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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baniel (5,618,325) in view of Sweetland (5,511,593) and Kunert et al. (2003/0106339). Regarding claim 1, Baniel discloses a gas permeable conduit 2 having an inlet end that defines an inlet, an outlet end that defines an outlet, and a sidewall that extends between the inlet end and the outlet end, the sidewall having an inner surface that defines an interior passage extending from the inlet to the outlet, and an outer surface (col. 1 lines 55-61, col. 3 lines 33-37, 44-47). Baniel further teaches the gas permeable conduit is comprised of a gas permeable material having a permeability of 2.6x 10-15 m2 (2.6 md) (col. 5 lines 57-60, fig. 7). Baniel teaches flowing a gas through the permeable sidewall of the conduit (col. 6 lines 32-34) to provide a gas cushion between the glass within the conduit and the conduit wall (col. 7 lines 25-27), while also cooling the glass (col. 6 lines 62-67, col. 7 lines 1-4). Baniel specifies the conduit is machined from graphite, but doesn’t specify a thermal conductivity. Sweetland discloses a molten glass delivery funnel comprising a gas permeable conduit having an inlet end that defines an inlet, an outlet end that defines an outlet, and a sidewall that extends between the inlet end and the outlet end, the sidewall having an inner surface that defines an interior passage extending from the inlet to the outlet, and an outer surface (figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 22-30). Like Baniel, Sweetland teaches conduit is also comprised of graphite. Sweetland teaches graphite material provides good heat resistance to the harsh temperature and erosive environment of molten glass, while providing for high thermal conductivity so as to minimize hot spots in the conduit (col. 4 lines 1-30). Sweetland suggests a thermal conductivity of at least 50 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (86 W/m-°K), for example 70 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (121 W/m-°K), which is greater than 40 W/m-°K at room temperature as well at a temperature of 300°C (col. 4 lines 1-30, Table 1), which fairly suggests the thermal conductivity is greater than 40 W/m-°K over a temperature range of 100°C to 300°C. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have adapted the graphite conduit of Baniel to have a thermal conductivity of at least 50 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (86 W/m-°K), as it help prevents hot spots in the conduit.
Baniel teaches a graphite material having a permeability of 2.6 md (2.6x 10-15 m2 in col. 5 lines 57-60), but doesn’t specify values between 50 md and 500 md. Kunert also teaches a conduit comprising a permeable material, the conduit having an inlet and an outlet, and a sidewall that extends from the inlet to the outlet. Kunert teaches several options for gas permeable materials, including graphite, and emphasizes the important aspect of selecting a material with a permeability in the range of 10-11 m2 to 10-16 m2 (101,000md to 1md). Kunert exemplifies graphite with a permeability in the range of 10-14 m2 to 10-16 m2 (101md to 1md). Kunert explains the permeability provides for a gas cushion that is evenly distributed without having to exert high gas pressures ([0026], [0014]-[0015], figure 1). As Baniel teaches examples of graphite materials that have a permeability that falls within this range, i.e. 1 md and 2.6 md, and providing a gas cushion between the glass within the conduit and the conduit wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a graphite material having a permeability within the range of 1md to 100md, which overlaps with the clamed range of 50 md and 500 md, as it successfully provides for the gas cushion necessary to protect the glass while not requiring high gas pressures, as taught by Kunert.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, Kunert teaches a gas permeability in the range of is also suitable 10-11 m2 to 10-16 m2 (101,000md to 1md), which overlaps with the claimed range of 110 md to 600 md and Sweetland exemplifies a thermal conductivity of about 70 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (121 W/m-°K) at room temperature as well at a temperature of 300°C (col. 4 lines 1-30, Table 1), which fairly suggests the thermal conductivity is about 121 W/m-°K over a temperature range of 100°C to 300°C. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art apprised of the teachings of Sweetland and Kunert would have tried a gas permeable material having a thermal conductivity within the range of 100 W/m-°K and 200 W/m-°K and a permeability within the range of 110 md and 600 md, as such ranges falls within the scope of the teachings Sweetland and Kunert, while having a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 4-5, Baniel, Sweetland, and Kunert teach the gas permeable conduit is comprised entirely of graphite (col. 5 lines 57-60, col. 4 lines 1-4, [0026], respectively).
Regarding claims 7-8, Baniel further teaches an outer wall that cooperates with the gas permeable conduit to establish a gas distribution chamber 12 between the gas permeable conduit and the outer wall, the gas distribution chamber being pressurizable with a centering gas (col. 3 lines 51-53, figure 7), wherein the outer wall defines at least one centering gas inlet. Sweetland also teaches an outer wall 14 that cooperates with the gas permeable conduit to establish a gas distribution chamber 24 between the gas permeable conduit and the outer wall. Sweetland further teaches the outer wall 14 defines at least one centering gas inlet and at least one centering gas outlet 38, each of the at least one centering gas inlet and the at least one centering gas outlet being in fluid communication with the gas distribution chamber (figure 1, col. 6 lines 29-45). Sweetland teaches the inlet and outlet of the outer wall allows for air circulation to assist in the cooling of the gas permeable conduit. 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 similar arrangement of an inlet and an outlet in the outer wall so as to aid in the cooling of the permeable conduit, as it is exposed to the high temperatures of the molten glass.
Claims 9 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baniel (5,618,325) in view of Sweetland (5,511,593) and Kunert et al. (2003/0106339). Regarding claims 9-10, Baniel discloses a gas permeable conduit 2 having an inlet and an outlet (col. 1 lines 55-61, col. 3 lines 33-37, 44-47). Baniel further teaches the gas permeable conduit is comprised of a gas permeable material having a permeability of 2.6x 10-15 m2 (2.6 md), which falls in the range of 10md and 600md (col. 5 lines 57-60, fig. 7). Baniel teaches flowing a gas through the permeable sidewall of the conduit (col. 6 lines 32-34) to provide a gas cushion between the glass within the conduit and the conduit wall (col. 7 lines 25-27), while also cooling the glass (col. 6 lines 62-67, col. 7 lines 1-4). Baniel specifies the conduit is machined from graphite, but doesn’t specify a thermal conductivity. Sweetland discloses a molten glass delivery funnel comprising a gas permeable conduit having an inlet end that defines an inlet, an outlet end that defines an outlet, and a sidewall that extends between the inlet end and the outlet end, the sidewall having an inner surface that defines an interior passage extending from the inlet to the outlet, and an outer surface (figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 22-30). Like Baniel, Sweetland teaches conduit is also comprised of graphite. Sweetland teaches graphite material provides good heat resistance to the harsh temperature and erosive environment of molten glass, while providing for high thermal conductivity so as to minimize hot spots in the conduit (col. 4 lines 1-30). Sweetland suggests a thermal conductivity of at least 50 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (86 W/m-°K), for example 70 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (121 W/m-°K), which is greater than 40 W/m-°K at room temperature as well at a temperature of 300°C (col. 4 lines 1-30, Table 1), which fairly suggests the thermal conductivity is greater than 40 W/m-°K over a temperature range of 100°C to 300°C. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have adapted the graphite conduit of Baniel to have a thermal conductivity of at least 50 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (86 W/m-°K), as it help prevents hot spots in the conduit.
Baniel further teaches an outer wall that cooperates with the gas permeable conduit to establish a gas distribution chamber 12 between the gas permeable conduit and the outer wall, the gas distribution chamber being pressurizable with a centering gas (col. 3 lines 51-53, figure 7), wherein the outer wall defines at least one centering gas inlet. Sweetland also teaches an outer wall 14 that cooperates with the gas permeable conduit to establish a gas distribution chamber 24 between the gas permeable conduit and the outer wall. Sweetland further teaches the outer wall 14 defines at least one centering gas inlet and at least one centering gas outlet 38, each of the at least one centering gas inlet and the at least one centering gas outlet being in fluid communication with the gas distribution chamber (figure 1, col. 6 lines 29-45). Sweetland teaches the inlet and outlet of the outer wall allows for air circulation to assist in the cooling of the gas permeable conduit. 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 similar arrangement of an inlet and an outlet in the outer wall so as to aid in the cooling of the permeable conduit, as it is exposed to the high temperatures of the molten glass.
Baniel teaches a graphite material having a permeability of 2.6 md (2.6x 10-15 m2 in col. 5 lines 57-60), but doesn’t specify values between 100 md and 400 md. Kunert also teaches a conduit comprising a permeable material, the conduit having an inlet and an outlet, and a sidewall that extends from the inlet to the outlet. Kunert teaches several options for gas permeable materials, including graphite, and emphasizes the important aspect of selecting a material with a permeability in the range of 10-11 m2 to 10-16 m2 (101,000md to 1md). Kunert exemplifies graphite with a permeability in the range of 10-14 m2 to 10-16 m2 (101md to 1md). Kunert explains the permeability provides for a gas cushion that is evenly distributed without having to exert high gas pressures ([0026], [0014]-[0015], figure 1). As Baniel teaches examples of graphite materials that have a permeability that falls within this range, i.e. 1 md and 2.6 md, and providing a gas cushion between the glass within the conduit and the conduit wall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a graphite material having a permeability within the range of 1md to 100md, which overlaps with the clamed range of 100 md and 400 md, as it successfully provides for the gas cushion necessary to protect the glass while not requiring high gas pressures, as taught by Kunert.
Regarding claim 11, Sweetland exemplifies a thermal conductivity of about 70 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (121 W/m-°K) at room temperature as well at a temperature of 300°C (col. 4 lines 1-30, Table 1), which fairly suggests the thermal conductivity is about 121 W/m-°K over a temperature range of 100°C to 300°C.
Regarding claims 12-13, Baniel and Sweetland teach the gas permeable conduit is comprised entirely of graphite (col. 5 lines 57-60, col. 4 lines 1-4 respectively).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to specify a conduit carrier holding a gas permeable conduit and including upper and lower mounting rings, an outer wall coupled to mounting rings and defining a gas distribution chamber between the gas permeable conduit and the outer wall, wherein the outer wall having a gas inlet and a gas outlet, a first tubular body coupled to the lower mounting ring, an upper end cap coupled to the first tubular body, a lower end cap coupled to the first tubular body, and a second tubular body coupled to the upper end cap, extending upwardly with respect to the first tubular body and coupled to the upper mounting ring.
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 page 6, filed January 21, 2026, with respect to Graff have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments regarding Baniel, Sweetland, and Kunert are not persuasive. Applicant argues it would not obvious to adapt the permeability graphite conduit of Baniel to have a high thermal conductivity like Sweetland’s graphite because Baniel relies on retaining heat at elevated temperature to facilitate melting of the glass, whereas Sweetland removes heat to facilitate guidance of the gobs. This is not found persuasive because the thermal conductivity property of the graphite conduit is applicable as it is a measure of how well the graphite conduit transfers heat. Applicant’s argument is centered on the direction of heat transfer, as opposed to the ability of the conduit to transfer heat. Thus, while Sweetland removes heat from the molten glass gobs through a graphite conduit having a thermal conductivity of at least 50 BTU-ft/ft2-hr-F (86 W/m-°K), such a thermal conductivity property for the graphite conduit of Baniel would still be applicable to Baniel who wants to transfer heat from the heating elements to the glass material.
Furthermore, Applicant argues Kunert’s graphite has permeabilities orders of magnitude higher than that of Baniel, where resultant heat loss would inhibit melting of glass powders into molten glass. Kunert teaches permeability values in the broad range of 101,000md to 1md, and more narrow range of 1md to 101md. While Kunert teaches permeabilities have one order of magnitude higher than that of Baniel, ranges of Kunert still includes Baniel’s values of 1md or 2.6md. Additionally, 2.6 md is within the an order of magnitude of 10 md (the claimed limit). Furthermore, it is not clear how having a higher permeability would result in heat loss. As can be seen the heating elements used surround the gas chamber that supplies gas through the graphite conduit, and thus the gas would naturally be heated. The heat gas supplied through the graphite conduit is heated gas and having a higher permeability would supply more heated gas through the conduit, and not result in more heat loss.
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 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