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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 03-02-2026.
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) 1-6, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanvoine ‘376 (US 6,460,376 B1) in view of Wang ‘105 (WO 2022/232105 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeanvoine ‘376 teaches:
a glass melter (melting chamber 2, Fig. 2)
a glass fining tower (parts 22, 30 of centrifuge 21, Fig. 3) positioned downstream of the glass melter relative to a flow direction of glass through the glass-producing system (Fig. 2), the glass fining tower comprising:
a shell (outer wall and lower wall of centrifuger 21, Fig. 3)
a tubular wall disposed within and surrounded by the shell (inner wall of centrifuger 21 below the dashed line in annotated Fig. 3 below)
a base receiving wall that extends inwardly from the shell to the tubular wall (dashed lines with arrow pointing to it in annotated Fig. 3 below), the tubular wall and the base receiving wall providing an interior fining chamber within the shell (interior space defined by the tubular wall and base receiving wall, Fig. 3), the interior fining chamber comprising an elongated vertical well (interior space defined by the tubular wall, Fig. 3), the elongated vertical well being defined by the tubular wall (Fig. 3) and having an opening that is at least partially surrounded by a glass distribution surface of the base receiving wall (opening at top of tubular wall, Fig. 3)
a vacuum source operable to reduce a pressure of the interior fining chamber to a subatmospheric level (column 15, lines 16-26).
Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding a heater operable to introduce heat through the tubular wall. In analogous art of glass refining, Wang ‘105 suggests a heater operable to introduce heat through a tubular wall of a glass fining tower for the benefit of controlling the temperature of molten glass in the glass fining tower (¶ [0036], [0040], [0049], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Jeanvoine ‘376 with a heater operable to introduce heat through the tubular wall for the benefit of controlling the temperature of molten glass in the glass fining tower, as suggested by Wang ‘105.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass fining tower is configured to deliver an inflow of molten glass onto the base receiving wall so that the inflow of molten glass flows over the glass distribution surface into the elongated vertical well to feed a column of molten glass contained in the elongated vertical well (column 15, line 16-column 16, line 5), and wherein the glass fining tower is further configured to discharge an outflow of molten glass that is drawn from the column of molten glass contained in the elongated vertical well (column 16, lines 7-9; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass melter is a submerged combustion melter that includes one or more submerged burners (melting chamber 2 with burners 5, Fig. 2; column 12, line 50-column 13, line 21).
Regarding claim 4, an output of unfined molten glass constitutes material worked upon by the claimed apparatus. It has been held that the inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 5, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass distribution surface of the base receiving wall tapers downwardly to the opening of the elongated vertical well (Fig. 3) and additionally defines a protruding lip that surrounds the opening of the elongated vertical well (outer portion of plate 24, Fig. 3) and separates the glass distribution surface into an outer portion that lies adjacent to the shell (portion above plate 24) and an inner portion that lies adjacent to the opening of the elongated vertical well (portion below plate 24).
Regarding claim 6, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass fining tower comprises an inlet conduit that extends into the interior fining chamber and terminates above the outer portion of the glass distribution surface such that an inflow of molten glass is poured onto the outer portion of the glass distribution surface upon being introduced into the glass fining tower (cylinder below number 23, Fig. 3; column 15, lines 16-37).
Regarding claim 11, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass melter and the glass fining tower are fluidly connected by a glass transfer conduit (supply pipe 20, Fig. 2; column 15, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 12, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches an intermediate glass fining reservoir located within the glass transfer conduit (part 20(b), Fig. 2), the intermediate glass fining reservoir including a housing that defines an internal fining chamber and further including an inlet and an outlet (inlet adjacent part 20(a) and outlet adjacent part 20(c), Fig. 2; column 15, lines 4-12), and wherein the inlet is connected to the glass melter by an upstream portion of the glass transfer conduit (part 20(a), Fig. 2) and the outlet is connected to the glass fining tower by a downstream portion of the glass transfer conduit (part (20(c), Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches an outlet of the tubular wall fluidly communicates with an exit conduit that extends outwardly from the tubular wall through an exit opening in the shell of the glass fining tower (column 16, lines 7-9; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches a thermal conditioning tank positioned downstream of the glass fining tower relative to the flow direction of glass through the glass-producing system (tank below centrifuger 21 fed by funnel 29, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanvoine ‘376 (US 6,460,376 B1) and Wang ‘105 (WO 2022/232105 A1) in view of Wang ‘078 (US 2019/0284078 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass melter includes a housing having a roof, a floor, and an upstanding wall that connects the roof and the floor (melting tank 2, Fig. 2). Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding a molten glass outlet defined in the floor of the housing and regarding a glass prefining vessel as claimed. In analogous art of glass refining, Wang ‘078 suggests a glass melter having a molten glass outlet defined in a floor of a housing (exit funnel 2 in bottom of SCM 1, Fig. 1), and a glass prefining vessel located beneath the glass melter (first chamber 5, Fig. 1), the glass prefining vessel comprising a shell (outer wall of 5, Fig. 3) that defines an internal fining chamber (interior space defined by outer wall of 5, Fig. 3) and a vat that is enclosed by the shell (refractory refining channel 22, Fig. 3; ¶ [0038]), the shell being connected to the housing of the glass melter around the molten glass outlet (Fig. 1), and the vat including a drum wall that defines a glass-holding zone within the internal fining chamber of the glass prefining vessel beneath the molten glass outlet of the glass melter (refractory refining channel 22, Figs. 1, 3; ¶ [0038]). The glass prefining vessel of Wang ‘078 is then connected to a further refining chamber (chamber 10, Fig. 1). Wang ‘078 suggests that this arrangement is for the benefit of efficiently removing gaseous inclusions from molten glass by enabling the use of varying vacuum levels (¶ [0004]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Jeanvoine ‘376 by defining the molten glass outlet in the floor of the housing and providing a glass prefining vessel located beneath the glass melter, the glass prefining vessel comprising a shell that defines an internal fining chamber and a vat that is enclosed by the shell, the shell being connected to the housing of the glass melter around the molten glass outlet, and the vat including a drum wall that defines a glass-holding zone within the internal fining chamber of the glass prefining vessel beneath the molten glass outlet of the glass melter, for the benefit of efficiently removing gaseous inclusions from the molten glass, as suggested by Wang ‘078.
Regarding claim 14, Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding an additional, second glass fining tower being positioned downstream of the glass fining tower relative to the flow direction of glass through the glass producing system. Wang ‘078 suggests providing a first glass fining chamber and a second glass fining chamber downstream of the first glass fining chamber relative to a flow direction of glass through the glass producing system, which share the same structure but are operated at different vacuum levels for the benefit of efficiently removing gaseous inclusions from molten glass (¶ [0004]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeanvoine ‘376 and Wang ‘105 by providing an additional, second glass fining tower being positioned downstream of the glass fining tower relative to the flow direction of glass through the glass producing system, and having the same structure as cited for claim 1 above, for the benefit of quickly efficiently removing gaseous inclusions from molten glass and allowing for operation at different vacuum levels, as suggested by Wang ‘078.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanvoine ‘376 (US 6,460,376 B1), Wang ‘105 (WO 2022/232105 A1), and Wang ‘078 (US 2019/0284078 A1) further in view of Izumitani ‘895 (US 4,549,895).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jeanvoine ‘376 and Wang ‘078 as described above further suggests the glass fining tower is positioned downstream of the glass prefining vessel relative to the flow direction of glass through the glass-producing system, as the glass prefining vessel suggested by Wang ‘078 (chamber 5) is upstream of a glass fining chamber (chamber 10) downstream. Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches fluidly connecting chambers of the glass-producing system by a glass transfer conduit for molten glass to travel between chambers (channel 20, Fig. 2). Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding the glass transfer conduit being thermally interconnected to a heater so that heat can be introduced into the molten glass traveling between the glass prefining vessel and the glass fining tower within the glass transfer conduit. In analogous art of glass refining, Izumitani ‘895 suggest a glass transfer conduit that is thermally interconnected to a heater so that heat can be introduced into molten glass traveling between chambers within the glass transfer conduit for the benefit of controlling temperature and flow of the molten glass in the glass transfer conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jeanvoine ‘376, Wang ‘105, and Wang ‘078 by making the glass transfer conduit thermally interconnected to a heater so that heat can be introduced into the molten glass traveling between the glass prefining vessel and the glass fining tower within the glass transfer conduit for the benefit of controlling temperature and flow of the molten glass in the glass transfer conduit, as suggested by Izumitani ‘895.
