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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 6 invokes 112(f) as stating “means for cooling” [0246]-[250] discuss a means for cooling where [0249]-[0250] specifically indicate a means for cooling being an air cooling device, [0252] discusses an intake for bringing air into the atmosphere of the neck between the furnace and first refining zone. Any means for an air intake into the atmosphere is considered a structural equivalent.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least some burners that are configured to melt a glass batch to obtain a glass bath” in claim 1. Any burner for obtaining a glass melt is considered a structural equivalent.
“a no-return separation device that it is configured to prevent the molten glass from going back into the hot-crown melting zone” in claim 1. Specification [0050] states a wall being a structural separation device [0059] recites a wall, neck, barrier, raised portion as separation devices. Any wall, raised portion, divider or structural equivalent will be considered a structural equivalent.
“the no-return separation device is configured to prevent the glass from going back from the first refining zone” in claim 2. [0059], [0064], [0069] recites a wall, neck, barrier, raised portion as separation devices and a “no-return” separation device between the melting zone and refining zone is an equivalent to the claimed “no-return separation device”
“no-return separation device is configured to limit the amount of glass passing from the hot-crown melting zone” in claims 3-4. [0059], [0064], [0069] recites a wall, neck, barrier, raised portion as separation devices and a “no-return” separation device between the melting zone and refining zone is an equivalent to the claimed “no-return separation device” configured to control the glass.
“a raised portion is configured to prevent the molten glass from going back into the refining zone” in claim 7. Any raised portion is considered a structural equivalent.
“from the hot-crown melting zone, said barrier being configured to prevent the molten glass from going back from the glass-refining zone to the hot-crown melting zone” in claims 11 and 13 and 27. [0082] of the originally filed specification indicates a barrier or raised portion preventing molten glass from going back into the refining zone, thus any barrier as also explained in [0069] of the specification “a wall, neck, barrier, raised portion as separation devices” is considered an equivalent “configured to prevent the molten glass from going back from the glass-refining zone to the hot-crown melting zone”
Claim 20 recites “the hybrid glass-manufacturing furnace configured to feed a float glass unit with a load of greater than or equal to 400 tons per day” [0051] and [0100], [0219] states a hybrid furnace is configured to carry out this thus any hybrid furnace which is described to have a plurality of energy sources [0044] thus any furnace with a plurality of energy sources is considered a structural equivalent for carrying out this claimed function.
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.
The indefinite rejections of claims 13-14, and 27-28 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Claim 25 is considered indefinite because it recites a “hot-spot” it is unclear what the spot is considered hot relative to or what determines the dimensions of a hot spot. Similarly the “inversion zone” is not defined relative to any other areas or dimensions thus it is unclear what Examiner should determine said “zone” in regards to the claimed apparatus/ structure
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to limit claim 1 to the embodiment depicted in of Fig. 3-4 of the present application
Claim 11 recites a barrier, extending vertically. For broadest claim interpretation, extending vertically is interpreted as any portion of an extension from the base of the melter/refiner being vertically extending or perpendicular to the base of said melter/ refiner. Claim 11 does not give dimensions or what said wall, or what portion of said wall is vertical relative to.
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 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge US 3884665 and Pierre (US 251276)
Regarding claims 1 and 31, Edge discloses a hybrid glass furnace capable of intended use for feeding glass to a float unit (Edge claim 1, Col 2; lines 39-40)
Edge discloses a melter zone (11), refiner (13) and conditioner (15)
Edge discloses a first neck, or narrowed portion, between the melter zone (11) and refiner zone (13) (see Fig 2) and the neck zone is capable of being in fluid communication with the atmosphere above the glass (see Fig 1).
Edge discloses heating means of burners (Col 4; lines 60-64) and also suggests electric, or resistance heating member (Col 3; lines 48-49) but depicts locations for burners in the melting and refining zones by openings in (11/13) in Fig 1). It would be obvious matter of design choice where the heating means are located absent any unexpected results, Edge discloses walls in the refining compartment as labeled in Fig 2 below
PNG
media_image1.png
777
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Edge does not disclose the “no-return separation device”
In analogous art Pierre discloses no-return separation wall (30/31 to isolate the melting chamber from the refining chamber with electrodes between (Col 4; lines 64-69). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Edge with these three structures as motivated to yield a uniform temperature.
Edge and Pierre disclose every structural feature as indicated in claim 1 and is thus carries out the functional language of currents as indicated in claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8,10-14, 16, 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 4929266) and Mcintosh (US 2081595).
Regarding claims 1-3, 21-22, and 27-28, Cozac discloses a hybrid furnace of electric heating and burners (Col 4; lines 9-10) capable of putting glass to a float tank (Col 7; 3-5)
Cozac discloses a hot-crown melting zone comprising burners (Col 4; lines 35, 9-10) and electrodes (32) in what is determined a downstream part of the hot-crown melter configured to melt a glass batch (Col 2; lines 36-39).
