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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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 28 is 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 28 requires an intermediate pool of molten glass being held within a stilling chamber of a stilling tank of the stiller the intermediate pool of molten glass is heated with combustion products discharged from one or more non-submerged burners mounted in a housing of the stilling tank. There is no support in the specification of the present application for heating with a non-submerged burner in the stiller and/or stilling step.
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) 1-2 and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190284079) referred to as US ‘079 herein after and Raju et al. (US 9752998).
Regarding claim 1, US ‘079 discloses a glass manufacturing method, comprising:
submerged combustion melting feedstock into molten glass in a submerged combustion melter (22) [0021] the combustion causing agitation within the melt and yielding what is considered foamy glass given the broadest reasonable interpretation;
stilling the molten glass in a stiller (28, 128) between the submerged combustion melter and the finer to produce stilled molten glass and to control an outflow of a stream of the stilled molten glass into the finer (24 or 124) (See also Fig 1-2).
fining the molten glass into fined molten glass in a finer (24 or 124, See Fig 1-2) downstream of the submerged combustion melter [0021], [0029];
the molten glass flowing from each chamber to the next thus considered a controlled flow rate given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
conditioning the fined molten glass into conditioned molten glass (26, 126) [0008], [0021], [0026], [0029];
producing the conditioned molten glass from into a glass article, product, or container [0002], {0027];
US ‘079 does not specifically use the word “producing a charge” and “forming the molten charge into a glass product however a charge is the amount of molten glass that is then formed into the glass product and necessarily exists in US ‘079.
US ‘079 does not specifically state steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a glass container, Raju discloses steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product (Col 3; lines 47-59), it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to submit containers formed by Wang to annealing, inspecting and packaging as motivated to produce an inspected container and package for further distribution.
Regarding claim 2, receiving the glass batch materials, or feedstock, [0030] dosing the batch from the hopper (38, 138) and transmitting the batch to a location for the submerged combustion melting step [0030].
Regarding claims 22-25,
MPEP 2144.04 states;
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
The glass factory having a floor, walls, and roof simply described a building that the installation exists within. The size of the building or manufacture materials thereof is not considered to limit the glass manufacturing method
Regarding claim 26, US’079 does not indicate cooling in the stilling step thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan that heat loss is prevented to some extent in the stilling step.
Regarding claim 27, US’079 discloses the stiller (28/128) has glass within thus any portion is an intermediate pool to hold molten glass.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190284079) and Raju et al. (US 9752998) as applied above and further in view of Nagano (CN 103269986).
Regarding claims 15-16, Wang discloses a glass manufacturing method, comprising:
submerged combustion melting feedstock into molten glass in a submerged combustion melter (22) [0021];
fining the molten glass into fined molten glass in a finer (24 or 124, See Fig 1-2) downstream of the submerged combustion melter [0021], [0029];
stilling the molten glass in a stiller (28, 128) between the submerged combustion melter and the finer to produce stilled molten glass and to control an outflow of a stream of the stilled molten glass into the finer (24 or 124) (See also Fig 1-2).
conditioning the fined molten glass into conditioned molten glass (26, 126) [0008], [0021], [0026], [0029];
producing the conditioned molten glass from into a glass article, product, or container [0002], {0027];
Wang does not specifically use the word “producing a charge” and “forming the molten charge into a glass product however a charge is the amount of molten glass that is then formed into the glass product and necessarily exists in Wang.
Wang does not specifically state steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a glass container, Raju discloses steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product (Col 3; lines 47-59), it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to submit containers formed by Wang to annealing, inspecting and packaging as motivated to produce an inspected container and package for further distribution.
Wang does not disclose “the entire method produces between 95 and 126 tons of glass per day in an installation having a capacity-adjusted size of less than 440 cubic meters per each ton of glass produced per day.”
In an analogous art of glass melting Nagano discloses a molten glass flow path can be 14-29m in length, producing 100-1000 tons/day of glass [0027]
MPEP 2144.05 states; claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 and [W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Furthermore, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Optimization of the dimensions of the installation as motivated to achieve a desired glass production rate is obvious as indicated by Nagano.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190284079) referred to as US ‘079 herein after and Wang et al. (US 20180105456) referred to as US ‘456 herein after.
Regarding claim 18, US ‘079 discloses a glass manufacturing method, comprising:
submerged combustion melting feedstock into molten glass in a submerged combustion melter (22) [0021];
fining the molten glass into fined molten glass in a finer (24 or 124, See Fig 1-2) downstream of the submerged combustion melter [0021], [0029];
stilling the molten glass in a stiller (28, 128) between the submerged combustion melter and the finer to produce stilled molten glass and to control an outflow of a stream of the stilled molten glass into the finer (24 or 124) (See also Fig 1-2).
conditioning the fined molten glass into conditioned molten glass (26, 126) [0008], [0021], [0026], [0029];
producing the conditioned molten glass from into a glass article, product, or container [0002], {0027];
US ‘079 does not specifically use the word “producing a charge” and “forming the molten charge into a glass product however a charge is the amount of molten glass that is then formed into the glass product and necessarily exists in Wang.
US ‘079 does not specifically state steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a glass container, US ‘456 discloses steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product [0040] it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to submit containers formed by US ‘079 to annealing, inspecting and packaging as motivated to produce an inspected container and package for further distribution.
US ‘079 discloses a glass gob (100) Fig. 4A freefalling into a forming mold for manufacturing the container
Regarding claim 20, US ‘079 states receiving the glass batch materials, or feedstock, [0030] dosing the batch from the hopper (38, 138) and transmitting the batch to a location for the submerged combustion melting step [0030].
Claim(s) 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190284079) and Wang et al. (US 20180105456) referred to as US ‘456 herein after as applied above and further in view of Yasui (JP H06122526).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, US ‘456 and US ‘079 do not indicate how the glass gob if formed.
In an analogous art of producing a glass gob Yasui discloses a circumferentially closed conduit (1) and cutting the glass streaming from the conduit for forming a glass gob from molten glass tank (Fig 1-3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the conduit to the opening of Yasui as motivated to obtain an accurately sized gob (4).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 20, 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190284078) referred to as US ‘078 herein after and Raju et al. (US 9752998).
Regarding claims 1-2, 20, and 26, US ‘078 discloses a glass manufacturing method, comprising:
Melting raw materials (58), or feedstock, submerged combustion melting feedstock into molten glass in a submerged combustion melter (SCM) (1) [0018]-[0019], [0031] the combustion causing agitation within the melt and yielding what is considered foamy glass given the broadest reasonable interpretation;
stilling the molten glass in a first refining chamber (5), or a stiller [0022] between the submerged combustion melter and the finer with heat reduction prevention [0037/[0038] to produce stilled molten glass and to control an outflow of a stream of the stilled molten glass into the at least one finer (10, 14 Fig 1).
fining the molten glass into fined molten glass in a finer (24 or 124, See Fig 1-2) downstream of the submerged combustion melter [0017], [0026];
the molten glass flowing from each chamber to the next thus considered a controlled flow rate given the broadest reasonable interpretation [0019].
conditioning the fined molten glass into conditioned molten glass (54) [0029]-[0030];
producing the conditioned molten glass from into a glass article, product, or container [0002], [0029];
US ‘078 does not specifically use the word “producing a charge” and “forming the molten charge into a glass product however a charge is the amount of molten glass that is then formed into the glass product and necessarily exists in US ‘078.
US ‘078 does not specifically state steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product.
In an analogous art of manufacturing a glass container, Raju discloses steps of
annealing; inspecting; and packaging the glass product (Col 3; lines 47-59), it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to submit containers formed by US ‘078 to annealing, inspecting and packaging as motivated to produce an inspected container and package for further distribution.
Regarding claim 26, US ‘078 discloses heat reduction prevention [0037/[0038]
Regarding claims 27-28, US ‘078 discloses various refining chambers [0017] any chamber just after the submerged combustion chamber or a portion thereof may be considered the intermediate pool of present claim 27 and US ‘078 discloses heating elements the above the glassto maintain the temperature, thus a non-submerged burner [0038]
Regarding claims 29-31, US ‘078 discloses molten glass can be flowed from a stiller to any number of refiners through spouts 4A-C with plungers with reciprocating movement which can assist control the flow [0019]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue that the throat of Wang ‘079 cannot meet the limitations of the present claims. Applicant indicates it only allows glass to densify but this does not preclude the glass stilling.
Conclusion
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