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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2025 was filed after the mailing is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended the claim to attempt to indicate the temperature is determined at the same interface and a first temperature and second temperature are both determined at this interface, the first temperature being higher than the second temperature.
Applicant points to [0042]-[0049] of the published application. These paragraphs discuss adjusting hydrogen in the melt or hydrogen in the surrounding vessel but do not discuss determining a first and second temperature at the same interface. [0049] specifically discloses segmented vessels are configured to operate with higher partial pressures in the higher upstream sections. An upstream section would be a different interface.
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 09/15/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfeld (US 20070149380).
Regarding claim 1, Dorfeld discloses a method of minimizing bubbles in glass formed in platinum or platinum alloy vessels (abstract) and thus the formation of corrosive rhodium-platinum defects in a glass [0031], comprising:
providing a glass manufacturing system which may comprise a fining vessel (115), connecting tube (122), stir channel (120), tube (127), a delivery vessel (125) (Fig 1) made of a platinum alloy [0002] such as Pt-Rh [0028] for use in a manufacturing process for obtaining the material of molten glass [0025],
Dorfeld suggests providing an environment around any vessel in the melting/delivery system [0029]. Multiple capsules (140) may be provided, such as a capsule around any section of the melting/delivery system [0029].
Dorfeld discloses the capsules provide a higher partial pressure of hydrogen in the environment (142) at an interface between the outside of the vessel of the manufacturing system section and the glass melt to suppress hydrogen permeation out of the glass leading to oxygen blisters (abstract, [0004], [0013]-[0016], [0018] )
Dorfeld discloses that as the temperature of the glass increases the partial pressure in the surrounding environment of the interface must increase in order to suppress blisters within the melt and similarly at lower temperatures less partial pressure of hydrogen outside the vessel is needed [0046].
Therefore, it would be obvious to provide a higher partial pressure of hydrogen at an interface with a higher temperature detected.
Dorfeld discloses providing multiple hydrogen partial pressure control vessels [0029] and each vessel (140) having a control system that can obtain sensor readings.
Dorfeld does not disclose the precise claim language;
“determining a first temperature of the vessel relative to the to the interface…when the melt is at the first temperature” and
“determining a second temperature of the vessel relative to the to the interface…when the melt is at a second temperature”
Dorfeld discloses molten glass at a first temperature of at least about 1550 deg. C [0018] thus the temperature may rise higher than 1550 deg. C through a single melting process or different melting processes yielding “a second temperature” at the same interface.
The melt temperature is known and thus the temperatures are necessarily determined. Dorfeld discloses a control capable of basing the hydrogen partial pressure in the surrounding environment based on temperature and a higher partial pressure of hydrogen necessary at higher temperatures [0033]-[0034], [0046].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the partial pressure at the interface based on the temperature detected as motivated to reduce blister formation in the glass.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 9, the rhodium rich and platinum rich defects as indicated in these claims are a property resulting from the method of claim 1.
MPEP 2112.01 states
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The description of the defects are a result but not an active step of the claimed method which is identical to the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Dorfeld discloses controlling the partial pressure of hydrogen outside the vessel relative to hydrogen inside the vessel [0033] yielding minimized defects indicated in claim 4.
Regarding claims 5-6 the combined teachings of Dorfeld and Chalk make obvious the first and second temperatures overlapping with the temperature ranges of claims 5-6 as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7, Dorfeld discloses maintain a controlled humidity in the capsule environment for the desired hydrogen content thus adding water [0031]/[0034].
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfeld (US 20070149380) as applied above and further in view of Murakami (US 20120125050) .
Regarding claims 7-8, 10, Dorfeld desires controlling the partial pressure of hydrogen outside of a platinum or platinum alloy, such as Pt-Rh vessel relative to the glass within in order to suppress blister formations caused by water molecules separating at the temperature of glass manufacture and permeating in or out of the platinum based vessel as discussed above and at least [0033] of Dorfeld.
In an analogous art Murakami discloses controlling the partial pressure of hydrogen within a platinum vessel (102) and surrounding environment (301/3030) around the vessel. Murakami discloses controlling the relative partial pressure of hydrogen outside the vessel to within the vessel by adding water vapor, considered wet gas, or a hydroxide-containing compound into the melt to increase the partial pressure of hydrogen inside the vessel [0004]-[0005].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add water vapor within the vessel as well to control the partial pressure of hydrogen within the vessel relative to the exterior of the vessel as motivated by overall controlled level of hydrogen permeation and thus blister or defect control within the glass material product.
Regarding claim 10, Murakami further discloses the control of partial pressure of hydrogen on a glass material comprising more than 0.1 wt% of a combination of tin oxide, iron oxide, and cerium oxide [0046], or at least 0.05 wt% of a combination of antimony oxide and arsenic oxide [0047].
Additionally, Dorfeld recognizes multivalent cations can lead to blistering [0037], it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the amount of any fining agents of claim 10 as reduced as possible while obtaining a desired product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9 have been considered but are not persuasive
Applicant argues the amended claims specify determining the same interface and a first temperature and second temperature are both determined at this interface, the first temperature being higher than the second temperature.
Applicant points to [0042]-[0049] of the published application. These paragraphs discuss adjusting hydrogen in the melt or hydrogen in the surrounding vessel but do not discuss determining a first and second temperature at the same interface. [0049] specifically discloses segmented vessels are configured to operate with higher partial pressures in the higher upstream sections. An upstream section would be a different interface. This supports the previous rejection over prior art Dorfeld and Chalk. However; under the Applicant’s interpretation of the present amendment Dorfeld states controlling the partial pressure in one or more vessels (140) around the melt so partial pressure is higher outside the melt to prevent blisters. Dorfeld further states higher melt temperatures require higher partial pressure of hydrogen [0046]. Dorfeld [0046] and Fig 3 also indicates knowledge of the melt temperature which means that the temperature is predetermined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170283294 control system to keep partial pressure higher or at equilibrium around interface [0022], [0028] and indicates this hydrogen rapidly permeates out of the glass manufacturing vessel, depleting the metal/glass interface of hydrogen at elevated temperatures [0003]
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