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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected as being indefinite because claim 1 has been amended to recite, “the nozzle slot has two ends, first and second side regions, a length, a height, and a width, the length being greater than the width, wherein the nozzle slot is curved downward toward the two ends in wherein the width is constant in a central region and then increases towards the two ends” Claim 2 depends from claim 1 but indicates the width tapers from the center toward the two ends. It is unclear how the nozzle slot width is constant in the central region and then increases towards to the two ends and simultaneously tapers from the center towards the two ends.
The term “constant central region” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “constant” is not defined by the claim nor is the length or dimension of said “central region”, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no definition or mention of the term “constant central region” in the specification or constant.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites the nozzle slot has a curvature in the first and second side regions, which depends from claim 3 which depends from claim 1 which already recites there is curvature in the first and second side regions therefore it is unclear how dependent claim 9 limits the independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 21-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 110590132).
Regarding claim 21, Guo discloses a device (Fig 1) for drawing glass ribbons (104), comprising:
a drawing tank (6) for holding a glass melt; and
a nozzle (Fig 1,2) in the drawing tank, the nozzle having a nozzle slot through which the glass melt emerges downward (Fig 1, 2), wherein the nozzle slot has two ends (2-1, 2-3), a length (L), and a width, the length being greater than the width Fig 2,
The nozzle slot is curved downward (3) toward the two ends in a drawing direction so that the ends are lower than a center of the nozzle slot
wherein the width changes from the center towards the two ends Fig. 2.
wherein the nozzle slot has a decreasing curvature in the first and second side regions (Fig 2).
The nozzle slot has a height that runs parallel to the drawing direction given the broadest reasonable interpretation the height may be any height (Fig 1).
Guo depicts the nozzle slot, or slit, decreasing in curvature however does not recite a radius at each of the two ends.
In order to defect overcomes the existing technology to design a platinum-rhodium alloy bushing plate for U shaped groove, the edge thickness can effectively thinning of the glass ribbon so that the effective width of the glass proportion increases, the appearance of glass plate is flat (page 2)
The beneficial effects of the invention are as follows: the slit from one end to the other end along the length direction into a first width gradually joint connected in turn, middle equal-width slit, the second width gradually seam, the first width gradually seam and a second width of width gradually seam are gradually reduced from one end to the other end close to the middle equal-width gap, the middle width, slit two ends are narrow, the edge thickness can effectively thinning of the glass ribbon so that the effective width of the glass proportion increases, the appearance of glass plate is flat. (page3)
Guo has identified changing the slit opening width along the length to effectively control the thickness of the glass ribbon. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the thickness and shape of the nozzle slit , such as curving the ends of the slit of Guo, to control the thickness/ thinness of the glass ribbon.
Regarding claim 22, Guo discloses a device (Fig 1) for drawing glass ribbons (104), comprising:
a drawing tank (6) for holding a glass melt; and
a nozzle (1) in the drawing tank, the nozzle having a nozzle slot through which the glass melt emerges downward (Fig 1, 2), wherein the nozzle slot has two ends (2-1, 2-3), a length (L), and a width, the length being greater than the width Fig 2,
wherein the width of the nozzle slot changes from a center portion center towards the two ends Fig. 2.
The nozzle slot has a height that runs parallel to the drawing direction given the broadest reasonable interpretation the height may be any height (Fig 1).
Guo does not recite the precise claim language of claim 22 that the nozzle slot having a width with a continuously decreasing curvature from a center through the first and second side regions.
In order to defect overcomes the existing technology to design a platinum-rhodium alloy bushing plate for U shaped groove, the edge thickness can effectively thinning of the glass ribbon so that the effective width of the glass proportion increases, the appearance of glass plate is flat (page 2)
The beneficial effects of the invention are as follows: the slit from one end to the other end along the length direction into a first width gradually joint connected in turn, middle equal-width slit, the second width gradually seam, the first width gradually seam and a second width of width gradually seam are gradually reduced from one end to the other end close to the middle equal-width gap, the middle width, slit two ends are narrow, the edge thickness can effectively thinning of the glass ribbon so that the effective width of the glass proportion increases, the appearance of glass plate is flat. (page3)
Guo has identified changing the slit opening width along the length to effectively control the thickness of the glass ribbon. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to optimize the thickness and shape of the nozzle slit , such as curving the ends of the slit of Guo, to control the thickness/ thinness of the glass ribbon.
Regarding claim 23, Guo depicts the nozzle slot is curved downward from the center toward the two ends in a drawing direction so that the two ends are lower than a center of the nozzle slot via weirs (3) (See Fig 5).
Claim(s) 1-15 and 21-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al. (US 20190144324) and further in view of Brown (US 2422466).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 21-23, De Angelis discloses a device (Fig 1) for drawing glass ribbons (104), comprising:
a drawing tank (143 or 3700) for holding a glass melt; and
a nozzle (1432, or 3017) in the drawing tank, the nozzle having a nozzle slot through which the glass melt emerges downward, wherein the nozzle slot has two ends (1434, 1436), a length (1433), and a width (1420), the length being greater than the width [0156]-[0157] Fig 23, 39,
wherein the width of the nozzle slot changes from the center and increases from the center to the two ends [0156]-[0160], [0205]-[0207] Fig. 23 and 39. The slot width is constant in some portion of the center and has a continuous curvature given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
De Angelis does not disclose the claim language that the nozzle slot is curved downward toward the two ends in a drawing direction so that the two ends are lower than a center of the nozzle slot.