Regarding claim 10, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches an intermediate glass fining reservoir located within the glass transfer conduit (part 20(b), Fig. 2), the intermediate glass fining reservoir including a housing that defines an internal fining chamber and further including an inlet and an outlet (inlet adjacent part 20(a) and outlet adjacent part 20(c), Fig. 2; column 15, lines 4-12), and wherein the outlet is connected to the glass fining tower by a downstream portion of the glass transfer conduit (part (20(c), Fig. 2). In the combination of Jeanvoine ‘376 and Wang ‘078 in which the glass prefining vessel is located below the glass melter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the inlet of the intermediate glass fining reservoir to be connected to the glass prefining vessel by an upstream portion of the glass transfer conduit of Jeanvoine ‘376 (part 20(a), Fig. 2) in order to move the molten glass up to above the glass fining tower of Jeanvoine ‘376 (21, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanvoine ‘376 (US 6,460,376 B1) in view of Wang ‘105 (WO 2022/232105 A1) and Pecoraro ‘700 (US 4,919,700).
Regarding claim 16, Jeanvoine ‘376 teaches:
a glass melter from which an output of unfined molten glass is discharged (melting chamber 2, Fig. 2; column 15, lines 16-19)
a glass fining tower (parts 22, 30 of centrifuge 21, Fig. 3) positioned downstream of the glass melter relative to a flow direction of glass through the glass-producing system (Fig. 2), the glass fining tower comprising:
a shell (outer wall and lower wall of centrifuger 21, Fig. 3)
a tubular wall disposed within and surrounded by the shell (inner wall of centrifuger 21 below the dashed line in annotated Fig. 3 below), the tubular wall defining an elongated vertical wall that contains a column of molten glass (interior space defined by the tubular wall, Fig. 3; column 15, lines 45-46)
a base receiving wall that extends inwardly from the shell to the tubular wall (dashed lines with arrow pointing to it in annotated Fig. 3 above by claim 1) and provides a glass distribution surface (column 15, lines 16-34) that at least partially surrounds an opening of the elongated vertical well (opening at top of tubular wall, Fig. 3), the base receiving wall and the tubular wall together establishing an interior fining chamber within the shell of which the elongated vertical well is a part (interior space defined by the tubular wall and base receiving wall, Fig. 3)
a vacuum source that fluidly communicates with a vacuum port and is operable to reduce a pressure of the interior fining chamber to a subatmospheric level (column 15, lines 16-26; Fig. 3)
the glass fining tower is configured to deliver an inflow of molten glass onto the base receiving wall so that the inflow of molten glass flows over the glass distribution surface into the elongated vertical well to feed a column of molten glass contained in the elongated vertical well (column 15, line 16-column 16, line 5), and wherein the glass fining tower is further configured to discharge an outflow of molten glass that is drawn from the column of molten glass contained in the elongated vertical well (column 16, lines 7-9; Figs. 2-3).
Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding a heater operable to introduce heat into the column of molten glass through the tubular wall. In analogous art of glass refining, Wang ‘105 suggests a heater operable to introduce heat through a tubular wall of a glass fining tower for the benefit of controlling the temperature of molten glass in the glass fining tower (¶ [0036], [0040], [0049], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Jeanvoine ‘376 with a heater operable to introduce heat into the column of molten glass through the tubular wall for the benefit of controlling the temperature of molten glass in the glass fining tower, as suggested by Wang ‘105.