Cozac discloses a glass-refining zone (4), comprising first and second refining zones separated by a wall (7) (See at least Fig. 4-7). At least the first refining zones having burners (19-21) and electrodes (33) thus yielding the function of a second convection current in the first refining zone and a third convection current in the second refining zone as discussed above.
Cozac discloses conditioning tank (11) which is a cooling-zone (Col 3; line 64).
Cozac discloses a first neck (5) with submerged throat (6) between the melting and refining zone (see at least Fig 5-6).
In analogous art of melting and refining glass, Mcintosh discloses a melting chamber (7) and refining chamber or zone (8) (Fig. 1) and controlling convection currents in zones of the apparatus by providing constriction intermediate the melting zone and refining zone to prevent molten glass from going back into the melting zone from the refining zone with use of a submerged throat, lateral constriction forming neck or a weir extending upward from the tank to a desired level to obtain uniform temperature of the stream of glass (Page 2, Col 1; lines 39-Col 2; line 15).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the furnace of Cozac by substituting the submerged throat of Cozac in the neck between the Melting and refining zones with a raised no-return separation device, or weir as taught by Mcintosh, because simple substitution of one known element for another for the same purpose would be obvious to a skilled artisan.
Cozac discloses every structural feature as indicated in claim 1 and is thus carries out the functional language of currents as indicated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-10, the raised portion, or weir (14), made obvious by Cozac and Mcintosh has an incline to a plateau is configured to prevent backflow from the refining zone to the melting zone and the height of the raised portion does determine the passage section of free flowing glass in the neck -see also citation of Mcintosh in rejection of claim 1 which indicates this well-known approach.
Regarding claim 9, the weir (14) taught by Mcintosh has an ascending and descending segment and a plateau on top yields a circulation flow and prevents colder spots.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bottom of the melting and refining furnace as motivated to continue circulation of glass and prevent colder glass from flowing downstream.
Regarding claims 11-13, Cozac does disclose a no-return separation device (6) comprises barrier (6), see all Figures of Cozac, the barrier (6) vertically over neck (5) is capable of being submerged in the glass bath and prevents glass from flowing from the first refining zone back to the hot crown melting zone
As indicated in rejection of claim 1 it is also known to have throats, weirs like raised portion (14) all to restrict backflow of glass from a refiner to the melter and control convection currents.
A skilled artisan would use any or all of the known restriction elements of a barrier from the top or bottom of the melter as both depicted in Cozac Fig. 6, a Weir (14) as depicted by Mcintosh and or throats as indicated by both prior art references as motivated to prevent backflow of glass from the refiner to the melter.
Regarding claim 11, a weir (14) as depicted by Mcintosh has a center therein which is considered vertical relative to the rest of the base of the melter and refiner as well as parallel to the front wall upstream in the melter.
Regarding claim 12, the barrier made obvious by Cozac and Mcintosh is considered at the upstream end of the neck given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the present specification (at least Figures 1-4 and 12).
Furthermore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the barriers and necks, or any other constrictions taught by Mcintosh between the melter and the refiner as motivated to prevent backflow of glass from the refiner to the melter. Further supported by this being a matter of design choice.
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
Regarding claim 16, Cozac Fig 5-13 depict no-return barrier (6) having two sides thus the upstream side is considered the no-return separation means and the downstream end being the separation means of claim 16 and thus capable of separating the atmosphere between the hot melting crown and the refining zone given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the present specification.
Regarding claim 20, the furnace has all of the claimed structural features of claim 1 and thus is configured to feed a float glass unit with a load of 400 tons/day or greater with glass having less than .1 bubble per liter.
Alternatively, Cozac discloses the tanks dimensions (Col 13; lines 13-19) to determine the glass flow thus it would be obvious to optimize the melter dimension as motivated to obtain the desired glass flow.
Regarding claim 23, an apparatus is determined by what it is and not what it does. There is no controller or algorithm determining the control of the electrodes. Cozac discloses all of the structural features of claim 23 and electrodes that heat thus are “controlled” given the broadest reasonable interpretation and thus meets the claim.
Regarding claim 24, an apparatus is determined by what it is and not what it does. Cozac discloses all of the structural features of claim 24 including burners in the first refining zone and a temperature of 1450-1525 deg. Celsius (Col 6; lines 51-60) and is considered capable of the intended use of meeting the claimed temperature and thus meets the claim.
Regarding claim 25, an apparatus is determined by what it is and not what it does. See MPEP 2173.05(g) Cozac discloses all of the structural features of claim 25 and thus meets the claim given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 26, an apparatus is determined by what it is and not what it does. There is no controller or algorithm determining the control of the electrodes. Cozac discloses all of the structural features of claim 26 and thus meets the claim.
Regarding claims 27-29, Cozac discloses a wall (7) separating the first and second refining zone.
