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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-6, 8-32 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. The 102/103 rejection is withdrawn and a 103 rejection is made wherein the Yamada is brought in for the independent claims.
Claim objections were not amended as suggested by the Examiner in the prior Office Action. These objections are now 112b rejections for failing to correct antecedent basis.
Applicant argued that claim 5 recites “a number of the injection ports per unit area”. Applicant amended claim 5 and does not use such language. The scope of claim 5 and 32 are identical.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claims 32 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 32/31/5/15/16/17/18/20/21/22/23/24/29 uses the phrase “when viewed from a/the top of the first surface” and “when the holding member is viewed from the top”. The Examiner kindly requests that the phrase be amended to “when viewing the first surface from above” or “from a top-down view of the first surface” because the view from “a top of the first surface” describes the viewing plane of the first surface. Please accordingly fix the specification with this language. The Examiner understands the intended meaning and giving the limitation patentable weight.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites “the gas is injected in an approximately horizontal direction that is approximately orthogonal to a gravity direction”. Parent claim 32 specifies gas passes through the first through-holes and second through-holes wherein “the plurality of first through-holes and the plurality of second through-holes are substantially parallel”. The instant specification lacks support for the combination of limitations because there is precedent that the gas must pass from either of the first through-holes or second through-holes. Claim 14 does not have this issue because a new “injection port” is introduced; however, claim 14 has its own 112b issue as indicated below.
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 7 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 31 line 17 recites “the relationship between…”. The relationship lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a relationship between…”.
Claim 31 lines 17 recites “the ratio (W1) of the area of the plurality…”. The ratio and the area lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (W1) of an area of the plurality…”.
Claim 31 line 18 recites “the area of the first region”. The area lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “an area of the first region”.
Claim 31 lines 18 recites “the ratio (W2) of the area of the plurality…”. The ratio and the area lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (W2) of an area of the plurality…”.
Claim 31 line 19 recites “the area of the second region”. The area lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “an area of the second region”.
Claim 32 line 15 recites “the relationship between…”. The relationship lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a relationship between…”.
Claim 32 lines 15 recites “the ratio (W1) of the area of the plurality…”. The ratio and the area lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (W1) of an area of the plurality…”.
Claim 32 line 16 recites “the area of the first region”. The area lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “an area of the first region”.
Claim 32 lines 16 recites “the ratio (W2) of the area of the plurality…”. The ratio and the area lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (W2) of an area of the plurality…”.
Claim 32 line 17 recites “the area of the second region”. The area lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “an area of the second region”.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8-30, and 33-34 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 5/31/32 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the ratio (W1/W2)”. The ratio lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (W1/W2)”.
Claim 3 line 3 recites “the ratio (T1) of the number of the plurality…”. The ratio and the number lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (T1) of a number of the plurality…”.
Claim 3 line 4 recites “the ratio (T2) of the number of the plurality…”. The ratio and the number lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (T2) of a number of the plurality…”.
Claim 4 line 3 recites “the ratio (T1/T2) of the ratio (T1)…”. The ratio lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (T1/T2) of the ratio (T1)…”.
Claim 6 line 3 recites “the ratio (T1/T2) of the ratio (T1) of the number of…”. The ratio, second ratio, and number lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (T1/T2) of a ratio (T1) of a number of…”.
Claim 6 line 4 recites “the ratio (T2) of the number of…”. The ratio and number lack antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a ratio (T2) of a number of…”.
Claim 8 line 4 recites “the radius of the second injection port”. The radius lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a radius of the second injection port”. Claim 8 recites “the first injection port” and “the second injection port”. Claim 8 depends from claim 32 which properly introduces “a plurality of first injection ports” and “a plurality of second injection ports”. The Examiner believes the limitation of claim 8 should be “a radius of each first injection ports” and “a radius of each second injection ports”.
Claim 10 line 5 recites “the portion that corresponds to the second region”. The portion lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “a portion that corresponds to the second region”.
