DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al (WO-2018052833-A1) and further in view of Takayama (JP-2001192226-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Fournel teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a glass article [220] comprising a glass conveyance apparatus [233] comprising a plenum chamber [12] (plenum 252, chamber 110 comprising a fluid inlet [362] (supply pipe 112), a fluid bearing table [29] comprising a plurality of orifices [85, 97] which is in fluid communication with the plenum chamber [5].
Fournel teaches of a fluid regulator that can shut the fluid communication between the plenum chamber and at least one orifice of the plurality of orifices [293]. Fournel does not expressly teach a plurality of slide gates that alters the fluid communication between the plenum chamber and the at least one orifice of the plurality of orifices at a first position and a second position. In related glass conveyance art [0030], Takayama teaches of a plenum chamber in fluid communication with a plurality of slide gates comprising a plurality of apertures [0021] (Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the plurality of orifices and not in fluid communication with the plurality of orifices in a first position and second position [0033-34] (Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the glass conveyance apparatus of Fournel to have a plurality of slide gates proximate to the fluid bearing table wherein the slide gate allows and restrict fluid communication of the plenum chamber to the plurality of orifices in a first position and second position as known means to regulate gas. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Though Takayama teaches fluid ejection means to cool a glass plate [0003], a skilled artisan would understand the familiarity of fluid ejecting means for a fluid bearing table and to substitute the regulator of Fournel for the sliding gate regulator equivalent of Takayama.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Fournel teaches the apparatus further comprises a forming device configured to flow a glass ribbon therefrom and toward the glass conveyance apparatus in a draw direction ([300] Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 2, Fournel teaches the plurality of orifices are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the draw direction [104]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the plurality of slide gates of modified Fournel also move in a direction perpendicular to the draw direction to match the orientation of the plurality of orifices.
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, Fournel teaches the apparatus comprises a reorientation mechanism configured to reorient the draw direction from substantially vertical between the forming device and the reorientation mechanism to substantially horizontal downstream of the reorientation mechanism [308-310] (Fig. 17, 13).
Regarding claims 6-7, depending from claim 5, Fournel teaches the glass conveyance apparatus is positioned along a substantially horizontal draw direction and between a substantially vertical and substantially horizontal draw direction (Fig. 13/17).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 5, Fournel teaches the apparatus comprises two oppositely facing glass conveyance apparatuses positioned along a substantially vertical draw direction (Fig. 13), under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 9, Takayama teaches that the plurality of apertures of the plurality of slide gates are of approximately the same size, shape, and distance relative to each other [0020] (Fig. 3-4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the plurality of apertures approximately the same size, shape, and distance relative to each other as a regular arrangement in the slide gate.
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 9, Fournel teaches the fluid bearing table comprises a substantially planar surface [298] (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 9, Fournel teaches the fluid bearing table comprises a non-planar surface [307-308].
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 9, Fournel teaches the glass conveyance apparatus comprises at least one of a heating mechanism or a cooling mechanism [259].
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al (WO-2018052833-A1) and Takayama (JP-2001192226-A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brackley et al (US-20150251944-A1).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 2, Fournel teaches the plurality of orifices are arranged in a direction perpendicular to the draw direction [104]. Modified Fournel does not expressly teach the plurality of slide gates are moveable in a direction parallel to the draw direction. In related fluid bearing table for glass art, Brackley teaches of orienting a plurality of orifices for a fluid bearing table in a direction parallel to the draw direction (Fig. 13 [0068]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the fluid bearing table of modified Fournel to arrange the plurality of orifices and the plurality of slide gate moveable in a direction parallel to the draw direction as a known orientation in the art.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al (WO-2018052833-A1) and Takayama (JP-2001192226-A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nagura et al (WO-2008044706-A1, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 9, Fournel teaches of impedance orifices [248] and metering pipes [268] arranged prior to the plurality of orifices. Fournel does not expressly teach a fluid diffuser between the fluid inlet and the plurality of slide gates. In related conveyance apparatus art, Nagura teaches of a fluid diffuser (filter 30) between the fluid inlet and the plurality of orifices (Fig. 2) [0047]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a fluid diffuser between the fluid inlet and plurality of slide gates of modified Fournel to ensure foreign matter from the air does not contaminate the product being carried [0064]. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Though Nagura also does not have a plurality of slide gates, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the fluid diffuser be arranged in the plenum chamber prior to the plurality of orifices and further prior to the plurality of slide gates without interfering with the sliding action to achieve the first position and second position as set forth in modified Fournel.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournel et al (WO-2018052833-A1) and Takayama (JP-2001192226-A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wright (US-3374078-A).
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 9, Takayama teaches that the plurality of apertures of the plurality of slide gates are of approximately the same size, shape, and distance relative to each other [0020] (Fig. 3-4). Modified Fournel does not expressly teach the plurality of apertures differ in at least one of size, shape, or distance relative to each other. In related fluid bed for glass art, Wright teaches of a slide gate (screen element 50/500) with a plurality of apertures (orifices 52/520) with different size (col. 2 Line 31-49). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the plurality of apertures to differ in size to restrict the exhausting gas to create a desired exhaust pattern along the width of the sheets and desired pressure profile (Col. 7 Line 19-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-3522029-A teaches a slide gate that can be used in substitution over Takayama
US-4198463-A, US-20090205373-A1 teaches oppositely facing fluid bearing tables
JP-2010254453-A can be used in place of the Brackley reference
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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 on 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741