In an analogous art of slot drawing Brown discloses a nozzle where the two ends (8 and 9) in a drawing direction so that the two ends (8 and 9) are lower than a center of the nozzle slot (Col 1; lines 18-23). Brown indicates the lower areas of the nozzle slot (E, E’) operate as well extensions (claims 3-4) to provide a uniform glass sheet that is bead-free.
Overall it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify De Angelis with lower extension wells on the ends of the nozzle slot as motivated to attempt to control glass flow prevent beading on the edges of the glass ribbon drawn.
MPEP 2144.05 indicates
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) absent evidence of criticality optimization of dimension was obvious); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent");
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the projection and interior space well as motivated to modify glass flow at the edges.
Regarding claim 2, De Angelis discloses the width tapers from the center toward the ends so that the width is greater in the center than at the two ends (Fig. 23, 39) and Brown as well Fig 3.
Claim 2 appears to contradict claim 1 as now amended, regardless, DeAngelis makes it clear the slot opening is controlled to control the glass flow [0147] and a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the dimensions along the slot to control the glass flow as motivated to control the thickness of the glass ribbon.
Regarding claim 3, De Angelis discloses the nozzle slot has a height that runs parallel to the drawing direction given the broadest reasonable interpretation the height may be any height.
Regarding claim 4, the well projections suggested by Brown are configured to hold the glass melt and extending along the drawing direction, wherein the volume is defined by an interior space of the projection.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Brown depicts the lower edge projections angular defined by a height of the projection and a length of the projection however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the projections to be curved because MPEP 2144.04 recites a change in shape or dimension is obvious absent unexpected results that the structure would perform differently.
A curved projection thus having a radius of curvature defined by a height of the projection and a length of the projection.
Regarding claims 6-8, Brown does not disclose the precise length, height of the projection and interior space within.
MPEP 2144.05 indicates
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) absent evidence of criticality optimization of dimension was obvious); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent");
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the projection and interior space well as motivated to modify glass flow at the edges.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, De Angelis does not disclose the radius of a curvature however De Angelis indicates variation in the orifice opening across the slot including curved ends and selecting the proper variation in orifice opening distance, uniform molten glass flow density may be achieved across slot orifice [0156]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the width across the nozzle and ends as motivated to achieve uniform glass flow and density. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 12 specifically, the combined teachings of DeAngelis and Brown include optimizing the slot at the ends which includes the projection width.
Regarding claim 13, Brown shows the projection has a lower wall that closes off the interior space in the drawing direction See Fig 3.
Regarding claims 14-15, De Angelis discloses the nozzle slot has a curvature up to the two ends, a curvature to the two ends, a curvature with an inflection point (Fig 23 Fig 39).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al. (US 20190144324) and Brown (US 2422466) as applied above and further in view of Mueller (US 20040065115.
Regarding claim 16 De Angelis and Brown fail to discuss a plurality of heating elements arranged on the drawing tank, the plurality of heating elements being divided into different electrical heating circuits.
In an analogous art, Mueller discloses drawing glass sheets from a drawing tank (6) with heating system (9) electric heating elements that can be segmented, thus plurality electrical circuits [0086]
Regarding claim 17, Mueller discloses a plurality of temperature controlling devices, the plurality of temperature controlling devices, electric heating unit (20), or cooling systems 23 and 24 [0090] being spatially distributed in the ribbon shaping region.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide heating circuits around the tank and temperature control devices around the ribbon forming region as motivated to control the temperature of the molten glass and temperature homogeneity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 21 is amended to indicate continuously decreasing curvature from a center through the first and second side regions. Examiner has taken the amendment into account and does not believe it overcomes the previously cited prior art of Guo. Guo discloses changing the nozzle shape and particularly having a decreasing curvature to the ends in order to control the flow of glass and yield a flat ribbon. A skilled artisan would be motivated to change the shape and dimensions of the nozzle slot to control the flow of glass coming out of the nozzle in each portion of the slot which creates the glass ribbon as motivated to yield a flatter glass ribbon.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite a constant central region before curving outwards at the ends of the slot whereas prior art DeAngelis depicts a curved central portion. In response to this the claimed “constant central region” of claim 1 has no specific dimension, it can be an infinitesimal center point considered “constant”.
Both Guo and DeAngelis put strong emphasis on modifying the nozzle slot to control the outcome of the thickness across the glass ribbon. DeAngelis [0101]-[0103] and specifically [0147] makes it clear a skilled artisan in glass sheet manufacturing via overflow downdraw/fusion draw, slot draw, understands the width of the ribbon can be controlled by the flow of the glass through a slot or opening because a larger opening allows more glass through the opening at a given time. Absent any immediate heating or cooling of the flowed glass that portion of the ribbon is thicker and vice-versa with a thinner slot opening.
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