Cozac discloses providing electrodes in the second refining zone (Col 15; lines 20-26) to achieve good mixing. There is no controller or algorithm determining the control of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 30, Cozac discloses a neck (10) before conditioner (11).
Regarding claim 31, the level of molten glass is not part of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 4929266) and McIntosh as applied above and further in view of Maunsell et al. (US 3400204).
Regarding claim 6, Cozac discloses an apparatus for melting and refining glass. Cozac does not discloses means for cooling the glass.
In analogous art Maunsell discloses a glass melting and supplying apparatus discloses providing a cooling device to control the temperature of the atmosphere above the molten glass which is beneficial with at throughput 50 tons per day or more and particularly at the hot entrance of the refining are (Col 4; lines 1-48).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the melter of Cozac with the cooling device of Maunsell and the first neck as motivated to control the temperature of the atmosphere above the glass in a melter apparatus with high throughput at a high temperature area between the melter and refining area.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 4929266) and Mcintosh as applied above and further in view of Helmut et al. (EP 0086858).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Cozac fails to disclose no-return separation device barrier is vertically adjustable.
In an analogous art of a glass melting Helmut discloses a barrier (55) is adjustable vertically to maintain the heat beneath the crown in the melting chamber (Col 6; lines 43-47).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the no-return separation device of Cozac with an adjustable barrier as motivated to control the heat beneath the crown in the melting chamber this combination yields a separation means for separating an atmosphere of the hot crown and the refining zone.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozac et al. (US 4929266) and Mckintosh as applied above and further in view of Rodek et al. (US 20100147031).
Regarding claim 17, Cozac discloses a glass melting and refining furnace however fails to disclose a blocking means configured to retain a layer of batch present on the surface.
In analogous art of melting and refining glass Rodek discloses bridge barrier 1.3 to prevent the glass batch 1.2 from flowing further to the stations downstream [0024]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the melter of Cozac with the bridge barrier blocking means of Rodek as motivated to prevent unmelted batch from flowing further downstream.
Regarding claim 19, the separating means of (6) of Cozac is separate than the blocking means made obvious by Rodek.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 25 is not indefinite because the term “hot-spot” and “inversion zone” is known in the art.
In response to this argument Examiner does not disagree that these terms are known however the claims are drawn to an apparatus and despite the functional language discussed in claim interpretation section above, there is no clear zone identified for either zone above to determine the apparatus structure as claimed.
Applicant argues that Cozac does not disclose the “no-separation device” as presently claimed. Mcintosh is now relied on as well in view of the present amendments.
Applicant argues that the throat 5 of Cozac in a submerged passage that is completely filled with molten glass as shown in Figures 1-2, the throat 5 is formed between the melting tank and refining zone by means of the wall structure 6 that hangs down. Applicant argues that the entire cross-section of the throat 5 is occupied by molten glass and there is no space above the glass surface.
Examiner does not understand or agree with how these statements overcome the previous rejection. Applicant has not pointed out how this does not meet the functional limitations of claim 1. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a structure of the no-return separation device in the neck.
Applicant continues to argue that there is no surface of the glass bath in contact with the atmosphere. This is not required in the claims, nor is it in part of the structure claimed. Applicant has not cited any proof that the glass is fully able to flow back through the throat 5. The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, Applicant argues that [0083]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3915682 (7) and (8) are adjustable curtains, may graze the molten bath thermally isolate sections (Col 3; lines 21-30)
US 3838999 450 tons/day drop arch/ shadow wall (10) (Col 7; lines 35-38) to divide melter from refiner.
DE 1471992 Fig. 5 shows currents in refining zone and wall between 1st and 2nd refining zone, a no separation wall between melter and refining zone. Throat and weir or raised bottom portions known
FR 1388990 throat and raised portion (43) Fig. 6-7
US 20120017643 Fig 1, melter 20, refiner after constriction 9- only difference is angle view convection/current flow same as present invention, second throat 4
US 4798616 steps and barriers to constrict and control currents
Sorg US 20200102240 Regarding claim 1, Sorg discloses a hybrid furnace of electric heating and burners [0027]-[0028] capable of putting glass to a float tank (Col 7; 3-5)
Sorg discloses a hot-crown melting zone (10) comprising burners and electrodes [0069]-[0070] in what is determined a downstream part of the hot-crown melter configured to melt a glass batch
Sorg discloses a glass-refining zone (20), comprising first and second refining zones separated by a wall (raised floor 21, Fig 1A). At least the first refining zones having burners (19c) and electrodes (22) thus yielding the function of a second convection current in the first refining zone and a third convection current in the second refining zone as discussed above.
Sorg discloses conditioning tank (40) which is a cooling-zone [0064], only difference is a constriction throat between melter and refining
us 20140090423 and wall 50 between melter and refining
US 2068925 walls (44,43) adjacent weir and in throat
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