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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, the observation step is labelled as (a), but has been changed to (c) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites in the second wherein clause, “at least one parameter of the fluid flow is based on at least one of: the temperature measured in step (c) or the at least one characteristic observed in step (a)”. It is unclear what step is involved with the parameter (of a fluid flow of the transport cup). It is unclear how this parameter ties back to method steps (a) through (g). To further elaborate, the wherein clauses recite a list of parameters and recites the parameter is based is on a temperature of the glass gob or a temperature of the transport cup. However, there is no action associated with the parameters. It is unclear what steps are to be take with the parameters or how the parameters are related back to the method steps. For examples, are the parameters being adjusted?
By virtue of their dependencies on claim 10, claims 11 and 14 are also indefinite.
Similarly, claim 31 recites several parameters (initial flowrate, secondary flowrate, timing) that is based on an observed temperature of the glass gob. It is unclear what step is involved with the parameter. It is unclear how this parameter ties back to method steps (a) through (c). To further elaborate, there is no action associated with the parameters. It is unclear what steps are to be taken with the parameters or how the parameters are related back to the method steps. For examples, are the parameters being adjusted?
By virtue of their dependencies on claim 31, claims 32-37 are also indefinite.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the subsequent cooling period" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graff et al. (20230271870). Graff et al. teaches a method comprising providing a transport cup that, in process cycle, receives a molten glass gob when the transport cup is at a glass gob receiving location, moves from the receiving location (from a glass feeder) to a glass gob discharge location, such as where a blank mold is located ([0051]), and discharges the received molten glass gob from the transport cup at the discharge location ([0052]). Graff teaches the transport cup is used to transport the molten glass between a molten glass feeder to one or more blank molds ([0074]). Thus, is would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the transport cup to thereafter move back to the glass gob receiving location from the glass gob discharge location so as to provide glass gobs to the one or more blank molds for the production of more glass articles. Graff further teaches measuring a temperature of the transport cup during the process cycle and adjusting (naturally for a subsequent process cycle) a parameter of a fluid flow of the transport cup ([0136]) based on the measured temperature, wherein the one fluid flow includes a first fluid flow permeating through a porous wall of the transport cup ([0049]) and into a passage of the transport cup ([0064]) into which a molten glass gob is received during the subsequent process cycle and out of which the received glass gob is discharged during the subsequent process cycle ([0052], [0075]), so as to maintain an interior surface temperature of 320-420°C ([0136]).
Graff teaches flowing a second fluid flow through an endcap of the transport cup and into the passage of the transport cup ([0050]), wherein the endcap covers an outlet of the passage while the transport cup receives the glass gob during the subsequent process cycle and does not cover the outlet of the passage while the transport cup discharges the received glass gob during the subsequent process cycle ([0052], [0075]), wherein the first fluid is provided at least while the transport cup contains the received molten glass gob and moves from the receiving location to the discharge location during the subsequent process cycle (so as to maintain the interior temperature of 320-450°C [0136]) and the second fluid is provided at least while the transport cup receives the molten glass gob during the subsequent process cycle ([0050]). Graff also suggests regulating the temperature of the conduit by introducing a fluid around a lower portion of the conduit and directing the fluid to flow upward to an upper portion of the conduit ([0136]). Since Graff teaches providing for cooled air through an endcap of the transport cup and into the passage of the transport cup ([0060]) which would affect the temperature within the passage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have also adjusted a second fluid flow through the endcap and into the passage based on the measured temperature of the transport cup so as to further ensure the passage/cup is maintained at the desired temperature of 320-420°C.
Regarding claim 40, as mentioned above, Graff teaches measuring a temperature of the transport cup during the process cycle and adjusting (naturally for a subsequent process cycle) a first fluid flow permeating through a porous wall of the transport cup ([0049]) and into a passage of the transport cup ([0064]), so as to maintain an interior surface temperature of 320-420°C ([0136]). While the specific act of increasing the flowrate of the first fluid flow in response to a measure temperature that is too high or too low is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried increasing or decreasing the cooling fluid flowrate in response to a measured temperature that is too high or too low, so as to maintain the desired temperature of 320-420°C, as there are really only two predictable solution for raising or lowering a temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9 and 27-30 are allowed.
Claims 39 and 41 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, Graff et al. (20230271870) teaches providing a molten glass gob in a transport cup comprising a conduit wall and an endcap covering an outlet of a passage defined by the conduit wall and moving the endcap relative to the wall to uncover the outlet of the passage to discharge the molten glass gob from the transport cup ([0006], [0009]). Graff also suggests adjusting a parameter of a fluid flow of the transport cup ([0136]), but fails to suggest observing the molten glass gob discharged from the transport cup and adjusting based on a characteristic of the observed molten glass gob. Neubauer et al. (EP 2 447 224) teaches a method for guiding glass gobs to molds, and observing the glass gob using a thermal camera to provide a temperature of the glass gob (6th passage on page 2, 2nd passage on page 3, 2nd,3rd, 5th, 6th passages on page 4). However, Neubauer teaches the data from the camera is used for controlling cooling air admissions to the preform (3rd passage on page 2, 6th passage on page 3), and not to a transport cup. Neubauer is in fact silent regarding a transport cup. Accordingly, the prior art fails to suggest the combination of discharging a molten glass gob from a transport cup and adjusting a parameter of a fluid flow of the transport cup based on a characteristic of the glass gob that is observed when the gob is discharged from the transport cup, wherein the transport cup comprises a wall and an endcap that is moved to uncover the outlet of the passage for discharging a molten glass gob.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 39, Graff fails to suggest adjusting the at least one parameter based on a diameter of the molten glass gob observed during discharge from the transport cup. Regarding claim 41, Graff fails to suggest adjusting the at least one parameter based on a temperature or temperature profile of the molten glass gob observed during discharge from the transport cup, the observed temperature indicating a cold nose condition in which the temperature at the nose of the molten glass gob is less than a temperature at other portions of the gob.
Claims 10-11, and 14 have incorporated the allowable subject matter of former claim 13. Similarly, new claims 31-37 also incorporated the allowable subject matter of claim 10 and former claim 13. However, to place these claims in condition for allowance, the 112 issues needs to be addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter (of claim former 13): While the prior art teaches controlling a cooling flowrate to a transport cup based on an observed temperature of a glass gob, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a transport cup comprising an end cap and controlling an initial flowrate of the transport cup endcap fluid flow, or a secondary flowrate of the transport cup endcap fluid flow, or a timing of a transition from the initial flowrate to the second flowrate, based on the temperature of the glass gob.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to Menzie and Alderson have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under Menzie, and under Alderson has been withdrawn.
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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741