Jeanvoine ‘376 is silent regarding the vacuum port being defined in the shell. In analogous art of glass refining, Pecoraro ‘700 suggests locating a vacuum port in a shell of a glass fining tower (vacuum conduit 32, Figure; column 6, lines 46-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Jeanvoine ‘376 by defining the vacuum port in the shell as an alternative location for a vacuum port for establishing subatmospheric pressure in a glass fining tower, as suggested by Pecoraro ‘700.
Regarding claim 17, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass melter is a submerged combustion melter that includes one or more submerged burners (melting chamber 2 with burners 5, Fig. 2; column 12, line 50-column 13, line 21). The claime output of unfined molten glass constitutes material worked upon by the claimed apparatus. It has been held that the inclusion of the material worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Jeanvoine ‘376 further teaches the glass distribution surface of the base receiving wall tapers downwardly to the opening of the elongated vertical well (Fig. 3) and additionally defines a protruding lip that surrounds the opening of the elongated vertical well (outer portion of plate 24, Fig. 3) and separates the glass distribution surface into an outer portion that lies adjacent to the shell (portion above plate 24) and an inner portion that lies adjacent to the opening of the elongated vertical well (portion below plate 24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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: Regarding claims 7 and 19, the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest a sleeve configured as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03-02-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
The rejection fails to propose specific modifications to Jeanvoine that would be necessary to include Wang’s heater.
Response: Such a modification is considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art, for example, placing a heater external to the rotating tube. Such a heater would not necessarily be required to rotate in order to provide a heating effect. Refractory and insulating materials do not reflect all heat, and upon heating, such materials could effectively hold heat in order to maintain a desired temperature.
Jeanvoine teaches away from supplementing the centrifuge with a heater.
Response: Providing a heater to control a temperature of the molten glass in the glass fining tower does not equate to or require heating the glass to high temperatures. While Jeanvoine notes that glass reheating may not be required, that does not exclude maintaining or controlling temperatures in the glass fining tower, and potentially for non-standard operations. Such a modification also would not require altering Jeanvoine’s apparatus to be static, as noted with respect to the previous argument.
The outer portion of plate 24 of Jeanvoine does not constitute the claimed lip because it is located above the tapered portion of Jeanvoine and not on the tapered portion, it cannot be said to form a lip at all relative to any surface, the plate 24 is not located on a glass distribution surface, and it is not adjacent to a shell.
Response: The claims do not preclude the claimed lip being located above the tapered portion. The rejections above and previously note the base receiving wall as including the portions annotated in Fig. 3 with dashed lines, which includes the surfaces of plate 24. The surfaces of the base receiving wall constitute the glass distribution surface, which tapers downwardly to an opening of the well as shown in Fig. 3. The surfaces of plate 24 are included, and the outer portion of plate 24 does surround the opening. A lip can be broadly defined as a projecting edge, which the outer portion of plate 24 meets. Plate 24 is described as having holes therein, through which the molten glass flows. The portion of the glass distribution surface of the base receiving wall above plate 24 includes surfaces adjacent to the shell, as can be seen in the dashed lines of annotated Fig. 3.
Part 20(b) of Jeanvoine does not read on the claimed intermediate fining reservoir because it is not intended to refine the glass and lacks a distinct intermediate reservoir.
Response: It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the intermediate fining reservoir performing refining, additional structure of the reservoir) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A reservoir can be broadly defined as a place where something is kept, or a receptacle for holding a fluid. Part 20(b) holds/keeps molten glass in an intermediate location as it is transported between melting chamber 2 and centrifuger 21, and delivers the glass to centrifuger 21 for refining. Thus part 20(b) is considered to be an intermediate fining reservoir.
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights