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 § 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, 3-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (2011/0123408). Regarding claims 1 and 8, Noumi teaches a conventional furnace comprising a furnace upper portion 56, a furnace middle portion 65 located below the furnace upper portion, and a furnace lower portion located below the furnace middle portion (as indicated as 8 in analogous figure 1, [0034]), wherein the furnace upper portion 56, the furnace middle portion 65, and the furnace lower portion 8 are independently formed ([0007], [0056]). Noumi also teaches the furnace upper portion 56 and the furnace middle portion 65 are not fixed to each other in an upper-lower direction, which can be an axial direction of a glass particle deposit, and have a structure in which the furnace middle portion and the furnace upper portion do not interfere with each other when the furnace middle portion is deformed by thermal expansion ([0012]-[0014]), 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_image1.png
380
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Noumi appears to suggest the furnace middle portion 65 and the furnace lower portion are not fixed to each other in the upper-lower direction, as furnace middle portion 65 is “arranged on the upper surface of the lower portion 8” ([0056]), and the support wall (furnace middle portion) is “provided on the intermediate wall” (furnace lower portion) ([0081]). Additionally, Noumi teaches the furnace upper portion undergoes thermal expansion when heated ([0012]) and thus, must be spaced apart from the furnace middle portion. Just as Noumi teaches a heat insulating material 9 is supported on the upper surface of the intermediate wall ([0040]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly expect for the middle portion and lower portion to not be fixed to each other, as it may similarly be subjected to some thermal expansion. In regards to claim 8, since the furnace middle portion is not fixed to either the furnace upper portion or the furnace lower portion, it is configured to be movable between the upper and lower portions.
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 1 mm 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.
Regarding claim 5, inlet 55 is capable of allowing the supply of a glass raw material.
Regarding claim 7, it would appear in figure, Noumi teaches the furnace upper portion and the furnace lower portion are fixed to an outer container 3 or 52 (fig. 1-4, 6).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noumi et al. (2011/0123408) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oga (JP 2000007366 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 6, While Noumi teaches a furnace, Noumi doesn’t specify a furnace for manufacturing glass particle deposit. Oga teaches a furnace for manufacturing a glass particle deposit, and like Noumi, the furnace comprises a furnace upper portion 21 and a furnace middle portion 20 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 portions are independently formed and have a structure in which the first portion and the second portion do not interfere with each other when the furnace middle portion is deformed by thermal expansion (figure 2, bottom four passages on page 3, and top two passages on page 4, figure 2). Oga further teaches glass manufacturing apparatus further comprises an elevation rotation device configured to elevate and rotate the glass particle deposit via a support rod and a starting rod 22, and a burner configured to generate glass particles by causing an oxidation reaction of a glass raw material gas, i.e. outside vapor deposition ([0004], 2nd passage on page 4, fig. 4). Oga teaches the elevating rotation device and burner are typical features of a vapor deposition furnace for producing glass particle deposits necessary for producing the glass particles and for supporting and moving the glass particle deposit. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for an elevating rotation device for supporting the glass particle deposit and a burner in order to provide for the generation of glass particles, as they are required for vapor deposition processes in manufacturing glass particle deposits.
In further regards to claim 5, the furnace can provide glass raw materials, such as silicon tetrachloride (third passage on page 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 28, 2026, with respect to Oga and Shimada have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 1 under Oga, and under Shimada has been withdrawn. However, applicant's arguments with respect to Noumi are not persuasive. Applicant argues partition wall 65 is fixed to the annular intermediate wall 8. Noumi teaches wall 65 is provided on the upper surface of intermediate wall 8, in a similar fashion as heat insulating material 9 is supported on the upper surface of intermediate wall 8. Noumi also recognizes that the furnace undergoes thermal expansion, requiring for portions to have freedom of movement, thus suggesting the wall 65 and intermediate wall 8 are not fixed to each other.
Conclusion
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 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