DETAILED ACTION
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono (EP 0 052 007 as provided for by applicant) in view of Machlan et al. (3,294,503). Regarding claims 1 and 4, Shono discloses a method for producing glass fiber, the method comprising supplying molten glass to a bushing, drawing out a plurality of glass filaments from the bushing (page 7), and gathering the glass filaments into a strand (page 9 lines 14-20), wherein the bushing includes a base plate, and a nozzle group provided at a bottom surface of the base plate, the nozzle group includes a first nozzle row in which a plurality of first nozzles are aligned, and a second nozzle row in which a plurality of second nozzles are aligned, the second nozzle row being arranged adjacent to the first nozzle row (page 7 lines 14-20, figures 1-3). Shono further teaches the distance between peripheral surfaces of adjacent nozzles is in the range of 0.3 to 2.0 mm (page 10 lines 3-23), the diameter of the nozzle is in the range of 1.6-2.8 mm, the length of the nozzles is in the range of 0.7-4.5 mm (page 12 lines 11-17). However, Shono doesn’t specify a thickness of the base plate. Machlan similarly teaches a bushing for producing glass filaments, the bushing comprising a base plate and a nozzle group provided at a bottom surface of the base plate (col. 5 lines 47-53, figures 1-3, 5). Machlan further teaches the overall length of the nozzles is a result effective variable effecting a desired flow rate or throughput of the glass through the nozzle (col. 7 lines 28-33) and suggests a base plate having a thickness of 0.060” (1.524 mm) and selecting an appropriate a nozzle length to prevent flooding of the nozzle tip (col. 3 lines 12-39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried a similarly sized base plate of a thickness of about 1.5mm for the base plate of Shono, as Machlan teaches it is a result effective variable that can provide an adequate nozzle flow path length for drawing of glass filaments with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, Shono provides a few examples of bushings having nozzles arrangements that falls within the ranges above. In taking a closer look at example 2 and employing the suggests base plate thickness of 1.524 mm, the bushing comprising the following:
Nozzle hole diameter (D1) of 1.9 mm
Nozzle outside diameter of 2.4 mm
Nozzle flow path length (Lt) of 3.524 mm (1.524 mm + 2.0 mm)
Nozzle hole cross sectional area (A1) of 2.84 mm2
Nozzle wall cross sectional area (A2) of 1.69 mm2
Interval between the centers of adjacent first nozzles in the first nozzle row and interval between the centers of adjacent second nozzles in the second nozzle row (L1) of (2.4mm + 1.6mm) = 4 mm
Interval between the center of the first nozzle row in a row width direction and the center of the second nozzle row in the row width direction (L2) of 4 mm
Using the values above, the following calculations according to expressions (2)-(6) are provided for:
y1 = 7.93
y2 = 12.93
X = 3.698
A3 = 16
Y = 11.48
Wherein, the Y value of 11.48 satisfies expression (1), y1≤ Y≤ y2.
While this example doesn’t satisfy the expression (7) 0.2 ≤ X ≤ 3.0, Shono teaches ranges for the distance between the nozzles, diameter of the nozzles, and length of nozzles that would provide for successful drawing of the glass fibers, as mentioned above. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried a nozzle arrangement having lengths, diameters, and spacing that falls within the ranges suggested by Shono, as Shono teaches such a nozzle arrangement predictably provides for successful production of glass fibers, wherein a combination of the length, diameter, and spacing would satisfy the expression 0.2≤ X ≤ 3.0. Shono teaches in example 1 a X value of (1.84/5.524) 1.90, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2-3.0. While this provides for a Y value of 4.9 is below the calculated y1 value of 5.5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried other values of nozzle diameter, spacing, or length within the suggested ranges, as it predictably provides for the successful production of glass fibers, and arrive at Y and X values that do satisfy expressions (1) and (7). For example, as discussed above, Shono teaches the distance between peripheral surfaces of adjacent nozzles is in the range of 0.3 to 2.0 mm (page 10 lines 3-23). Using example 1, by varying the distance between the tips from 0.3mm to 2.0mm, the following is calculated:
the calculated X value remains 1.90
the y1 to y2 range remains 5.53 to 10.53
A3
Y
Using the lower limit for distance of 0.3 mm
8.41
3.10
Using the upper limit for distance of 2.0 mm
21.16
15.85
Using a middle value for distance of 1.0 mm
12.96
7.65
As can be seen, using the middle value of 1.0 mm for the a distance between the tips in example 1, provides for X that satisfies expression (7) of 0.2 ≤ X ≤ 3.0 and Y that satisfies expression (1) 5.53 ≤ 7.65 ≤ 10.53.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shono (EP 0 052 007 as provided for by applicant) and Machlan et al. (3,294,503) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanase et al. (JP 2019108262 as provided for by applicant). Shono doesn’t specify a surface roughness of an inner surface of each of the nozzles. Yanase similarly teaches a bushing comprising a base plate and a nozzle group provided at a bottom surface of the base plate. Yanase further teaches the mean surface roughness on an inner surface of the each of the nozzles is 2 µm or less (abstract). Yanase teaches reducing the surface roughness to such values allows for the molten glass to flow more uniformly, thereby providing for more uniform glass fibers ([0009]-[0010]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a mean roughness of 2 µm or less for an inner surface of each of the nozzles of Shono so as allow uniform glass fibers, as taught by Yanase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Shono and Machlan fails to disclose the recited relationships in expressions (1) to (6) or technical advantages achieved in satisfying these relationships. This is not found persuasive because Shono and Machlan teaches a bushing configures with a nozzle group arrangement that satisfies relationships (1) through (7). The claims are directed to an apparatus claim, and thus, it is immaterial how the relationships were developed or what advantages are achieved using such a bushing. As discussed more concretely in an example above, Shono teaches a range for the distance between tip of 0.3mm to 2.0mm, that provides for X and Y values that simultaneously satisfies expression (1) and (7). Since the bushing of Shono and Machlan meets all the relationships, it is deemed to satisfy the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights