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 .
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, 3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220098078).
Regarding claim 1, Rashley discloses a submerged combustion melting system (title), comprising:
a submerged combustion melter that includes a tank (16), which defines an exhaust outlet (130), and one or more submerged combustion burners mounted to the tank [0031]/ [0049];
an the exhaust stack, or flue is fluid-cooled [0052] thus the circumferential shell (122) [0051] of the lower flue defines an internal cooling passage configured to circulate a coolant therethrough, and wherein the circumferential shell of the upper flue defines an internal cooling passage configured to circulate a coolant therethrough.
comprising:
a lower flue (136) and an upper flue (136), where there are no dimensions required of the lower flue and upper flue the circumferential stack (136) is considered to comprise of the lower and upper flues given the broadest reasonable interpretation (Fig 12).
the lower flue coupled to the tank and extending upwardly away from the tank,
Rashley discloses an expansion joint (78) disposed between the upper flue and the hood [0040](Fig. 2A) which compliantly couples the lower flue and the upper flue to the hood given the broadest reasonable interpretation;
Rashley discloses hood (138) coupled to the upper flue (top part of 136) and extending upwardly away from the upper flue (Fig.12),
the hood fluidly communicating with the upper flue and comprising a circumferential shell that defines an exhaust flow passage and has an interior refractory liner [0051]-[0053] (Fig 12),
wherein the circumferential shell of the hood defines one or more dilution inlets (139b) and a hood outlet.
The essential difference between the invention of claim 1 and prior art Rashley is that Rashley does not explicitly recite an expansion joint within the flue (136).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flue of prior art Rashley in multiple parts rather than an integral structure as motivated for allowing for a more flexible flue and held to be an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art.
Rashley discloses an expansion joint (78) to connect portions of the flue in the structure thus it would be further obvious to connect at least two portions of a flue of Rashley with an expansion joint as motivated by Rashley disclosing it to be a suitable connection means.
Regarding claim 3, Rashley discloses jet lances (87) extend through into the exhaust refractory-lined hood or deliver bursts of gas to break up or prevent condensation in the exhaust [0048]-[0052]
MPEP 2144.04 states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)
It would be obvious to rearrange the placement of the jets in the exhaust system as an obvious rearrangement of parts. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to place the jets or more fluid spray nozzles through the lower flue or the upper flue as motivated to spray a cooling fluid into the exhaust flow.
Regarding claim 5, Rashley discloses dilution inlets extends through the circumferential shell of the hood to the exhaust flow passage of the hood (Fig 12), [0053]
Rashley does not specifically disclose or depicted in the embodiment of Fig 12 has a dilution inlet has a central axis that is upwardly inclined so as to form an angle with respect to a horizontal reference line.
Rashley depicts a dilution inlet and outlet 40a-e where the central axis that is upwardly inclined so as to form an angle with respect to a horizontal reference line. Fig 7-8 [0039]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the configuration of the dilution inlet with the expected result of diluting the exhaust and indicated obvious In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claims 6-8, Rashley discloses the circumferential shell of the refractory-lined hood extends upwardly along a longitudinal axis above the upper flue may have a plurality of the dilution inlets/ outlets [0048]-[0053],
Rashley discloses a dilution collar that circumscribes the circumferential shell of the hood and covers the dilution inlets, the dilution collar defining a diluent intake opening to receive a diluent for distribution circumferentially around the circumferential shell of the hood within the diluent collar and through the plurality of dilution inlets in Fig 8 [0039].
Claims 4 and 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220098078) as applied above and further in view of Burke (US 5383316).
Regarding claim 4, Rashley discloses an expansion joint and the rejection of claim 1 makes obvious an expansion joint connecting different parts of the flue such as an upper flue and lower flue however fails to disclose the details of the structure of said expansion joint.
In an analogous art of a flue expansion joints (at least abstract, Col 1; lines 10-14) Burke discloses the expansion joint includes a thermal ring shaped barrier (248) of an insulation material and surrounded by a flexible protective cover (242) that conceals the thermal ring barrier radially inwardly thereof, the flexible protective cover surrounding (Fig 9) to provide stress relief in flue duct systems by absorbing movement caused by thermal changes, reducing vibration through the flue or misalignment (Col 1; lines 42-50)
As indicated in claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flue of prior art Rashley in multiple parts rather than an integral structure as motivated for allowing for a more flexible flue and held to be an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. Rashley indicates expansions joints as suitable for joining flue structures in the submerged combustion melter. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the expansion joint structure taught by Burke to join flue portions of Rashley as motivated provide stress relief in flue duct systems by absorbing movement caused by thermal changes, reducing vibration through the flue or misalignment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant amended claim 1 to indicate both the upper flue and lower flue are cooled and the expansion joint exists between the upper and lower flues.
Applicant knows that duct work is often connected in multiple pieces as depicted in Rashley, Weil Figures Applicant has cited in remarks 03/02/2026 page 11 or common ductwork in a house. Using multiple duct pieces instead of a single piece for the entirety of the flue as depicted by Rashley is not novel. Examiner has indicated why it would be obvious to use multiple pieces as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 herein. Examiner does not concede that it would not be obvious to combine Pei with the flue of Rashley but for consistency in language Examiner provides new reference, Burke, for disclosing an expansion joint such as that claimed. Flue expansion joints are not novel and allow for a flue to be more flexible and dampen vibrations or offset of flue pieces as indicated by Burke. Submerged combustion melters vibrate vigorously, and at high temperatures both a benefit to mixing the glass and a deficit when keeping apparatus structures aligned thus expansion joints would be desirable as further indicated in Burke. Examiner cannot find any allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mighton (US 20190300415) and Mobley (US 9145319) evidence PHOSITA knows an SCM vibrates
expansion joint for flue
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 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
Prosecution Insights