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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the present amendments
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.
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiselle et al. (US 8713973).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, Boiselle discloses a method and apparatus for tempering glass sheets (Fig 1) thus at least first, second and third sheets of glass as the process continues with a quench box.
Boiselle discloses the quench box in the tempering section (Col 3; lines 50-55, Fig 1-5) comprising a first blast head and a second blast head spaced apart opposite one another (10) (Fig 4-5)
the quench box are configured to direct jets of cooling fluid, or tempering fluid, towards a conveyance plane for conveying a sheet of glass thereon (Fig 1, Col 3, line 64-Col 4; line 6; line 34)
the first axis of the conveyance plane is defined by the arrow in Fig 1 and the second axis being perpendicular to first axis thus going up and down between the first and second blast heads.
Boiselle discloses the quench box having a configuration to substantially conform to the shape of the curved glass sheet (Col 4; lines 16-20) thus the first and second quench modules of the first and second blast heads are arranged are arranged so that the quench surfaces thereof are parallel to at least a portion of the first average surface (see at least Fig 5)
Boiselle makes it clear that the quench modules have different zones that correspond to the shape of the glass being quenched (claim 1) Boiselle does disclose varying configuration of the zones, corresponding to the claimed quench modules, having different distances dependent on size and geometry of the glass sheet (Col 5 lines 1-2) and (Col 5; lines 59-65), Boiselle discloses altering configurations of the upper and lower quench zone length as well as diameter in order to increase the velocity of tempering medium for a sheet of glass (Col 3; line 21-29, Col 3; line 63-Col 4; line 7).
Boiselle does not describe a method with the first configuration, second configuration, and third configuration in the exact steps as listed in the method of claim 27.
A skilled artisan knows that the bent glasses are quenched consecutively to produce quenched bent glass.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration per each consecutive glass sheet as motivated to adapt to the shape of the present glass sheet, thus the quench surfaces thereof approximate at least a portion of the shape of the glass sheet.
Claims 29-31, 37-38, 41, 43, 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiselle et al. (US 8713973) as applied above and further in view of Rahrig (US 4028086).
Regarding claim 29, Boiselle fails to discuss how the configuration of the modules in each quench blast head can be changed to accommodate another shaped glass sheet.
In an analogous art Rahrig discloses a method and apparatus of quenching and tempering glass (title) with first and second blast heads (26 and 27 respectively Col 4; line 5-6).
Rahrig discloses the first and second blast heads each comprising modules wherein the modules (35) on the first and second blast heads make up pairs (See at least Fig 1, col 4; lines 13-16) each module having tubes or nozzles (36 and 37) (Col 4; lines 16) and the modules fit in framework (Col 4; lines 15-22).
Rahrig discloses the modules (35) of the blast heads are detachably secured to the plenum of the blast head thus allowing selective removal/ replacement of sections (35) without disturbing remaining sections (Col 4; lines 6-25).
Where Boiselle is silent as to how the configuration change of the blast head modules is carried out it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to look to the available art of blast heads for quenching glass for a method of changing a section of a blast head thus one would be motivated to use the method of changing a module as taught by Rahrig to carryout the configuration change taught by Boiselle.
Regarding claim 30, this is not an active step of the claimed method. Rahrig and Boiselle make obvious modifying the configuration of the quench modules as motivated to achieve the desired tempering in designated areas and should this result the first average surface comprises a geometric average or an arithmetic average or a weighted average or a least squares fit of the shapes of the at least first and second sheets of glass it is not a novel result.
Regrading claims 31 and 47, Boiselle shows in Fig 5 that the glass sheet has opposing major surfaces with center line CL arranged parallel to the first axis necessarily arranging each plane determined in such that the centerlines thereof are coincident and lie on a horizontal plane as shown in Fig 5.
Boiselle necessarily for a given arbitrary point on the horizontal plane, extending a line normal to the horizontal plane intersecting each plane of the at least first and second sheets of glass at a respective intersection point.
Rahrig nor Boiselle disclose using each intersection point to determine an average intersection point for the at least first and second sheets of glass at the given point, the average intersection point being a first average distance from the horizontal plane however Boiselle discloses
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of the nozzles and thus quench box as motivated to temper the sheet in designated areas equivalent to the arbitrary intersecting points.
Regarding claims 37-38 and 41, 43, Boiselle discloses the quench box having a configuration to substantially conform to the shape of the curved glass sheet Col 4; lines 16-20 and states;
The length of the nozzles in the first, second and third pluralities of nozzles 16, 18, 20 are predetermined to substantially conform to the shape of the glass sheet 12 to be tempered.
Boiselle does disclose varying configuration of the quench modules dependent on size and geometry of the glass sheet (Col 5 lines 1-2) and (Col 5; lines 59-65):
Table 1 shows results of fracturing five glass samples tempered utilizing a set of conventional quench modules, that is upper and lower quench modules, having alternating areas of nozzles in domino five and striper patterns, the nozzles conforming to the shape of the glass being tempered.
Thus Boiselle does show altering configurations of the upper and lower quench modules for a sheet of glass.
Boiselle discloses each quench module comprising a respective array of quench nozzles defining a respective quench surface (Fig 4) and conforming the quench module blast heads, or nozzles to the desired contour to the glass surface (Col 3; line 61-Col 4; line 2) arranged to deliver a higher velocity of tempering fluid to and temper designated areas of the glass sheets as desired (Col 2; lines 35-54)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of the nozzles and thus quench box as motivated to temper the sheet in designated areas. Sheets are continuously being conveyed and tempered in the method of Boiselle keeping the quench module configuration the same for multiple sheets and then having to adjust it would be a known necessary configuration change as motivated above. As indicated in the rejection of claim 27 Rahrig desires altering the velocity of tempering fluid in each module to control stresses and bend of each sheet as well as replacing modules. The combined teaching yield altering configurations of the tempering by replacing module configurations as motivated to achieve the desired increase of decrease in tempering.
wherein in the first configuration the first and second quench modules of the first blast head are arranged so that the quench surfaces thereof are at least partially aligned with at least a portion of the first average surface, and
wherein the first quench module of the second blast head is arranged so that the quench surface thereof is at least a partially aligned with at least a portion of the first average surface;
A skilled artisan would be motivated to replace the entire quench module or the nozzles as motivated to achieve the desired configuration or as replacement is needed motivated by damage throughout use.
Any change in the quench module throughout additional glass sheets may be considered a third or fourth quench module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Rahrig discloses a flat quench modules and it would not have been obvious to modify Rahrig with Boiselle which desires having the modules contoured for a curved glass.
In view of the amendments Examiner no longer relies on Rahrig in the rejection of claim 27.
In general summary, the present application appears to be attempting to claim quench blast heads where the separate modules can be varied to quench different configurations of bent glass successively.
In the rejection Boiselle, Applicant’s own patent, is relied upon for the disclosure of blast heads with separate modules which may be configured differently in proximity to the glass to control the quenching. A skilled artisan knows that the bent glasses are quenched consecutively to produce quenched bent glass thus any change in configuration of the glasses being quenched requires changing the configuration of the blast head modules. Boiselle fails to give detail as to how this is accomplished.
Examiner relies on Rahrig because Rahrig discloses blast head modules of nozzles may be switched out individually as needed it would be obvious to use this method to switch out modules in Boiselle where the suggestion of altering the configuration of the modules is already in Boiselle.
Applicant has only argued the differences between Rahrig and Boiselle where Rahrig is quenching a flat glass while Boiselle is quenching a curved glass. Applicant has not further argued the dependent claims.
Conclusion
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