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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because
Claim 1 requires the step of
“determining with a controller that the region has been heated to a mixing temperature based on one or more of a difference in rotational speeds of the first and second rotating assemblies and a distribution of the heat within the region”
There is nothing in the claim that indicates in view of the specification that indicates how the determining is “based on one or more of a difference in rotational speeds” in other words how is a temperature determined from the rotational speeds of the first and second rotating assemblies?
Furthermore, the specification of the present application recites this in [0005] however provides no means for how this temperature determination is “based on” a difference in rotational speeds.
Claim 1 further recites;
“after determining that the region has been heated to the mixing temperature, rotating the first end of the glass workpiece at a first rotational velocity ω1 and rotating the second end of the glass workpiece at a second rotational velocity ω2, wherein an absolute value of the difference between ω1 and ω2 (|ω1- ω2|) is in a range from 2 to 100”
It is unclear how the step of determining the mixing temperature occurs based on the rotational speeds and then the claim recites after this determination step, rotating occurs. How can rotating occur when said controller determines the temperature based on already existing rotational velocities.
It is particularly unclear if the rotating step in line 11 of claim 1 is a new rotating step or attempting to refer back to already existing rotation.
For the purpose of this examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is interpreted to know the region is at a mixing temperature when the workpiece is heated and the assemblies are rotating to yield mixing and the term “based on” is considered extremely broad.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 20200131069).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a method for homogenizing a glass workpiece [0019], the method comprising:
heating a region (9) of a glass workpiece blank (1) by exposing the region to heat from a heat source burner (2) while rotating the glass workpiece via first and second rotating assemblies (6 and 7 respectively) attached to opposing ends of the glass workpiece (Fig 1) [0070]-[0074];
Thomas discloses heating the region locally to over 2000°C [0030], [0072] and rotating the assemblies in opposite directions to a mixing temperature, thus yielding distribution of heat and intermixing a homogenizing a shear zone (9) [0073].
This is considered determining that the region has been heated to a mixing temperature based on one or more of a difference in rotational speeds of the first and second rotating assemblies and a distribution of the heat within the region giving the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
The rotation of the spindles in opposite directions at unequal rotational speeds yields a twisting force and applies a torque to the shear region (9) using the first and second rotating assemblies.
Thomas discloses the glass is locally heating the region to over 2000°C [0032], [0072] and rotating the glass rotating assemblies in opposite directions to cause intermixing and homogenizing [0073] in order to state the locally heated zone is at an intermixing temperature it is necessarily determined by some type of device, or controller.
Thomas discloses a first rotational velocity of -40 rpm and a second rotational velocity of 120 rpm [0072] thus the absolute value of the first rotational velocity-second rotational velocity thus 160 rpm. This does not fall within the claimed range of 2 to 100 however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize rotation velocity as motivated to achieve the intermixing and homogenization of the heated shear zone.
Thomas discloses the blank is heated locally up to approximately 2000°C and then the heat source is translated over the glass workpiece (1) thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan that some area of the glass workpiece and the locally heated region necessarily has a temperature difference of 50°C to 500°C at some point during the heating method taught by Thomas. [0070]-[0074] Fig 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, the region, or shear zone, is to be .3 times the diameter of the glass workpiece to yield intensive intermixing [0040]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Thomas as motivated to accommodate the diameter of the glass workpiece to be homogenized.
Regarding claim 4-5, Thomas does not explicitly recite the viscosity of the shear region however, discloses pure quartz glass and heating to 2000 °C [0021], [0029] and softening thus having a viscosity of a softened glass of about 107.6 which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Thomas discloses a thermal radiation dissipator (20) [0074]-[0075] equivalent to the claimed thermal radiator circumferentially around the glass workpiece.
Regarding claims 7-8, Thomas discloses the cylindrical thermal radiation dissipator (20) absorbs part of the heat energy from the region of the shear zone (9) in particular by heat radiation and heat conduction, and emits this energy as longer-wave infrared radiation. The thermal radiation dissipator (20) arranged centrally to the shear zone (9) and projects beyond it at both ends to emit heat energy to the bulk of the glass adjacent to the shear zone (9) and the heat device within opening (23) disposed at a first focus region [0076]
Thomas depicts a cylindrical thermal radiation dissipator as depicted in Fig 1. It would be obvious to change the shape of the thermal heat dissipator to be parabolic as a matter of design choice and as motivated to optimize the direction of emission of the heat energy around the shear zone without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses the thermal deflector (20) with a heat source focused on a first region through opening (23) and the thermal radiation dissipator to other heat regions thus any additional region heat is reflected to is considered a second focus region given the broadest reasonable interpretation given the broadest reasonable interpretation [0076],
Regarding claims 10-11, It would be obvious to modify the method of Thomas with additional heat sources as motivated to control the heating of the workpiece and intermixing of Thomas at desirable locations.
