DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 15, 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.
Claims 1 and 13 are 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 1 recites a tubular body defining a hollow interior bounded by a wall extending circumferentially around the conduit. It is unclear if the hollow interior is bounded by the wall or if the tubular body is bounded by the wall. It is unclear if the tubular body and the wall are separate things or the same thing. Claim 13 similarly recites the same language, and is indefinite for the same reason.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of at least a portion of an external periphery of the conduit, and the claim also recites circumscribing the longitudinal axis of the conduit, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining claims are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 102211850 machine translation provided) in view of Itazu et al. (2020/0354251) and Lineman et al. (2014/0123710). Regarding claims 1 and 13, Zhao teaches a glass forming apparatus, comprising a conduit comprising an interior passage configured to carry a flow of molten glass therethrough ([0001]), and at least one reinforcing member attached to and extending circumferentially around at least a portion of an external periphery of the conduit ([0018]-[0020], figures). Zhao teaches flowing molten glass through the conduit, but fails to specify electrical flanges. Itazu also teaches a conduit comprising an interior passage configured to carry a flow of molten glass therethrough ([0032]), and at least one reinforcing member 20 attached to and extending around at least a portion of an external periphery of the conduit ([0033]). Itazu further teaches the reinforcing member is positioned between and spaced apart from a pair of adjacent electrical flanges (electrodes on flanges [0043]), wherein the electrodes provide for preheating of the conduit as well as increased heating for conveying molten glass there within ([0044], [0046]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly adopted a pair of electrical flanges to provide heating to the conduit for the conveyance of the molten glass, as taught by Itazu.
Zhao teaches the reinforcing member is a V-shaped rib comprising a hollow interior, but fails to specify a tubular body having a cross-sectional shape that is rectangular or circular. Lineman discloses a fining vessel comprising a conduit 106 comprising an interior passage configured to carry a flow of molten glass therethrough, and at least one reinforcing member 106a attached to an external periphery of the conduit ([0006]). In figure 2, Lineman depicts the reinforcing member 106a is in the shape of a rib. Lineman appears to further suggests the rib can also serve as a heat sink if welded continuously to the external periphery of the conduit ([0025]). Thus, the rib serves as a reinforcing member and a heat sink. Lineman further teaches the member can be configured to have various shapes ([0025], figures 4-8). Like the rib of Zhao (figure 2 of Zhao), Lineman teaches one such shape is an inverted V (see figure 8). Other shapes also taught include a member comprising a tubular body defining a hollow interior bounded by a wall, the hollow interior having a cross-sectional shape that is circular (see figures 5 and 7). Lineman teaches the circular cross section providing a hollow interior provides for further cooling to the conduit ([0026]-[0027]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried alternative shapes, such as a hollow cylinder, for the rib of Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success in reinforcing the conduit, while also serving to provide cooling for the conduit.
In modifying Zhao with a reinforcing member comprising a tubular body with a hollow interior (i.e. figs. 5 and 7 of Lineman), then the wall of the tubular member would extend circumferentially around the conduit. Furthermore, while the reinforcing member of Zhao extends circumferentially around only a portion of the periphery of the conduit, Itazu further teaches the reinforcing member can extend over the entire periphery of the conduit ([0033], figures 2-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for reinforcement around the entire periphery of the conduit, as doing so would naturally provide for more reinforcement of the conduit. In providing for this modification, the cross-sectional shape of the hollow interior of tubular member would have a central axis that circumscribes the longitudinal axis of the conduit and is in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the conduit.
In further regards to claim 13, Zhao teaches the conduit is a clarifying vessel for discharging bubbles ([0002], which makes the conduit a fining vessel.
Regarding claims 2-3, and 14, Zhao teaches the reinforcing member extends circumferentially around an upper portion of the conduit (2 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches a plurality of reinforcing members (claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches the reinforcing member is internally connected to the atmosphere (claim 5) and figure 2 suggests the ends of reinforcing member are openings for connecting to the atmosphere, which suggests a pressure equalizing orifices that provides fluid communication between the reinforcing member hollow interior and an atmosphere external to the reinforcing member. In modifying the shape of the reinforcing member to having a cylindrical shape, it would be expected for the ends to similarly be open.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Zhao teaches the conduit comprises platinum ([0006]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Zhao teaches the reinforcing member comprises platinum ([0006],[0013], claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao teaches the conduit is a fining vessel
Regarding claim 10, Lineman teaches an embodiment in figure 5 wherein the member 522 is connected to the conduit by plate 520.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 15, 2026, with respect to Tenyama have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 13 has been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments with regards to Zhao, Itazu, and Lineman are not persuasive. Applicant argues the rib of Zhao extends in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the conduit, while the rib of Lineman extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit. Applicant further argues the rejection lacks motivation to combine the two references and the ribs of Zhao and Lineman are fundamentally different in approach. This is not found persuasive because both ribs do serve similar functions, and are not fundamentally different. Zhao teaches a rib that is a reinforcing member. Lineman also teaches a rib that is a reinforcing member. Lineman further teaches the rib can also provide for cooling of the conduit. Just as Zhao teaches a rib having an inverted V shape, Lineman also teaches the rib can have an inverted V shape. Lineman further teaches other shapes that are equal alternatives, such as a tubular member with a hollow interior. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try other shapes for a reinforcing member, as Lineman teaches predictable success with the other shapes. While Lineman utilizes the ribs in a different orientation from that of Zhao, there is no reason to not expect the same shaped rib (of Lineman) oriented on a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (as Zhao) would not also function for the intended purpose of reinforcing the conduit.
Regarding feature of the cross-sectional shape having a central axis that circumscribes the longitudinal axis of the conduit, a new grounds of rejection based on Itazu has been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights