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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 and 24-27 are examined in this office action as claims 28-31 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention and claims 1, 4-5, 11-14, 18, and 24 were amended in the reply dated 5/8/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “material is chemically resistant to the glass melt, and dispersion strengthened” in the second line of step A) is not grammatically correct. There does not need to be a comma after “glass melt”.
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 1-21 and 24-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shape of the at least one feedthrough in the at least one tube is selected to be different from a cylindrical geometry or contains a refraction of an otherwise cylindrical geometry” in lines 14-16. It is not clear what is meant by “a refraction of an otherwise cylindrical geometry”. As the definition of refraction is a deflection from a straight path undergone by a light ray or energy wave in passing obliquely from one medium (such as air) into another (such as glass) in which its velocity is different, it is clear that refraction relates to light rays or energy waves rather than a shape. A shape can cause refraction and different shapes can cause different types of refraction, but it is not clear what a refraction of a shape encompasses. Claims 2-21 and 24-27 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “at least the side of the base plate onto which the at least one tube is printed in step B) is cleaned, rolled, ground, leveled and/or adjusted before step B)”. It is not clear whether the “and/or” only applies to the leveled and adjusted such that the claim requires cleaning, rolling, grounding, and then one or both of leveling and adjusting, whether the “and/or” is applied across these method steps such that merely one of cleaning, rolling, grounding, leveling, and adjusting is required, or some other meaning. Claim 21 is also rejected as it depends from claim 19 and does not solve the above issue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-11, 13-19 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4274852 A of McGarry in view of US 2016/0312338 A1 (cited on IDS received 9/7/22) of Miller, US 2019/0091803 A1 of Twelves, FR 1471690 A (as cited on IDS dated 9/7/22 with reference to English Translation) hereinafter ‘FR690, and JPS60141638A (with reference to the provided English translation) of Shimizu.
As to claims 1 and 25, it is not clear what is meant by refraction of a shape, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring a shape different from a cylindrical geometry. McGarry discloses an improvement in the manufacture of fibrous glass products is provided by employing a bushing in which the bottom wall, or tip plate, is fabricated of a properly aligned dispersion strengthened precious metal (McGarry, abstract), meeting the claim limitation method for producing glass fiber nozzles, which are provided for producing glass fibers from a glass melt as a tip meets the claim limitation of a nozzle as it is a spout at the end of a tube. McGarry discloses where a bottom plate is formed of a dispersion strengthened precious metal or alloy thereof (McGarry, claim 1), meeting step A) of providing or producing a base plate comprising a first material, wherein the first material is chemically resistant to the glass melt, and dispersion strengthened. McGarry discloses where the tubular members or tips are assembled onto the plate and where the tube tips are made from merely a precious metal or precious metal alloy (McGarry, col 3, lines 35-45), meeting the step B) limitations of at least one tube made of a second material onto one side of the base plate, wherein the at least one tube in each case comprises at least one feedthrough and wherein the second material is chemically resistant to the glass melt as McGarry is disclosing where the tip is made of merely a precious metal or alloy thereof while the plate is dispersion strengthened. McGarry discloses where the foraminous bottom plate is formed by drilling or punching holes therein to form the foraminous structure (McGarry, col 3, lines 32-34), meeting the step C) limitation of generating at least one passage in the base plate which aligns with the tube and feedthrough. McGarry discloses forming holes in the plate and attaching tips to the holes (McGarry, col 3, lines 32-45), McGarry meets this limitation of at least one passage through the base plate wherein each of the at least one passage is connected to a corresponding feedthrough of the at least one tube in such a way that each of the at least one passage through the base plate forms a common line which is permeable to the glass melt. McGarry discloses where the plate of dispersion strengthened precious metal may be fabricated into a glass feeder by conventional techniques such as rolling (McGarry, col 3, lines 30-31 and 56-60).
However, McGarry does not disclose where the at least one tube is printed and thereby where the base plate is produced using a method other than the one used for the at least one tube.
Miller relates to the same field of endeavor of forming Pt/Rh alloys into parts including glass fiberizing bushings (Miller, paragraph [0008]). Miller teaches that parts of these systems can be made via casting and 3D printing such as SLS or SLM and combined together (Miller, paragraph [0032]). Miller teaches that using 3D printing can produce net shape parts or very near net shape parts that require none or very little annealing as very little, if any, stresses are created in the parts due to these forming processes (Miller, paragraph [0032]).
