, toe-heel 2, melt supply lip 3, Fig. 1; ¶ [0063])
a gas bearing disposed below the glass feed unit, the gas bearing configured to redirect the stream of glass to a second direction different from the first direction without contacting the stream of glass, wherein the gas bearing includes a convex surface and a concave surface defining a gas therebetween, the gap configured to receive the stream of glass (gas ejection/discharge rotary roll(s) 5 and gas ejection/discharge concave body support(s) 6, Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0064], [0066], [0068], [0071]-[0072]).
Kojima ‘373 is silent regarding an air table and a plurality of modular devices as claimed. However, Kojima ‘373 teaches slow cooling zone equipment 16, which is illustrated as a non-contact table with some structure also disposed above the table (Fig. 1; ¶ [0070]). In analogous art of glass sheet manufacturing, Sensi ‘275 suggests cooling zone equipment (apparatus 20 and/or lehr 22, Figs. 1, 3) including:
an air table configured to continuously transport and support a stream of glass (modules 26/41 of lower gas discharge beds 20/40, Figs. 1-8; column 1, line 51-column 2, line 26)
a plurality of modular devices supported by a support structure and disposed above the air table, wherein the stream of glass is configured to flow between the plurality of modular devices and the air table, wherein at least one of the plurality of modular devices is a modular thermal management device (modules 26/41 of upper gas discharge beds 20/40, Figs. 1-8, and/or glow-bars 42, Figs. 1, 3, and/or rolls R, Fig. 8; column 4, lines 41-69; column 7, lines 48-54; column 8, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kojima ‘373 with an air table and a plurality of modular devices as suggested by Sensi ‘275 as a known structure of cooling zone equipment for producing flat glass sheets.
Regarding claim 7, Sensi ‘275 further suggests the at least one modular thermal management device is independently selected from an edge heater, a roller, and any combination thereof (wherein glow-bars 42 heat the entire glass sheet including edges and thus may be considered an edge heater, and rolls R are rollers).
Regarding claim 8, Sensi ‘275 further suggests the plurality of modular devices includes at least one of a roll positioning assembly, a flattening roll assembly, and a driven roller (rolls $, Fig. 8; column 7, lines 42-54).
Claim(s) 20-22 and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltby ‘767 (US 5,209,767) in view of Brackley ‘551 (US 2008/0117551 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Maltby ‘767 teaches:
a gas bearing assembly (manifolds 34, 36) having a major surface (surface 48)
a source of viscous glass positioned to feed a continuous stream of viscous glass to the gas bearing assembly in a direction of a length of the first major surface (forming station 12; column 4, lines 30-34)
a plurality of inlet ports disposed within at least a portion of the gas bearing assembly, each inlet port of the plurality of inlet ports comprising a longitudinal flow axis extending in a direction of a width of the major surface, the width defined perpendicular to the length of the major surface (plenum portions 64, Figs. 5-7)
a length of each inlet port of the plurality of inlet ports extends along the corresponding longitudinal flow axis (each plenum portion has a length that extends along the corresponding flow axis, Figs. 5-7)
a plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof disposed in the major surface (supply passages 56 and/or supply openings 40)
a plurality of vents disposed in the major surface (exhaust openings 42 and/or exhaust passages 58, Figs. 1, 5-7)
the gas bearing assembly is configured to apply a positive pressure to the glass through the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof (column 1, line 66-column 2, line 2; column 2, lines 17-20; column 4, lines 58-64)
the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof are in fluid communication with a gas source (column 5, lines 19-23, 32-36; column 6, line 43-column 7, line 23).
