DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “an glass container forming machine” should be “a glass container forming machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,485,664 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other based on the discussion below.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of the referent patent claims introducing unrefined molten glass into a stilling chamber of a stilling tank at a fluctuating flow rate, the unrefined molten glass merging with an intermediate pool of molten glass being held within the stilling chamber of the stilling tank. The claimed introducing step of the reference patent is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed receiving the unrefined molten glass into the stilling chamber. Additionally, Claim 1 of the reference patent also claims the following claim language:
heating the intermediated pool of molten glass with combustion products discharged from one-or more non-submerged combustion burners mounted in a housing of the stilling tank that defines the stilling chamber;
flowing molten glass from the intermediate pool of molten glass into a transfer pool of molten glass being held in a spout chamber of a feeding spout appended to the stilling tank; and
delivering a molten glass feed out of the feeding spout from the transfer pool of molten glass at a controlled flow rate.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 of the reference patent claims the step of heating the intermediate pool of molten glass comprises directly impinging the intermediate pool of molten glass comprises directly impinging the intermediate pool of molten glass with combustion products discharged from the one or more non-submerged burners.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 of the reference patent claims the one or more non-submerged burners includes a plurality of burners mounted in an upstanding wall of the housing of the stilling tank and wherein combustion productions emitted from the plurality of burners are aimed to directly impinge the intermediate pool of molten glass.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 of the reference patent claims wherein the one or more non-submerged burners includes at least one roof burner mounted in a roof of the housing of the stilling tank, and wherein combustion products emitted from the at least one roof burner are aimed to directly impinge on the intermediate pool of molten glass.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 of the reference claims wherein a volume of the intermediate pool of molten glass held in the stilling chamber is less than a volume of the glass melt held in an interior reaction chamber of the submerged combustion melter that is claimed in claim 1, and the unrefined molten glass in claim 1 is claimed as being drawn from the submerged combustion melter. Accordingly claim 5 provides for the submerged combustion melter that supplies the unrefined molten glass to the stilling chamber.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 of the reference patent claims wherein delivering the molten glass feed out of the feeding spout at the controlled flow rate comprises controlling a flow rate of molten glass from the transfer pool of molten glass through an orifice of an orifice plate affixed to a spout bowl of the feeding spout by controlling reciprocating movement of a reciprocating plunger aligned with the orifice of the orifice plate.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 25 of the reference patent claims introducing the unrefined molten glass into a stilling chamber of a stilling tank at a fluctuating flow rate and claims the unrefined molten glass having a soda-lime-silica glass chemical composition. The claimed introducing step of the reference patent is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed receiving the unrefined molten glass into the stilling chamber. Additionally, Claim 25 of the reference patent also claims the following claim language:
the unrefined molten glass merging with an intermediate pool of molten glass being held within the stilling chamber of the stilling tank;
heating the intermediated pool of molten glass with combustion products discharged from one-or more non-submerged combustion burners mounted in a housing of the stilling tank that defines the stilling chamber;
flowing molten glass from the intermediate pool of molten glass into a transfer pool of molten glass being held in a spout chamber of a feeding spout appended to the stilling tank, the feeding spout having a spout bowl that partially defines the spout chamber and an orifice plate affixed to the spout bowl through which a molten glass feed is delivered from the feeding spout; and
introducing the molten glass feed into a molten glass held within a glass finer downstream of the stilling tank, the molten glass bath flowing towards an outlet opening of the glass finer and producing refined molten glass that emerges from the outlet opening of the glass finer, the refined molten glass having a density that is greater than a density of the unrefined molten glass discharged from the submerged combustion melter that is obviously received from the stilling chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,485,664 (reference patent), but would be allowable if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed.
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of independent claims 1 and 10.
Below is a discussion of the prior art teachings in relation to the claims.
Wang et al. (US 2019/0284076 – hereinafter Wang) (Figs. 1-4 and [0035]-[0036]) discloses the flow 82 of foamy molten glass needs to be refined and discloses after exiting the SC melter the molten glass is introduced to a stilling chamber (“gradient refining tank 10”). Wang (Figs. 1-4 and [0022]-[0025]) discloses a stilling chamber (“gradient refining tank 10”) includes a stilling tank with a housing (“roof 12, transition section 14b, exit section 14c, wall 22”) that defines a stilling chamber (“interior chamber 24”) and the stilling tank is in fluid communication with the SC melter. Wang (Figs. 1-4) further discloses the unrefined molten glass (“flow 82”) merging with an intermediate pool of molten glass being held within the stilling chamber of the stilling tank. Wang ([0034) further discloses an example of soda-lima-silica glass as the glass being made, which provides for unrefined molten glass having a soda-lime silica glass chemical composition, as claimed in claim 10.
Wang (Figs. 1-4 and [0032]) further discloses one or more non-submerged burners (“burners 60a and 60b”) burn a mixture of fuel and oxidant and transfer heat to the molten glass bath by radiation from the space above the molten glass to facilitate a faster rate of refining by increasing the temperature of the molten glass thereby decreasing viscosity. This provides for heating the intermediate pool of molten glass with combustion products discharged from one or more non-submerged burners mounted in a housing of the stilling tank that defines the stilling chamber.
Wang (Figs. 1 and 3 and p0022]) discloses flowing refined molten glass (32, 132) from an intermediate pool of molten glass to an outlet appended to the stilling, but fails to disclose flowing molten glass into a transfer pool of molten glass being held in a spout chamber of a feeding spout appended to the stilling and delivering a molten glass feed out of the feeding spout from the transfer pool of molten glass at a controlled rate. However, Pierrot et al. (US 2009/0235695 – hereinafter Pierrot) (Fig. 1) discloses an alternative outlet for molten glass including a channel 8 and downward flow with a chamber and orifice 9 appended to a furnace and Geib (US 2017/0106442) (Figures and [0065]-[0072]) discloses an alternative type of outlet for delivering molten material from an outlet with downward flow. Geib discloses the alternative type of outlet including a feeding spout having a spout chamber (“funnel 47”). Geib further discloses a closure means 46 for a feeding spout and the closure means can be open or closed to control flow. Based on the additional teachings of Pierrot and Geib, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the stilling apparatus of Wang to substitute an alternative outlet, such as an outlet with a downward flow with a spout chamber and feeding spout appended to the stilling tank and the ability to control flow of molten glass to the outlet, such as closure means 46. With obviousness of the substituted outlet in the apparatus of Wang and the ability to control flow, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, this provides for flowing molten glass from the intermediate pool of molten glass into a transfer pool of molten glass being held in a spout chamber of a feeding spout, and delivering molten glass feed out of the feed spout from the transfer pool of molten glass at a controlled rate to a downstream glass finer, as claimed.
Geib fails to disclose an orifice plate. However, McCague (US 4,713,106) discloses a similar outlet to Geib. McCague (Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 42-55) discloses an alternative outlet for a molten glass outlet in a downward direction having a spout bowl “well 12” including an orifice plate (“orifice block plate 18”) for fastening. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the outlet of Geib could be modified to slightly different shape, as taught by McCague and would include an orifice block plate for fastening.
Wang et al. (US 2019/0284078 – hereinafter Pub’078) ([0019]) teaches melting chamber 1 having a refractory or collecting funnel 2 where a plunger 4A is housed to regulate how the molten glass proceeds through the flow path for flow control, but fails to disclose fluctuating flow.
Additionally, Wang, Pierrot, Geib, and McCague fail to disclose or fairly suggest receiving unrefined molten glass in a stilling chamber at a fluctuating flow rate, as claimed by independent claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741