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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 2 as being indefinite has been withdrawn in view of the present amendments.
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph has been withdrawn in view of the present amendments.
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.
The term “gentle transition” in claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gentle transition” is not defined by the claim, 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. The only discussion of how to determine a “gentle transition” in the specification is [0020] which also compares it to a “gradual change” however there is no absolute definition of what the present invention determines as gentle or gradual.
Merriam-Webster © defines gentle as soft, delicate, moderate and gradual as proceeding by steps or degrees, moving changing or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees
Where there are no increments of change defined or precise dimensions it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, thus yielding it indefinite.
The term “gradual” in claim 21, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gentle transition” is not defined by the claim, 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. The only discussion of how to determine a “gradual change” in the specification is [0020] however there is no absolute definition of what the present invention determines as gentle or gradual.
Merriam-Webster © defines gradual as proceeding by steps or degrees, moving changing or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees
Where there are no increments of change defined or precise dimensions it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim is, thus yielding it indefinite
The term “kink” in claims 1 and 21, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “kink” is not defined by the claim, 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. Merriam-Webster © defines kink as a short twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself
Claims 3-17 are indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
It remains throughout prosecution that there is no claimed length of the slot that is the central region, nor side regions of claim 1. Any portion between a first and second side is considered a “central region” of claim 1.
The nozzle slot in claim 9 has a curvature in the first and second side regions is considered to refer to the curvature perpendicular to the projection otherwise there is confusion if it is referring to the curvature in line 11 of claim 1 and thus creating an indefiniteness issue.
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) 1-15 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 between first and second side regions the bottom of the slot being the lower boundary. This center is considered the claimed central region given the broadest reasonable interpretation. DeAngelis discloses changing the slot shape to control the glass flow distribution through the slot as indicated in the cited paragraphs above.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
636
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
De Angelis does not disclose the present claim language that the nozzle has a projection in each of the first and second side regions.
In an analogous art of slot drawing Brown is also concerned with the issue of controlling the flow distribution of the glass (Col 1; lines13-15, 28-37). Brown discloses a nozzle where the two ends (8 and 9) are projections 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.
Brown does not explicitly state:
The projection having a lower wall that has a curvature…and…being curved continuously and forming a gentle transition from the bottom of the slot to the lower boundary so that no kink is formed. The terms curving at a gentle transition and providing no kink however as indicated above these terms do not clearly indicate the metes and bounds of the claim. It would be obvious to have the projections curve from the slot as based on a mere matter of engineering choice of two finite options, angled or curved as depicted below.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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");
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 specifically modify the glass flow at the edges.
Regarding claim 3, De Angelis discloses the nozzle slot height 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 the amount of glass in the well of the projection and thus 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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues De Angelis does not show a central region with the lower wall geometry.
In response to this argument, Examiner does not rely solely on De Angelis for the lower wall geometry and as indicated above a “central region” does not indicate any length of the center of the slot that is parallel.
Applicant argues Brown does not disclose the lower wall configuration of the claim.
In response to this argument, Examiner disagrees Brown makes obvious providing the projections at the bottom of a slot draw on each side of the slot to control the glass flow. DeAngelis is concerned with changing the configuration of the slot across the length, such as the peanut shape, to control the glass flow distribution through the slot and it would be obvious to modify the shot of DeAngelis with the lower projections taught by Brown to control the flow at the edges.
Applicant argues Brown depicts angled projections thus not curved as claimed. Examiner maintains a skilled artisan attempting to control the flow of the glass on the edges of a slot draw via the teachings of Brown to make the projection have an angle or a curve down.
MPEP 2144.05 indicates
It would be obvious to have the projections curve from the slot as based on a mere matter of engineering choice of two finite options, angled or curved as depicted below.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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");
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 specifically modify the amount of glass in the projection well and thus glass flow at the edges.
Applicant argues Guo does not disclose an integral structure and points to different pieces of Guo
In response to this, the argument is not relevant. Noting in the claims requires an integral structure.
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 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