DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II, claims 7-15 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
The claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 and 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected, and claims 7-15 are examined on merits herein.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2023 and 11/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 11 is 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 11 states that the supporting structure is comprised of components that are arranged or constructed so as to interrupt inductive loops. However, it is unclear how these loops are formed, or how the elements of the supporting structure might be arranged to interrupt them. The limitation that the elements are positioned in a certain manner does not sufficiently describe to one of ordinary skill in the art where they would be physically in relation to the rest of the claimed apparatus. As such, the intended coverage of claim 11 is ambiguous and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. For purposes of examination on merits, the claim must be interpreted as covering any apparatus having a support structure that contains the claimed bracings or guy-wires.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichholz et al (US 20060144089 A1) in view of IEEE (IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Heating Applications to Melting Furnaces and Forehearths in the Glass Industry) and Leidecker et al (DE 10002245 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Eichholz et al teaches an apparatus for glass melting comprising a tank with walls and bottom, a refractory cover, an inlet, an outlet, and two electrodes replacing part of the walls (see Fig. 1A-1C and paragraphs 0134-0137). The electrodes have electrical supply conductors connected to a medium-frequency transformer (see paragraph 0140). The electrodes can be operated at frequencies of 2 kHz to 10 kHz, thus indicating that the Eichholz et al apparatus further comprises a frequency changer component. Eichholz et al teaches that the apparatus comprises a supporting structure component that is part of each electrode and functions to position the electrodes for use and for thermal exchange. Because the electrodes are a part of the walls of the tank, these supporting components would necessarily function as supporting structures for the walls and meet this limitation of the instant claim. The supporting structure is formed from such materials as ceramics or refractory metals, i.e. iridium, rhodium, or platinum. Thus, Eichholz et al teaches that the supporting structure is comprised of non-ferromagnetic materials.
The transformer, frequency changer, and electrode components of the Eichholz et al apparatus are necessarily in electrical connection with one another in order for the apparatus to function, and thus the apparatus comprises conductors connecting said components. Eichholz et al does not teach that the conductors are coaxially shielded. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eichholz et al in view of IEEE and Leidecker et al in order to use cables that are shielded coaxially for the required electrical connections. IEEE teaches best practices for use in preparing melting furnaces for glass manufacture, and teaches that cable shielding should be used to regulate conductor temperature encountered in the operating conditions of the furnace (see page 23). This would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the conductor connections between the components in the Eichholz et al apparatus should properly be shielded, and thus shielded cables would be chosen by a skilled artisan. Because the IEEE document is for recommended practice for electrical heating applications in melting furnaces in the glass industry and is from an authoritative guiding body in this field, one would have had motivation to employ the shielded connector recommendations therein with the Eichholz et al apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Eichholz et al in view of Leidecker et al in order to use coaxially shielded connectors. Leidecker et al teaches an energy supply device for a melting tank comprising electrodes and electrical connections with convertors. The connector components of the apparatus are conductors, and Leidecker et al teaches that the connectors are coaxial connectors where the inner conductor is shielded by the outer conductor (see claim 4). Leidecker et al teaches that such coaxially shielded connectors are use for each plug and connection, thus indicating that the conductors between each electrical component comprise coaxial shielding. One would have had motivation to use the coaxially shielded conductors in forming the shielded electrical connections taught by Eichholz et al in view of IEEE because the Leidecker et al teachings are more thorough and complete as to the configuration of the shielded conductors. Each limitation of claim 7 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 8, the tank of the Eichholz et al melting apparatus comprises a cover, 13.
Regarding claim 9, the Eichholz et al apparatus comprises an outlet.
Regarding claim 10, Eichholz et al teaches that the aforementioned supporting structure can comprise materials such as platinum group metals. These materials have relative magnetic permeabilities of slightly more than 1.0, and thus fall within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Eichholz et al teaches that the electrodes are a part of the melting vessel walls.
Regarding claim 13, Eichholz et al teaches that the inventive apparatus provides a current frequency of 2-10 KHz. This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the further limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Eichholz et al does not teach the power dissipation in terms of KWh/kg glass. However, as discussed above, the apparatus taught by Eichholz et al in view of IEEE and Leidecker et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent apparatus functions equivalently to that instantly claimed, and therefore the power dissipation must also be considered to be equivalent. The power dissipation level of the apparatus taught by the prior art of record would therefore be less than 0.5 kWh/kg glass.
Regarding claim 15, Eichholz et al does not teach the power dissipation between a frequency changer and glass melt. However, as discussed above, the apparatus taught by Eichholz et al in view of IEEE and Leidecker et al is equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent apparatus functions equivalently to that instantly claimed, and therefore the power dissipation must also be considered to be equivalent. The power dissipation between frequency changer and melt of the apparatus taught by the prior art of record would therefore be less than 35%.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichholz et al (US 20060144089 A1) in view of IEEE (IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Heating Applications to Melting Furnaces and Forehearths in the Glass Industry) and Leidecker et al (DE 10002245 A1) and in further view of Clark (US 1652608).
Regarding claim 11, the claim differs from Eichholz et al as applied above because Eichholz et al does not teach a bracing or guy-wire as a supporting structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eichholz et al in further view of Clark in order to add this known feature to the glass melting apparatus of Eichholz. Clark teaches a glass melting tank comprising a supporting external bracing. The teaching of this component would have motivated one of ordinary skill to use the Clark bracing with the Eichholz et al apparatus because doing so would increase the integrity of the melting vessel. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Eichholz et al and Clark are each drawn to apparatuses for glass melting and manufacture. Each limitation of claim 11 is therefore taught by the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
13. Claims 7-15 are rejected. Claims 1-6 and 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW11 August 2026
Prosecution Insights