Maltby ‘767 is silent regarding the gas bearing assembly being configured to apply a negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the plurality of vents. In analogous art of air bearings, Brackley ‘551 suggests a gas bearing assembly (assembly of Figs. 1-5; ¶ [0017]) having a plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof and a plurality of vents disposed in a major surface thereof, wherein the gas bearing assembly is configured to apply a positive pressure to a glass substrate through the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof, and to apply a negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the plurality of vents, for the benefit of controlling distance of the glass from the gas bearing assembly (¶ [0001]-[0002], [0018], [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Maltby ‘767 by applying a negative pressure to the glass by pulling a vacuum through the plurality of vents for the benefit of controlling airflow through the vents and thereby controlling distance of the glass from the gas bearing assembly, as suggested by Brackley ‘551.
Maltby ‘767 is silent regarding a specific viscosity of the glass when it is fed to the gas bearing assembly. However, it is noted that the glass constitutes material worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and does not impart patentability to the claims; see MPEP 2115. It is noted that Maltby ‘767 suggests that the purpose of the gas support is to prevent marring of the glass by mechanical contact because the glass is still in a deformable state when it enters the apparatus (column 1, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 21, Maltby ‘767 further teaches the gas bearing assembly further comprises a plurality of gas bearings (manifolds 34, Fig. 1), each gas bearing having a bearing support surface (surface 48 of manifolds 34), such that the bearing support surface of each gas bearing collectively form the major surface (Fig. 1; column 6, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 22, Maltby ‘767 further teaches the gas bearing assembly further comprises a plurality of vent channels separating the plurality of gas bearings from each other (exhaust openings 42 and/or exhaust passages 58, Figs. 1, 5-7).
Regarding claim 42, Maltby ‘767 further teaches the plurality of inlet ports (plenum portions 64, Figs. 5-7) is arranged in groups of at least two inlet ports, each group being separated from an adjacent group by at least one vent channel of the plurality of vents (exhaust openings 42 and/or exhaust passages 58, Figs. 1, 5-7), wherein there are a large number of inlet ports illustrated as in Figs. 1 and 5-7, wherein any at least two adjacent inlet ports may be defined as a group, and wherein each group would have at least one vent channel disposed therebetween.
Regarding claim 43, Maltby ‘767 further teaches each group further comprises at least a first inlet port configured to direct gas in a first direction and at least a second inlet port configured to direct gas in a second direction opposite the first direction (lower plenum portions 64 and upper plenum portions 64, Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 44, Maltby ‘767 further teaches each inlet port of the plurality of inlet ports (plenum portions 64, Figs. 5-7) is separated from an adjacent inlet port of the plurality of inlet ports by at least one vent of the plurality of vents (exhaust openings 42 and/or exhaust passages 58, Figs. 1, 5-7).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltby ‘767 (US 5,209,767) and Brackley ‘551 (US 2008/0117551 A1) in view of Bisson ‘618 (US 2015/0099618 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Maltby ‘767 is silent regarding the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof disposed in the major surface being defined by porous graphite. In analogous art of glass forming, Bisson ‘618 suggests gas bearing assemblies having a plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof disposed in a surface thereof, wherein the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof is defined by porous graphite (¶ [0042]) as a known high-temperature material structure for supplying gas in a gas bearing for supporting glass sheets (¶ [0038]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Maltby ‘767 by making the plurality of outlet ports, pores, or combination thereof disposed in the major surface be defined by porous graphite, as suggested by Bisson ‘618 as a substitution of known high-temperature material structure for supplying gas in a gas bearing for supporting glass sheets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-8, 20-22, and 42-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15, 26-27, 29-31, and 39-41 are allowed (however, please note the claim objections for claims 10 and 27).
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Regarding claim 10, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed arrangement of the first plurality of inlet ports and vent channels in an apparatus as claimed. Regarding claim 26, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest at least one thermal management device including a plurality of fluid coolant channels in the gas bearing having the structure as claimed, in a glass forming apparatus as claimed. Regarding claim 31, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the gas bearing comprising a fluid coolant channel extending in a longitudinal direction through the gas bearing wherein the fluid coolant channel does not exit an arcuate surface of the gas bearing in an apparatus as claimed.
Conclusion
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741