Furthermore, MPEP 2144.04 indicates In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses the heat source is a burner (2)
Claim 5 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maida (US 20140206524) as applied to Thomas et al. (US 20200131069) above.
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses high purity quartz or doped quartz however does not explicitly specify titania-doped silica glass.
In an analogous art, Maida discloses homogenization of a glass rod by locally heating the rod with opposite rotation to mix the rod of titania-doped quartz (Fig 2, [0051]) thus it is obvious to one skilled in the art to use the method of Thomas on a titania doped quarts with the expectation of success of homogenization of the glass
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herczog (US 3485613) as applied to Thomas et al. (US 20200131069) above.
Regarding claim 12, Thomas discloses a heating source of a burner.
In an analogous art of heating a portion of a glass workpiece to at least a softening temperature Herczog (fluid zone- abstract), with mixing to cause mixing of the heated portion (Col 2; lines 18-30) Herczog discloses using burners (12) or alternatively a coil (15) (Col 5; lines13-19).
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to substitute one known heating means for heating a glass rod with another heating means known in the art. MPEP 2141 indicates simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of heating a glass workpiece is obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 14-16 and alternatively claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 20060005579) as applied to Thomas et al. (US 20200131069) above.
Regarding claim 14, and alternatively 17, Thomas discloses a heating source of a burner.
In an analogous art of locally heating a portion of a quartz glass workpiece [0027], [0030]-[0031] Jacobsen discloses using a laser as a local heating source ([0031]-[0032]).
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to substitute one known heating means for heating a glass rod with another heating means known in the art. MPEP 2141 indicates simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of heating a glass workpiece is obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Jacobsen discloses a suitable wavelength for heating a quartz glass rod to be 2.1-12 microns. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the wavelength within the disclosed ranges as indicated by MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 16, Jacobsen discloses using a CO2 or CO laser
Claim(s) 13, 18 and alternatively claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempstead (US 20180084609) as applied to Thomas et al. (US 20200131069) above.
Regarding claim 13 and alternatively claim 17, Thomas discloses a heating source of a burner.
In an analogous art of locally heating a portion of a quartz glass workpiece Hempstead discloses using a gyrotron as a heating source ([0029]-[0030]).
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to substitute one known heating means for heating a silica glass with another heating means for heating silica known in the art. MPEP 2141 indicates simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of heating a silica glass is obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings of Hempstead and Thomas as indicated above, a gyrotron requires some susceptor material and an electromagnetic field to heat the glass and thus generates thermal radiation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Thomas fails to teach the method steps after determining that a region of the blank 1 has been heated to the claimed “mixing temperature” rotating first and second ends
Thomas fails to teach first determining that a region of its blank 1 has been heated to the claimed "mixing temperature" and then, after this determination, rotating the ends of blank 1 at the claimed rotational speeds.
Thus, Thomas fails to teach the claimed method steps of "determining with a controller that the region has been heated to a mixing temperature" and "after determining that the region has been heated to the mixing temperature, rotating the first end of the glass workpiece at a first rotational velocity and rotating the second end of the glass workpiece at a second rotational velocity.
Thomas does disclose heating the glass to an intermixing temperature then rotating at first and second velocities. Thomas discloses for adequate intermixing, adequate heating to an intermixing temperature of 2000 degrees Celsius must be performed [0030], [0072]-[0073] It is obvious to a skilled artisan that in knowing the temperature that Thomas heats for intermixing is 2000 degrees Celsius or over means that Thomas necessarily determines the temperature, this can be done by any type of temperature sensor, thermocouple, thermometer which are all controllers of type. Examiner still believes it is indefinite to determine the temperature “based on” velocities with or without information going into a controller or computer there is no support to indicate how the temperature is determined from velocities. Regarding the limitation of difference between the velocities, both the present invention and prior art Thomas locally heat the blank and rotate in opposite directions to intermix and homogenize the heated section. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the velocity as motivated to intermix and homogenize the heated section. Given the indefiniteness of claim 1 Examiner examined the claims as best as possible.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20050091219 feedback temperature system
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
Prosecution Insights