Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/721,982

FURNACE AND MANUFACTURING APPARATUS FOR GLASS PARTICLE DEPOSIT INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 20, 2024
Examiner
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
519 granted / 839 resolved
-3.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 839 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites “for manufacturing a glass particle deposit” in the preamble of the claim. This is not positively recited in the body of the claim and recites intended use for the apparatus, without offering any additional structural limitations, and thus is not considered a claim limitation. Claim 5 recites an intended use, wherein the furnace uses silicon tetrachloride in for manufacturing. Thus, the claim is interpreted as not reciting any further structural limitations. Claim 6 recites “for a glass particle deposit” in the preamble of the claim. This is not positively recited in the body of the claim and recites intended use for the apparatus, without offering any additional structural limitations, and thus is not considered a claim limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not recite any additional structure, other than the furnace of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noumi et al. (2011/0123408). Regarding claims 1 and 6, Noumi teaches a conventional furnace comprising two or more portions that are not fixed to each other in an upper-lower direction which can be an axial direction of a glass particle deposit, wherein the two or more portions comprise a first portion and a second portion (56/65) which are independently formed ([0007]), and the two or more portions have a structure, providing for a gap, in which the first portion and the second portion do not interfere with each other when the first portion is deformed by thermal expansion ([0012]-[0014]). Regarding claim 5, inlet 55 is capable of allowing the supply of a glass raw material. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oga (JP 2000007366 machine translation provided). Regarding claims 1 and 6, Oga teaches a furnace for manufacturing a glass particle deposit, the furnace comprising two or more portions that are not fixed to each other in an upper-lower direction which is an axial direction of a glass particle deposit, wherein the two or more portions comprise a first portion 20 and a second portion 21 which are independently formed, and the two or more portions have a structure in which the first portion and the second portion do not interfere with each other when the first portion is deformed by thermal expansion (figure 2, bottom four passages on page 3, and top two passages on page 4, figure 2). Regarding claim 2, Oga teaches the furnace comprises a furnace upper portion, a furnace middle portion located below the furnace upper portion, and a furnace lower portion located below the furnace middle portion, wherein the furnace middle portion has an upper end opening and a lower end opening in the upper-lower direction, wherein the furnace upper portion covers the upper end opening of the furnace middle portion so as to have a gap with an upper end of the furnace middle portion in the upper-lower direction, and the furnace lower portion covers the lower end opening of the furnace middle portion and supports the furnace middle portion (see figure 2 reproduced below). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (upper portion gap middle portion lower portion)] PNG media_image1.png 374 379 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, the gap is more than 3 mm, such as 20-20mm (top passage on page 4). Regarding claim 4, the distance between portions of the furnace upper portion and the furnace middle portion facing each other in a left-right direction perpendicular to the upper-lower direction is almost no gap, which would include a distance of less than 1mm (top passage on page 4). Regarding claim 5, the furnace can provide glass raw materials, such as silicon tetrachloride (third passage on page 6). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (2011/0123408) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 2, Noumi further teaches the furnace comprises a furnace upper portion 56, a furnace middle portion 65 located below the furnace upper portion, and a furnace lower portion (as indicated as 8 in analogous figure 1, [0034]) located below the furnace middle portion, wherein the furnace middle portion 65 has an upper end opening and a lower end opening in the upper-lower direction, wherein the furnace upper portion covers the upper end opening of the furnace middle portion so as to have a gap with an upper end of the furnace middle portion in the upper-lower direction, and the furnace lower portion covers the lower end opening of the furnace middle portion and supports the furnace middle portion (figures 6-7, [0007]). [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (furnace upper portion upper end opening furnace middle portion furnace lower portion)] PNG media_image2.png 380 343 media_image2.png Greyscale Noumi teaches the furnace upper portion undergoes thermal expansion when heated ([0012]) and thus, must be spaced apart from the furnace middle portion. According to the labelling recited in the claim, the furnace upper portion is the second portion and the furnace middle portion is the first portion. Although Noumi teaches the second portion is subjected to thermal expansion, it still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the same arrangement of providing a gap between two adjacent portions of a furnace, when it is expected one or both portions may be subjected to thermal expansion, regardless of whether it is the first portion or second portion, or if it’s an upper portion or middle portion. Regarding claims 3-4, Noumi teaches the expansion length can be expected to be about 100mm, which suggests the gap should be at least 100 mmm, which is greater than 3mm. Furthermore, in regards to claim 4, as can be seen in figure 6, there is a gap between portions of the furnace upper portion and the furnace middle portion facing each other in a left-right direction perpendicular to the upper-lower directions. Noumi appears to suggests the direction of expansion of the is in the upper-lower direction. This is supported by the improvements suggested by Noumi comprising an expansion member that expands and contracts in the up and down direction ([0038]). Noumi further teaches a need to maintain a sealed furnace ([0014]). While a distance of 1mm or less for the distance is not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a distance a small as possible, such as 1 mm, especially when expansion is expected in the up-down direction and not in the left-right direction, to ensure sealing of the reaction furnace. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (2003/0233849). Regarding claims 1 and 6, Shimada teaches a furnace for manufacturing a glass particle deposit, the furnace comprising two portions that are not fixed to each other in an axial direction of the glass particle deposit, wherein the two portions comprise a first portion and a second portion which are independently formed and the two portions have a structure, such as flexible unit 204 ([0114]) or sliding part 216 ([0125]), in which the first portion and the second portion do not interfere with each other when the first portion is deformed by thermal expansion ([0112], [0114], [0124]-[0125], figure 11 and 14). While the orientation of the furnace is horizontal and the portions form a left portion and a right portion, Shimada, nonetheless teaches placing the expansion structure so that the furnace is divided in the direction of the axis of the glass particle deposit. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a similar expansion structure for vertically oriented furnaces, thereby separating the furnace into upper and lower portions, so as to accommodate dimensional changes in the furnace due to thermal expansion. Regarding claim 2, the furnace can naturally be divided and labelled to any desired combination. When oriented vertically, the furnace can be divided into a furnace upper portion, a furnace middle portion located below the furnace upper portion, and a furnace lower portion located below the furnace middle portion, wherein the furnace middle portion can be referred to as the first portion and has an upper end opening and lower end opening. As can be seen in figure 14C, the furnace upper portion, which can be considered the second portion, covers the upper end opening of the furnace middle portion so as to have a gap with an upper end of the furnace middle portion (reproduced below with a vertical orientation). Naturally, the furnace lower portion would cover the lower end opening of the furnace middle portion and support the furnace middle portion. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper portion Middle portion)] PNG media_image3.png 119 228 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, the furnace of Shimada can provide for a glass raw material, such as silicon tetrachloride ([0092]). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600658
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PLATINUM FREE MELTING OF HIGH INDEX GLASSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595200
MOLTEN GLASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590025
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING GLASS ELEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590028
METHOD FOR TREATMENT OF A GLASS SUBSTRATE WITH IMPROVED EDGE STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570565
GLASS TUBE CONVERTING PROCESS WITH PIERCING DURING INDEX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+11.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 839 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month