Claim 12 line 3-4 recites “a pore diameter of a portion that is porous”. Claim 12 depends from claim 9 wherein claim 9 introduces “at least part”. The claim 12 limitation should be “a pore diameter of the part that is porous”.
Claim 14 recites “an injection port from which the gas is injected in a approximately horizontal direction that is approximately orthogonal to a gravity direction”. Parent claim 32 introduces “a plurality of first injection ports” and “a plurality of second injection ports”. Is the injection port part of either pluralities or a completely separate injection port? Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 19 line 4 recites “the approximately annular region”. This region lacks antecedent basis. The limitation should be “an approximately annular region”.
Claim 24 line 7-8 recites “the third circle having the radius”. While the third circle has antecedent basis, the radius associated with the third circle has not perfected it introduction. The limitation should be “the third circle having a radius”.
Claim 34 recites “the length of the plurality of first through-holes” and “the length of the plurality of second through-holes”. Both limitations lack antecedent basis. The limitations should be “a length of the plurality of first through-holes” and “a length of the plurality of second through-holes”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-12, 15-28, 31-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Eguchi (JP-2020186146-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and further in view of Yamada et al (JP-2017193459-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 31, Eguchi teaches of a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a levitation process for blowing gas onto a glass raw material from injection ports of a glass manufacturing apparatus (Line 40-42) comprising a holding member (Line 68-72), including a plurality of first through-holes through which the gas can pass (gas flow path 10), a plurality of second through-holes through which the gas can pass and which are different from the first through-holes (gas flow path 11), and a first surface from which the gas can be ejected (Fig. 4); wherein when viewing the first surface from above (Fig. 6) the first surface includes a first region including a plurality of first injection ports which are end faces of the plurality of first through-holes and a second region including a plurality of second injection ports which are end faces of the plurality of second through-holes (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 of Eguchi illustrates the first injection ports (flow path 10, filled circles) and the second injection ports (flow path 11, unfilled circles), wherein there is approximately a ring of no injection ports between the first region/filled circles and second region/unfilled circles. Additionally, Fig. 6 illustrates that there is an additional length D of the radius to the second region (radius of first region is D/2 and radius of second region is approximately 3D/2). Eguchi teaches the diameter of the injection ports of 0.3 mm (Line 298) wherein the first region has a circular area with a diameter of 6 mm (Line 299-300) with 95 injection ports (Line 299) and the second region has 384 inject ports (Line 300). Assuming the second region has a radius of 3D/2 and D is 6 mm, the second region radius is approximately of 9 mm.
Area of first region = π (6 mm / 2)^2 = 28.274 mm^2
Area of injection ports in first region = 95 ∙ π (0.3 mm / 2)^2 = 6.715 mm^2
Area of second region = π (9 mm / 2 )^2 – Area of first region = 35.343 mm^2
Area of injection ports in second region = 384∙ π (0.3 mm / 2)^2 = 27.143 mm^2
Ratio of first region area = 6.715 mm^2 / 28.274 mm^2 = 0.237 (W1)
Ratio of second region area = 27.143 mm^2 / 35.343 mm^2 = 0.768 (W2)
The area of injection ports per unit area of the first region is smaller than an area of the injection ports per the unit area of the second region, satisfying the relationship W1 < W2. While the diameter of the second region is approximated based on Fig. 6 (and corroborated by Fig. 4), Eguchi teaches that the produced glass has a range of diameters such as 9.3 mm (Line 369) – 10.7 mm (Line 353) which would fit in the approximately 18 mm diameter (9 mm radius) second region as illustrated in Fig. 4/6. While Eguchi does not expressly teach the nominal area of the second region. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Eguchi teaches that the plurality of first through-holes and the plurality of second through-holes are angled from each other (Line 79-82). Eguchi does not expressly teach the first through-holes and the plurality of second through-holes are substantially parallel. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada teaches of a similar holding member with a first region with a plurality of first through-holes and a second region with a plurality of second through-holes when viewed from above (Fig. 4, central cluster of 11 and outer cluster of 11) wherein the plurality of first through-holes and plurality of second through-holes are substantially parallel (Fig. 5, ejection holes 11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to orient the plurality of second through-holes to be substantially parallel with plurality of first through-hole as a known arrangement in the art for a holding member used in a glass manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 32/5, Eguchi teaches of a glass manufacturing method comprising a levitation process for blowing gas onto a glass raw material from injection ports of a glass manufacturing apparatus (Line 40-42) comprising a holding member (Line 68-72), including a plurality of first through-holes through which the gas can pass (gas flow path 10), a plurality of second through-holes through which the gas can pass and which are different from the first through-holes (gas flow path 11), and a first surface from which the gas can be ejected (Fig. 4); wherein when viewing the first surface from above (Fig. 6) the first surface includes a first region including a plurality of first injection ports which are end faces of the plurality of first through-holes and a second region including a plurality of second injection ports which are end faces of the plurality of second through-holes (Fig. 6); levitating the glass raw material (Line 132-135); a melting process for melting the glass raw material by irradiating the glass raw material that has been levitated with a laser beam (Line 108-114); and a cooling process for cooling down the glass raw material that has been melted (Line 228-230).