Twelves also relates to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (Twelves, abstract). Twelves teaches that a build plate is required as the base for the build and that the build plate may be incorporated into the final part (Twelves, paragraph [0002]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tip using 3D printing as taught by Miller incorporating the base plate into the final part as taught by Twelves into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed in McGarry, thereby allowing the plate to be made by a less expensive process while the additive manufacturing can produce tips which are net shape parts or very near net shape parts that require none or very little annealing as very little, if any, stresses are created in the parts due to these forming processes (Miller, paragraph [0032]). As such, it is obvious to form the tip using additive manufacturing and the plate using conventional means, thereby meeting the claim limitation where the base plate is formed using a method other than the one used for the at least one tube.
However, the combination of McGarry, Miller, and Twelves does not disclose the shape of the at least one feedthrough in the at least one tub is selected to be different from a cylindrical geometry or contains a refraction of an otherwise cylindrical geometry nor the claim 25 limitation where there is a widening as a connection to the base plate.
‘FR690 relates to the same field of endeavor of making an orifice plate for the manufacture of glass fibers (‘FR690, paragraph [0001], lines 14-28). ‘FR690 teaches where a conical inlet portion is used (‘FR690, paragraph [0001], lines 100-108 and Figure 3 where the inlet is 16) where an inlet reads upon a feedthrough as an inlet is where the glass is fed through into the tube. This also meets the claim limitations as a cone is not cylindrical and a cone constitutes a widening ‘FR690 teaches that this contributes to an orifice plate which has a service life that is twice as long as a normal orifice plate (‘FR690, paragraph [0001], lines 86-89).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a conical inlet portion as taught by ‘FR690 into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed by the combination of McGarry, Miller, and Twelves, thereby increasing the service life of the tip plate (‘FR690, paragraph [0001], lines 86-89). Further, the MPEP provides that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
However, the combination of McGarry, Miller, and Twelves does not disclose the shape of the at least one feedthrough in the at least one tube is selected such that a mixing or swirling of a glass melt flowing through the at least one feedthrough is affected.
Shimizu relates the same field of endeavor of a bushing plate of a molten glass filling box (Shimizu, paragraph [0001]) Shimizu teaches that the nozzles are selected in shape and arranged in a square or rectangular shape so that swirling flows of molten glass rotate in mutually assisting directions (Shimizu, paragraph [0001]) Shimizu teaches that this prevents disturbances in the flow of the molten glass, and the glass fibers being extruded and spun preventing breakage and uneven thickness (Shimizu, paragraph [0001]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a shape and arrangement of nozzles in a square pattern as disclosed by Shimizu into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed by the combination of McGarry, Miller, and Twelves thereby prevents disturbances in the flow of the molten glass, and the glass fibers being extruded and spun preventing breakage and uneven thickness (Shimizu, paragraph [0001]).
As to claims 2-4, McGarry discloses where the plate of dispersion strengthened precious metal may be fabricated into a glass feeder by conventional techniques such as rolling (McGarry, col 3, lines 30-31 and 56-60).
As to claims 5-7 and 10, McGarry discloses plate consists essentially of platinum, or a platinum-rhodium alloy and where the dispersoid within the dispersion strengthened alloy is zirconia (McGarry, claims 3 and 7), meeting the claim 5 limitation of a metal material, the claim 6 limitation of a dispersion strengthened noble metal alloy with ceramic particles, the claim 7 limitation of a platinum or platinum rhodium alloy which is oxide dispersion hardened, and the claim 10 limitation of a platinum-based alloy. Further, as McGarry discloses that the sidewalls can also be formed of dispersion strengthened precious metals (McGarry, col 3, lines 40-41), this meets the claim 5 limitations as the sidewalls and plate delimit the surfaces coming into contact with the glass melt.
As to claim 8, McGarry discloses plate consists essentially of platinum, or a platinum-rhodium alloy and where the dispersoid within the dispersion strengthened alloy is zirconia (McGarry, claims 3 and 7). However, McGarry does not explicitly disclose a PtRh10 alloy.
Miller teaches the use of conventional Pt-Rh alloys such as 10 Rh and 90 Pt (Miller, paragraph [0005]). Miller teaches that Rh as an alloying element increases oxidation resistance and the hot creep strength of the alloy (Miller, paragraph [0003]).
