DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 37 and 45 are 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.
Claims 37 and 45 recite the permeable flow rate is lower during the discharge step than during the transport step. The specification does not appear to offer support for this. If the examiner has erred in this, please point to the paragraph where support can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosoe (2004/0182112). Regarding claim 18, Hosoe teaches a method of handling a molten glass charge, comprising receiving a molten glass charge in a holding cavity of a molten glass transport cup, the holding cavity being provided by a conduit, which defines a passage extending between and inlet and an outlet of the conduit 52, and an endcap 54 moveable to cover and uncover the outlet of the conduit ([0131], [0126]), and supplying a cooling gas to an outer surface of the conduit such that the cooling gas diffuses permeably through the conduit and displaces the molten glass charge radially inward away from an inner surface of the conduit to create a thermal break between the molten glass charge and the conduit ([0131], [0047], figs. 1-4, 7-8). Hosoe further teaches controlling a first permeable flow rate of the cooling gas through the conduit and into the holding cavity during the receiving step according to a loading phase of the a cooling gas permeable flow cycle so as to ensure levitation of the glass charge ([0131]), and controlling a second permeable flow rate of the cooling gas through the conduit and into the holding cavity when the transporter is at the unloading station according to a discharge phase of a cooling gas permeable flow cycle, wherein the second permeable flow rate is less than the first permeable flow rate, i.e gas is reduced so as to no longer support the glass charge ([0133], [0104]).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoe (2004/0182112) in view of Sweetland (5,511,593) and Quandt (3,655,354), as made evident by Entegris (Typical properties of GLASSMATE® Graphite Grades”). Regarding claims 24-25, Hosoe teaches a method of transporting molten glass charge, comprising providing a transporter that includes a transport cup having a conduit 52, the conduit having an inner surface that defines a passage extending from an inlet of the conduit to an outlet of the conduit, and wherein the conduit exhibits a permeable air flow, closing the conduit by positioning an endcap 54 below the outlet of the conduit to cover and block the outlet and to thereby provide a holding cavity, receiving a molten glass charge in the holding cavity through the inlet of the conduit at a loading station, supplying a cooling gas ([0047]) to an outer surface of the conduit such that the cooling gas diffuses permeably through the conduit and displaces the molten glass charge radially inwardly away from the inner surface of the conduit to create a thermal break between the molten glass charge and the inner surface of the conduit ([0131]), transporting the transporter from the loading station to an unloading station (location where the mold is), and opening the conduit by moving the endcap away from the outlet of the conduit such that the molten glass charge is discharged from the outlet of the conduit ([0133], figs. 1-4, 7-8).
Hosoe teaches the conduit comprises a porous material such as graphite (claim 17), but doesn’t offer specifics on the permeability of the conduit. Sweetland teaches a gob guide for receiving a molten glass charge, wherein the gob guide comprises a conduit having a holding cavity, which defines a passage extending between an inlet and an outlet of the conduit (col. 3 lines 20-30, figures 1-3). Similar to Hosoe, Sweetland teaches the conduit comprise a porous material and recommends graphite, such as Glassmate® - SR (col. 4 lines 1-14), because of its resistance to the high temperatures and corrosive environment of the glass charges. A property sheet for Glassmate® -SR shows a thermal conductivity of 98 W/m-°K, but is silent regarding a permeability. Quandt also teaches a graphite material used for handling hot glass (col. 1 lines 5-8), wherein the graphite material has a permeability of 50 md (col. 2 lines 36-39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried a porous material such as graphite, i.e. Glassmate® -SR, having a permeability of 50md and thermal conductivity of 98 W/m-°K, for the conduit of Hosoee, as it provides for excellent ability to handle the harsh temperature and corrosive environment of a glass gob, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Sweetland and Quandt.
Furthermore, as mentioned, Sweetland discloses using Glassmate® -SR for the glass transport material. The product data sheet doesn’t not mention an air flow rate permeability. However, in light of the applicant’s own disclosure, Glassmate® -SR is recognized as a suitable glass transport material with properties including permeability of 9 md and 5 md, and thermal conductivity of 98W/m-°K and 85 W/m-°K. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect the conduit comprising Glassmate® -SR to exhibit a permeable air flow rate of at least 100 g/s/m2 at a pressure differential across the glass transport material of 30 psig or less.
Hosoe further teaches controlling a first permeable flow rate of the cooling gas through the conduit and into the holding cavity during the receiving step according to a loading phase of the a cooling gas permeable flow cycle so as to ensure levitation of the glass charge ([0131]), and controlling a second permeable flow rate of the cooling gas through the conduit and into the holding cavity when the transporter is at the unloading station according to a discharge phase of a cooling gas permeable flow cycle, wherein the second permeable flow rate is less than the first permeable flow rate, i.e gas is reduced so as to no longer support the glass charge ([0133], [0104]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-22, 24-28, 30, 35-36, 38, 43-44, and 46-47 are allowed, as independent claims 18 and 24 have incorporated allowable subject matter.
Claims 32-34, 40-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: The prior art fails to suggests setting the permeable flow rate through the conduit of the transport cup to a loading range of 20g/s/m2 to 150 g/s/m2 during loading, or a transport range of 20 g/s/m2 to 150 g/s/m2 during transporting, or an unloading range of 0.03 g/s/m2 to 20 g/s/m2 during discharging of the glass charge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 206 with regards to claims 31 and 39 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not specifically point out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions or explain how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741