Fig. 6 of Eguchi illustrates the first injection ports (flow path 10, filled circles) and the second injection ports (flow path 11, unfilled circles), wherein there is approximately a ring of no injection ports between the first region/filled circles and second region/unfilled circles. Additionally, Fig. 6 illustrates that there is an additional length D of the radius to the second region (radius of first region is D/2 and radius of second region is approximately 3D/2). Eguchi teaches the diameter of the injection ports of 0.3 mm (Line 298) wherein the first region has a circular area with a diameter of 6 mm (Line 299-300) with 95 injection ports (Line 299) and the second region has 384 inject ports (Line 300). Assuming the second region has a radius of 3D/2 and D is 6 mm, the second region radius is approximately of 9 mm.
Area of first region = π (6 mm / 2)^2 = 28.274 mm^2
Area of injection ports in first region = 95 ∙ π (0.3 mm / 2)^2 = 6.715 mm^2
Area of second region = π (9 mm / 2 )^2 – Area of first region = 35.343 mm^2
Area of injection ports in second region = 384∙ π (0.3 mm / 2)^2 = 27.143 mm^2
Ratio of first region area = 6.715 mm^2 / 28.274 mm^2 = 0.237 (W1)
Ratio of second region area = 27.143 mm^2 / 35.343 mm^2 = 0.768 (W2)
The area of injection ports per unit area of the first region is smaller than an area of the injection ports per the unit area of the second region, satisfying the relationship W1 < W2. While the diameter of the second region is approximated based on Fig. 6 (and corroborated by Fig. 4), Eguchi teaches that the produced glass has a range of diameters such as 9.3 mm (Line 369) – 10.7 mm (Line 353) which would fit in the approximately 18 mm diameter (9 mm radius) second region as illustrated in Fig. 4/6. While Eguchi does not expressly teach the nominal area of the second region. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Eguchi teaches that the plurality of first through-holes and the plurality of second through-holes are angled from each other (Line 79-82). Eguchi does not expressly teach the first through-holes and the plurality of second through-holes are substantially parallel. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada teaches of a similar holding member with a first region with a plurality of first through-holes and a second region with a plurality of second through-holes when viewed from above (Fig. 4, central cluster of 11 and outer cluster of 11) wherein the plurality of first through-holes and plurality of second through-holes are substantially parallel (Fig. 5, ejection holes 11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to orient the plurality of second through-holes to be substantially parallel with plurality of first through-hole as a known arrangement in the art for a holding member used in a glass manufacturing apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member has an area of the injection ports per unit area of the first region (W1) and an area of the injection ports per unit area of the second region (W2) (Fig. 6). The Examiner calculates W1 to be 0.237 and W2 is approximately 0.768 which yields a W1/W2 ratio of 0.309 that falls within the instantly claimed range. Though W2 is derived from an illustrative approximation: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the ratio of a number of the plurality of first injection ports to the area of the first region (T1) is 95 / 28.274 mm^2 = 3.36 and the ratio of a number of the plurality of second injection ports to the area of the second region (T2) is 384 / 35.343 mm^2 = 10.86, satisfies the relationship of T1 < T2.
Regarding claim 4/6, depending from claim 3/5, the holding member is configured such that the ratio of T1/T2 wherein T1 is the number of injection ports per unit area of the first area and T2 is the number of injection ports per unit area of the second region is (95/28.274)÷(384/35.343) = 0.309 that falls within the instantly claimed range. Though W2 is derived from an illustrative approximation: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the radius of the injection port of the first region and the radius of the injection port of the second region to be 0.15 mm (Line 297-298) which falls within the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected injection port radius for the first region or the second region that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the holding member to be made of silicon carbide (Line 89-90). Eguchi does not expressly state the material is porous. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada teaches of a similar holding member made of porous ceramic material such as silicon carbide (Line 311-312, 445). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a porous material for the purpose of the holding member with injecting ports as a known material to be used in the same application.
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 9, Eguchi teaches the holding member to be made of metal material (stainless steel, aluminum ) as well as porous material (silicon carbide, clarified to be porous in view of Yamada). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the holding member to have parts of the holding member such as the stage of the holding member (stage 3 of Fig. 2 Eguchi) and/or the second region (flow path 11) be made of metal material and the first region (flow path 10) be made of porous material as taught by Yamada to be known combination of materials to use for the same application.
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 9, Yamada teaches the holding member is configured such that a pore diameter of a portion that is porous is in the range of 1 to 200 μm (Line 314-316). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected pore diameter that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the holding member to be made of silicon carbide (Line 89-90). Eguchi does not expressly state the material is porous. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada teaches of a similar holding member made of porous ceramic material such as silicon carbide (Line 311-312, 445) with a porosity (Line 316-317). Though Yamada does not teach of a first region and a second region, the limitation is read on by the first region and second region taught by Eguchi (flow path 10, flow path 11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a porous holding member wherein the first region has a lower porosity (corresponding to the ratio of injection port area to first region area) than the porosity of the second region (corresponding to the ratio of injection port area to first region area) as known compatible material for the same application.
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member is configured such that the first surface is a roughly circular region when the holding member is viewed from above (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member is configured such that the first region is a region that includes a center when the first surface is viewed from above (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member is configured such that the first region is a region that is at least part of a roughly circular region for which a radius from a center point is r and r < radius of the first surface when the first surface is viewed from above, and the second region is a region that is at least part of a roughly annular region for which the radius of an inner circumference is r or more when the first surface is viewed from above (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18-21, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member is configured such that the first region is a region that is at least part of a roughly circular region for which the radius is less than the radius of the first surface when the first surface is viewed from above (Fig. 6, first region defined by flow path 10, first surface defined by the outermost circle), the second region is a region that is at least part of a roughly annular region when the first surface is viewed from above (Fig. 6, second region defined by flow path 11), and the radius of an inner circumference of the roughly annular region is larger than the radius of the roughly circular region. Eguchi does not expressly teach the nominal radius/diameter of the first surface (outermost circle in Fig. 6). The instant claim relates the proportional size of the first surface radius to that of the first region and second region. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the holding member is configured such that the first region is a region that is at least part of a roughly circular region for which a radius from a center point is 3 mm or less (Line 299-301), when the first surface is viewed from above.
Regarding claim 23, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates the holding member is configured such that the second region is a region that is at least part of a roughly annular region when the first surface is viewed from above (Fig. 6, flow path 11). Eguchi teaches the first region diameter is maximum 6 mm (Line 299-301). Eguchi does not nominally state the radius of the inner circumference of the roughly annular region or the radius of the outer circumference of the roughly annular surface. Eguchi illustrates that there is a distance that separates the first region and the second region (Fig. 6); transitively, the radius of the inner circumference of the roughly annular region must be larger than 3 mm or more. While Eguchi does not expressly teach the nominal area of the second region, Fig. 6 illustrates that there is an additional length D of the radius to the second region (radius of first region is D/2 and radius of second region is approximately 3D/2).. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrate the holing member is configured such that the first surface concentrically includes a region of a first circle, a region of a second circle, and a region of a third circle when viewed from above, the second circle having a radius (Fig. 6 defined by innermost flow path 11) that is larger than or equal to a radius of the first circle (Fig. 6 defined by the outermost flow path 10), the third circle having a radius that is larger than the radius of the second circle (Fig. 6 defined by outermost flow path 11), the first region is a region that is at least part of the region of the first circle, and the second region is a region is a region that is at least part of a roughly annular region obtained by excluding the region of the second circle from a region of the third circle (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, depending from claim 32, Eguchi illustrates that there is a distance that separates the first region and the second region (Fig. 6) which reads on the second region is not adjacent to the first region.
Regarding claim 26, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the holding member is configured such that a gas introduction surface is provided on an opposite side of the first surface (Fig. 4), the gas introduction surface including an introduction port from which the gas is introduced.
Regarding claim 27/28, depending from claim 26, Eguchi teaches the holding member is configured such that the plurality of injection ports included on the first surface is respectively connected to a plurality of the introduction ports (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 33, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches laser beam is irradiated onto the glass raw material without passing through the first surface (Fig. 1, laser heating source 6, Line 108-114).
Regarding claim 34, depending from claim 32, Eguchi is modified to use the through-holes of Yamada wherein Yamada illustrates the length of the plurality of first through-holes is smaller than the length of the plurality of second through-holes (Fig. 3/4, wherein Fig. 4 shows the horizontal distance differentiating the first through-holes and second through-holes and Fig. 3 shows the length of the through-holes).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Eguchi (JP-2020186146-A) and Yamada et al (JP-2017193459-A) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Yamada et al (US-20190202725-A1, henceforth referred as Yamada ‘725).
Regarding claim 13/14, depending from claim 32, Eguchi shows portion of second through-holes of the holding member is configured such that the gas is injected in a roughly horizontal direction that is roughly orthogonal to a gravity direction (Fig. 4, under broadest reasonable interpretation); however, the second through-holes were modified in the rejection of claim 32 above to be substantially parallel to the first through-holes. In the same field of endeavor, Yamada ‘725 teaches of a similar holding member with an injection port that injects gas in a horizontal direction orthogonal to gravity direction [0056].It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to introduce an injection port from which the gas is inject in a roughly horizontal direction that is approximately orthogonal to a gravity direction above the first surface to better control the position and altitude of the glass being levitated [0057].
Claims 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Eguchi (JP-2020186146-A) and Yamada et al (JP-2017193459-A) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Sato et al (US-20150344349-A1).
Regarding claim 29, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the diameter of the first region (Line 299-301). Eguchi does not nominally state the radius of the first surface from above. In the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches of a two region first surface for levitating glass wherein the first surface has a radius that falls within the instantly claimed range [0058, 69, 80, 91]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the first surface radius that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the first surface radius size since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Claims 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Eguchi (JP-2020186146-A) and Yamada et al (JP-2017193459-A) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JP-2002201032-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 30, depending from claim 32, Eguchi teaches the holding member is configured to have the first surface to have a depth (Fig. 2, Line 301-302). Eguchi does not expressly state the nominal depth of the first surface. In the same field of endeavor, Yoshida teaches of a similar first surface that has a depth of 7.4 mm when viewed in a cross section of the first surface (Fig. 2 recess 2 Line 587) that falls within the instantly claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a first surface depth that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the first surface depth since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-5873921-A, US-20060026993-A1, US-20180072605-A1, US-20180127301-A1 teach of similar levitating raw glass by gas injection method/apparatus as relevant prior art
US-6626010-B1 teaches of approximately horizontally introduced gas for a holding member
JP-2017178664-A also teaches of a first region/second region and the parallel first through-holes and second through-holes
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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741