As McGarry invites the use of platinum-rhodium alloys, one of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art to determine an appropriate composition to use. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a 10 Rh and 90 Pt alloy taught by Miller into the method of manufacturing a tip plate disclosed in McGarry, thereby increasing oxidation resistance and the hot creep strength of the alloy (Miller, paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 9, McGarry discloses where a bottom plate is formed of a dispersion strengthened precious metal or alloy thereof (McGarry, claim 1) and McGarry discloses where the tubular members or tips are made from merely a precious metal or precious metal alloy (McGarry, col 3, lines 35-45), meeting the claim limitation where the first and second material is a metal alloy.
As to claim 11, while McGarry in combination with Miller and Twelves discloses the method according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above, McGarry does not disclose printing a continuous and/or full-surface coating made of the second material onto the one side of the base plate, wherein the at least one tube is printed onto the continuous and/or full- surface coating of the base plate in step B).
Nevertheless, Miller teaches the use of a two layer laminate in the base plate where the second layer could be a layer easier to form tips (Miller, paragraph [0056]) and where this is a continuous layer (Miller, Fig 6). Miller teaches that parts of these systems can be made via casting and 3D printing such as SLS or SLM and combined together (Miller, paragraph [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a continuous layer of a precious metal or precious metal alloy using additive manufacturing as taught by Miller into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed in McGarry, thereby making it easier to form tips (Miller, paragraph [0056]).
As to claims 13-14, McGarry discloses a plurality of tips on the plate (McGarry, FIG.2 where the tips are 21), this meets the claim limitation as there is at least one as well as one or a plurality of tubes, passages, and feedthroughs in McGarry.
As to claims 15 and 16, McGarry discloses where a bottom plate is formed of a dispersion strengthened precious metal or alloy thereof (McGarry, claim 1) and McGarry discloses where the tubular members or tips are made from merely a precious metal or precious metal alloy (McGarry, col 3, lines 35-45), meeting the claim limitations as the dispersion strengthened precious metal alloy will have a higher creep resistance than the non-strengthened precious metal or alloy thereof and by including dispersion strengthening, the first material has a different chemical composition than the second material.
As to claim 17, Miller discloses where parts of the tip plate are made with selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) and/or high temperature consolidation or sintering (Miller, paragraph [0064]). Further, Twelves discloses the use of laser freeform manufacturing technology (Twelves, paragraph [0002]), meeting the limitations of laser metal deposition and 3D direct energy deposition.
As to claim 18, as Miller discloses where parts of the tip plate are made with selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) and/or high temperature consolidation or sintering (Miller, paragraph [0064]) and Twelves discloses the use of laser freeform manufacturing technology (Twelves, paragraph [0002]), these additive processes would produce a tip with an associated feedthrough which would have a higher roughness than the surface of the base plate which is formed using conventional means such as rolling, thereby meeting the claim specification 3. Further, Miller teaches where the tips are cooled by cooling tubes 18 containing flowing chilled water and each having a fin running down the center of the top of the cooling tubes (Miller, paragraph [0053]), meeting claim specification 6.
As to claim 19, it is not clear whether all of the steps are optional or merely there is an option between leveled and adjusted, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring merely one of cleaned, rolled, ground, leveled, or adjusted as this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the list of steps. Miller discloses where burnishing and polishing is applied to surfaces for optimum performance (Miller, paragraph [0065]), meeting the claim limitations of cleaning, grinding, leveling, and adjusting.
As to claim 26, ‘FR690 teaches where a conical inlet portion is used (‘FR690, paragraph [0001], lines 100-108 and Figure 3 where the inlet is 16) where an inlet reads upon a feedthrough as an inlet is where the glass is fed through into the tube. This also meets the claim limitations as a cone constitutes a widening and a widening would naturally result in an increase in the connecting surface between the tube and the base plate. Further, the MPEP provides that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 27, Miller discloses where parts of the tip plate are made with selective laser sintering (SLS) or selective laser melting (SLM) and Miller discloses where an alloy powder is used (Miller, paragraph [0064]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4274852 A of McGarry US 2016/0312338 A1 (cited on IDS received 9/7/22) of Miller, US 2019/0091803 A1 of Twelves, FR 1471690 A (as cited on IDS dated 9/7/22 with reference to English Translation) hereinafter ‘FR690, and JPS60141638A (with reference to the provided English translation) of Shimizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4846865 A of Hinze.
