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 § 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) 1-6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitbladdo (WO 2007/070825) referred to as WO ‘825 herein after.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, WO ‘825 discloses glass manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a forming body (9) configured to draw a glass-forming ribbon along a travel plane in a travel direction (Fig 53), at least a portion of the forming body is positioned within an enclosure (113);
a first diffuser (Fig 52) comprising;
a gas source connected to the first inlet comprising a first inlet cross-sectional area, considered where tube (141) enters (301), and
a first outlet (529) comprising a first outlet cross sectional area considered the end of the tube (141) in (301) and the first outlet positioned within the enclosure (at least 113, Fig 53)
WO ‘825 discloses the diffuser having a first outlet cross-sectional area (301) greater than the first inlet cross-sectional area (Fig 52-53),
the disclosure of WO ‘825 discloses an inlet conduit (141) are air cooling tubes thus necessarily connected to a gas source as depicted by arrow (511) in Fig 52,
the first outlet is in fluid communication with the enclosure given the broadest reasonable interpretation as depicted by arrow 528.
the shape of the gas path defined by the inlet conduit (141) connected to the first diffuser as defined by undergoes at least two changes in direction of about 0-90 degrees View (301) and outlet (529) in Fig 52 and how the gas may disperse prior to leaving openings (529) and may comprise at least 2 directions. Furthermore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the cross sectional area of the inlet versus the outlet to control the gas flow into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘825 does not disclose an area ratio of the first outlet cross-sectional area to the first inlet cross-sectional area is in a range from about 2 to about 60.
MPEP 2144.04 indicates
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966). The court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the size and shape of the , since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of the cross-sectional area of the muffle (310) for the purpose of minimizing leaks or precisely controlling the cooling air flow into the enclosure around the forming apparatus (Page 42; lines 4-29)
Regarding claim 5, a cross-sectional area of (301) of the first diffuser is considered to smoothly increase from the first inlet cross-sectional area to the first outlet cross-sectional area see tube (141) in Fig 53.
Regarding claim 21, a device is determined by it’s structure and not what it does. Tha gas flow in not part of the structure of the claimed device of claim 1.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is alternatively rejected and claims 7-11 are primarily rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitbladdo (WO 2007/070825) referred to as WO ‘825 herein after and Pitbladdo (US 2016/0264445) referred to as US ‘445 herein after.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, WO ‘825 discloses glass manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a forming body (9) configured to draw a glass-forming ribbon along a travel plane in a travel direction (Fig 53), at least a portion of the forming body is positioned within an enclosure (113);
a first diffuser (Fig 52) comprising;
a gas source as depicted by arrow (511) in Fig 52 for cooling tube (141)
WO ‘825 discloses a first housing (301) bounded by the enclosure (113) Figure 53
WO ‘825 fails to disclose the diffuser having a first outlet cross-sectional area (301) greater than the first inlet cross-sectional area (Fig 52-53) and the first outlet positioned within a first interior area bounded within the first housing by at least the first wall.
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw fusion glass (Figure 16A-16B) US ‘445 discloses a cooling device (161) which can be inserted in the top or the side [0227] to cool the glass manufacturing apparatus. The cooling device (161) has a first outlet cross-sectional area greater than the first inlet cross-sectional area (Fig 16B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known cooling mechanism in WO ‘825 for a glass forming device with another cooling device configuration known in the art of US ‘445.
WO ‘825 discloses the first outlet area is in fluid communication with the enclosure area via vents 529 (Fig 52-53).
Regarding claim 21, a device is determined by it’s structure and not what it does. Tha gas flow in not part of the structure of the claimed device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘825 and US ‘445 both disclose a plurality of cooling tubes Fig 52 and Fig 16A-B respectively.
The combined teachings of WO ‘825 and US ‘445 disclose each cooling tube of the plurality of cooling tubes including a fluid outlet within the first interior area and positioned to direct a cooling fluid toward the travel plane.
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘825 the cooling tubes (114) on one plane of the glass ribbon are also provided on the opposite of the side of the glass ribbon. The same substitution of the shaped cooling tubes taught in US ‘445 as indicated in claim 1 yield the limitations of claim 10
a second diffuser comprising a second inlet comprising a second inlet cross-sectional area and a second outlet comprising a second outlet cross-sectional area greater than the second inlet cross-sectional area, the enclosure area further bounded by a second wall of a second housing extending into the enclosure, and the second outlet positioned within a second interior area defined within the second housing by at least the second wall.
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘825 discloses the travel plane passes between the first housing and the second housing (Fig 53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the shape of the diffuser is crucial and thus the first outlet cross-sectional is a critical feature and a mere change in shape is not significant and Applicant points WO ‘825 indicates no reason to change the shape of the inlet and outlet to reduce leaks.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art contemplates reducing leaks and not a change in airflow is reduced to the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on common sense or ordinary ingenuity. In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361, 121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" Changing an inlet versus an outlet of gas obviously controls the gas flow direction and pressure out of the outlet.
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