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 Objections
Claims 20 and 42 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 19 and 41, respectively. 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).
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.
Claims 1, 21-23, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalstra (2011/0247363) in view of Wacke (6,477,862). Regarding claims 1, 22 and 23, Dalstra discloses a system and method for producing a glass product, the method comprising forming a heated glass gob, transporting the glass gob through at least one guiding means, such as a trough ([0028]) to a mold and forming the glass gob into a glass product using the mold ([0001], figure 1a). Dalstra further teaches making an infrared image with an infrared sensor, such as an infrared camera ([0041]), of the glass gob as it is transported along the guiding trough ([0015],[0034]) to provide a temperature distribution of the glass gob. Dalstra teaches the image can be made at at least one moment and/or during at least one period after the glass gob has passed by ([0018]). Dalstra teaches a signal processing unit for processing signals coming from the infrared sensor ([0036]). Dalstra also teaches analyzing the image, via the signal processing unit, for obtaining information about the friction between the heated glass gob and the outer part surface along which the glass gob while making contact with the outer part surface is transported. More specifically, Dalstra teaches the temperature of the glass gob is analyzed to determine a change in time of heat loss to the guiding means (trough), wherein such heat loss depends on the friction of the trough, which may change over time ([0041]). In other words, the images of temperature provide information for assessing the friction of the glass gob with the guiding trough. As mentioned, Dalstra teaches taking an infrared image of the glass gob as it is transported, which suggests the image may include the outer surface of the trough along which the gob while making contact with the outer part surface is transported. However, it has not been made explicit. Like Dalstra, Wacke teaches a method for producing a glass product, the method comprising forming a heated glass gob, transporting the glass gob through a guiding means to a mold, and forming the glass gob into a glass product using the mold (col. 2 line 67, col. 3 lines 1-3). Wacke further teaches using infrared sensors to measure a temperature, in real-time, of an outside surface of the guiding means (funnel) along which the glass gob while making contact with the guiding means is guided. Wacke specifies the measured temperature is due to heat transfer from the glass gob (col. 3 lines 19-30, 39-42) and that the outside surface temperature closely tracks with the inside surface temperature, which in turns varies as a function of heat transfer from the molten glass gobs (col. 3 lines 39-42, 55-49-51). Since the measured temperature is due to heat transferred from the glass gob, it would be obvious to expect the measurement step would naturally involve measuring the guiding means after the glass gob has passed at least a part of the guiding means. Wacke teaches an increased temperature is indicative of a change in gob diameter and potential blockage in the funnel, which suggests an increased gob contact time with the funnel. Thus, one skilled in the art may take from Wacke that sensing a temperature of the guiding means is another viable means for providing information regarding heat transferred from the glass gob to the guiding means. Accordingly, for this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively capture an infrared image of the guiding means to provide information on temperature and heat transferred from the glass gob, and thereby provide information about the friction between the glass gob and the guiding means, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Wacke, wherein the guiding means includes an outer part surface of a guiding trough.
In summary, Dalstra teaches providing an infrared image of a glass gob to provide temperature data for obtaining information about friction between the glass gob and a contact surface of the guiding means. Dalstra also teaches the image can be captured anywhere along the guiding means, including troughs. Wacke teaches infrared images of guiding surfaces can also provide temperature data for the glass gobs, as heat is directly transferred from the glass gob to the guiding surfaces. Wacke also teaches the temperature measured on an outer side of a funnel is an indicator of the temperature of the inside surface (contact surface) of the funnel. Thus, the combination of teachings of Dalstra and Wacke would suggests to one skilled in the art to have provided temperature data by alternatively making an infrared image of the guiding means, such as a trough, or more specifically an image of an outer part surface in which the glass gob comes in contact with during transport, wherein the temperature data is analyzed to obtain information regarding friction between the glass gob and the contact surface.
Regarding claims 21 and 43-44, Dalstra teaches a plurality of infrared sensors, wherein the plurality of infrared sensors are configured to make the image a 3D image ([0020]).
Claims 2 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalstra (2011/0247363) and Wacke (6,477,862) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anger et al. (5,434,616). Dalstra discloses using an infrared camera to generate the infrared image, but doesn’t discuss specifics. Anger teaches an apparatus for measuring glass gobs, the apparatus comprising an infrared camera for generating infrared images of the glass gob, a digitizer for digitizing the image to produce an array of pixels, and an image analyzer for analyzing the pixels of the image to gather information regarding the glass gob (claim 1, col. 2 lines 45-59). Anger specifies the intensity and/or color of the pixels can be analyzed to provide information regarding the temperature of the glass gobs (claim 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the infrared camera and the signal processing unit of Dalstra to operate in a similar fashion, wherein information about the friction is determined by analyzing the intensity and/or color of pixels of the image captured, as Anger teaches this is a known operation for infrared cameras and signal processing units for providing information regarding temperature.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 10-16, 18, 25-26, 32-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalstra (2011/0247363) and Wacke (6,477,862) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of Aburada et al. (2018/0297884). Regarding claims 3-4 and 25-26, Dalstra discloses using an infrared camera to generate the infrared image, but doesn’t discuss specifics. Wacke also teaches using infrared sensors to detect temperature (col. 3 lines 24-27), but doesn’t offer specifics. Aburada teaches an infrared sensor, such as a thermal camera, for sensing a corresponding temperature of a heated glass ribbon at a plurality of locations, wherein each of the plurality of locations correspond to at least one pixel of the thermal camera ([0012]-[0013]), and the pixels correspond to the sensed temperature ([0078]). Aburada teaches the thermal camera can sense an absolute temperature at a fixed location ([0075]) by providing an infrared image of glass at that location in pixel, and analyzing the image to produce the corresponding sensed temperature data ([0078]). Aburada further teaches the data permits continuous and timely feedback analysis of the glass manufacturing apparatus to control and maintain features, such as a feed rate of the molten glass ([0085]). Aburada also teaches thermal sensors can image the glass ribbon and sense a plurality of temperatures of the glass ribbon on a relatively fast basis (quick cycle times), which provides for fast processing time and allows for faster response and adjustment of the glass former based on the sensed temperature ([0085]). This suggests sensing temperature as it changes with time to provide real-time feedback. As discussed above, Dalstra teaches the temperature of the glass gob is analyzed to determine a change in time of heat loss to the guiding means (trough), wherein such heat loss depends on the friction of the trough, which may change over time ([0041]), and Wacke suggests real-time temperature measurements of the guiding means and analyzing the sensed temperature data (col. 3 lines 23-30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided images of outer part surface of the guiding means, on a continuous basis as suggested by Aburada, which would include images before and after the gob has passed a part of the outer part surface, so as to provide real-time temperature data for determining a change in time of heat loss to the guiding means, and thereby information about the friction. Furthermore, in order to determine a change in time of heat loss to the trough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have compared a first image of the glass gob after it passed a part of the outer part surface and a second image of the glass gob before it passed the part of the outer part surface, to note any changes and provide information about the friction.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 28-30, Aburada teaches providing images in multiple positions ([0085]-[0087]), which would naturally provide for friction data at multiple locations. Dalstra teaches analyzing the data against predetermined values via the signal processing unit ([0036]-[0037]) and Wacke teaches comparing the temperature with a preset or predetermined threshold to determine if the data exceeds such threshold (col. 2 lines 19-29). Thus, in providing for temperature data and the corresponding friction data at multiple positions, and comparing the data to predetermined values, a position at which the friction exceeds a predetermined value, the magnitude the friction at a predetermined position, and if friction exceeds a predetermined value at a predetermined position is determined.
Regarding claims 10 and 32, as mentioned above, Aburada teaches providing real-time data on a continuous basis, which suggests a change of the friction in time of a predetermine position is determined.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 33-36, Dalstra teaches increasing friction along the surface is not desired ([0004]). Dalstra further teaches providing a lubricant to the outer part surface of the guiding trough, and adjusting lubrication of the guiding means based on observations about the glass gob, under the control of the signal processing unit ([0026], [0074], claim 23). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the signal processing unit to adjust lubrication of the trough when the determined friction exceeds a predetermined value, since increasing friction along the trough is not desired.
Regarding claims 15-16, 18, 37-38 and 40, Dalstra further teaches adjusting positions of the guiding means so as to minimize glass gob velocity when delivering the next glass gob ([0029]), under the control of the signal processing unit ([0036]), to ensure uniformity of the glass products made ([0032]). Dalstra teaches friction has an effect on the velocity of the glass gob ([0018]); thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have adjusted the position of the guiding trough when friction exceeds a predetermine value.
Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalstra (2011/0247363), Wacke (6,477,862), and Aburada et al. (2018/0297884) as applied to claims 4 and 22 above, and further in view of Anger et al. (5,434,616). Dalstra and Aburada disclose using an infrared camera to generate the infrared image, but don’t discuss specifics regarding pixels. Anger teaches an apparatus for measuring glass gobs, the apparatus comprising an infrared camera for generating infrared images of the glass gob, a digitizer for digitizing the image to produce an array of pixels, and an image analyzer for analyzing the pixels of the image to gather information regarding the glass gob (claim 1, col. 2 lines 45-59). Anger specifies the intensity and/or color of the pixels can be analyzed to provide information regarding the temperature of the glass gobs (claim 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the infrared camera and signal processing unit of Dalstra and Aburada to operate in a similar fashion, wherein information about the friction is determined by analyzing the intensity and/or color of pixels of the image, as Anger teaches this is a known operation for infrared cameras and a signal processing unit for providing information regarding temperature. Accordingly, in comparing the first image with the second image, the intensity and/or color of the first pixel of the first image is compared to the intensity and/or color of the second pixel of the second image, and in order to provide for an accurate comparison, the location of the first pixel should have the same position as the second pixel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 13, 17, 19-20, 31, 39, and 41-42 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 fairly suggest or teach analyzing infrared images of an outer part surface of a guiding trough after a glass gob has passed to obtain information about the progress of the friction between the heated glass gob and the outer part surface of the guiding trough along a predetermined trajectory along the outer part surface. Nor the does it teach determining where the gob hits the trough based on the determined friction information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Dalstra only measure the temperature of the glass droplet itself and does not analyze an infrared image of an outer part surface of the trough. While this may be true, Dalstra teaches the gob can be measure anywhere along the guiding path ([0034]), and since Wacke teaches similar temperature information can be provided for by imaging the guiding means, as an alternative to imaging the gob. Thus, it would be obvious to image the trough of Dalstra instead to gather temperature information for analyzing. Regarding making the image of the outer part surface after the gob has passed at least a part of the outer part surface, Dalstra teaches the observing step is carried out at a moment and/or during a period after the gob has at least partly passed the outlet of the guiding system, i.e. after gob has passed by ([0016]). Applicant further argues Wacke makes an infrared image of an outer surface of a funnel, which is not in contact with the glass gob. Because of the shape of a funnel, infrared imaging of the inside surface (contact surface) would be difficult. Nonetheless, Wacke teaches the outside surface temperature provides an indication of the inside surface temperature. Furthermore, in applying Wacke to the guiding trough of Dalstra, an outer part surface of the trough, which is open and exposed, would be easily imaged. Thus, the prior art reasonably suggests forming an infrared image of the outer part surface of the guiding trough to provide temperature information, which can be analyzed to determine friction between the glass gob and the outer part surface.
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