As to claim 12, the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu discloses the method according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. However, this combination does not disclose coating the outside of the at least one tube and the side of the base plate on which the at least one tube is printed with a protective layer, in particular with a ceramic protective layer.
Hinze relates the same filed of endeavor of bushings provided for manufacturing fibrous glass products (Hinze, abstract). Hinze teaches adding an outwardly disposed cladding tenaciously bonded to the precious metal where the cladding preferably comprises a ceramic coating of a crystallographic ally stabilized zirconia (Hinze, col 2, lines 11-15). Hinze teaches these coated bushings have long life and reduced creep and deformation because they are, in effect, provided with a ceramic reinforcement material and the bushings will be found to have lower vaporization losses and lower energy utilization because of their being provided with the ceramic insulating layer (Hinze, col 1, lines 62-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a ceramic coating of zirconia as taught by Hinze into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed by the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu, thereby reducing creep and deformation and lowering vaporization losses and lowering energy utilization(Hinze, col 1, lines 62-68).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4274852 A of McGarry US 2016/0312338 A1 (cited on IDS received 9/7/22) of Miller, US 2019/0091803 A1 of Twelves, FR 1471690 A (as cited on IDS dated 9/7/22 with reference to English Translation) hereinafter ‘FR690, and JPS60141638A (with reference to the provided English translation) of Shimizu as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Additive Manufacturing Technologies of Gibson.
As to claims 20-21, the combination McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu discloses the method according to claims 1 and 19 and where at least three tubes are printed onto the base plate, see claim 1 rejection above. However, the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu does not disclose successively printed tubes nor no directly adjacent tubes are printed directly one after the other.
Gibson is a textbook on additive manufacturing and teaches that in laser powder bed fusion processes, residual stresses and distortions increase with track length (Gibson, pg. 127, 3rd paragraph). Gibson teaches that therefore the scan area is divided into small squares and scanning is randomized rather than scanning contiguous squares one after the other (Gibson, pg. 127, 3rd – 4th paragraph), meeting the limitation of selecting a pattern that the mechanical distortion of the base plate caused by thermal stresses is lowered as well as where no directly adjacent tubes are printed one after the other and thereby successively printing tubes. Gibson teaches that this process helps alleviate preferential build-up of residual stresses (Gibson, pg. 127, 4th paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add randomized scanning to successively print tubes rather than scanning contiguous squares one after the other as taught by Gibson into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed by the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu, thereby alleviate preferential build-up of residual stresses (Gibson, pg. 127, 4th paragraph).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4274852 A of McGarry US 2016/0312338 A1 (cited on IDS received 9/7/22) of Miller, US 2019/0091803 A1 of Twelves, FR 1471690 A (as cited on IDS dated 9/7/22 with reference to English Translation) hereinafter ‘FR690, and JPS60141638A (with reference to the provided English translation) of Shimizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view US 3905790 A of Strickland.
As to claim 24, the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu discloses the method according to claim 21, see claim 21 rejection above. However, the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu does not disclose herein the at least one tube is a plurality of tubes and the feedthroughs of different tubes have different shapes.
Strickland relates to the same field of endeavor of forming glass fibers employing a orifice plate (Strickland, abstract). Strickland teaches orifices on the periphery are made slightly larger than interior orifices (Strickland, col 14, lines 2-5), meeting the claim limitation of different tubes having different shapes where this shape is dependent on the position of the tube on the base plate. Strickland teaches that this improves stability without material affecting the uniformity of fiber size (Strickland, col 14 lines 1-7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add where orifices on the periphery have a large size than interior orifices as taught by Strickland into the method of forming a tip plate disclosed by the combination of McGarry, Miller, Twelves, ‘FR690, and Shimizu thereby improving stability without materially affecting the uniformity of fiber size (Strickland, col 14, lines 1-7).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, applicant’s amendments cure the previous issues, however see new objection with respect to claim 1.
With respect to the 103 rejection over McGarry in view of Miller and Twelves, applicant argues that the combination does not teach instant claim 1 which has been amended to incorporate previous claims 22 and 23 (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 2nd paragraph).
It is agreed that McGarry in view of Miller and Twelves does not teach the instant limitations of claim 1, however these deficiencies are remedied by ‘FR690, and Shimizu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights