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 Objections
The claims are objected to because reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims are recited properly and enclosed within parentheses as stated in MPEP § 608.01(m). However the same elements appear to be referred back to without reference characters. For example claim 19 indicates at least one combustion device submerged burner (F) in lines 1-2 and the at least one submerged combustion burner in line 6, Claim 20 also has this differentiation. For the purpose of this Examination Examiner will use the antecedent basis to interpret ensure the correct elements are being referred back to.
To avoid confusion the office requires that all claim elements that are referring to a specific reference character continue to recite these reference characters throughout the claims OR remove all reference characters and ensure the claims have proper antecedent basis for each character.
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.
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 one combustion device submerged burner (F) is configured to produce turbulence in the material melt, and thereby configured to produce unwanted bubbles, and wherein the at least one electrical conduction device electric heater (E) is configured to not produce turbulence in the material melt, and thereby configured to not produce unwanted bubbles.” In claim 36 any combustion burner submerged or immersed in material is considered configured to produce unwanted bubbles in a vitrifiable material during operation and any electrical heater is considered configured to not produce turbulence in the material melt, and thereby configured to not produce unwanted bubbles.
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 19 is rejected as being indefinite. Claim 19 recites, “the melting device of claim 16, wherein the at least one combustion device submerged burner (F) and the at least one electrical conduction device electric heater (E ) are configured to provide less than 20% of the energy used to heat and melt material from the at least one combustion device submerged burner” It is unclear if claim 19 intends to claim both the submerged burner and electric heater add to less than 20% energy to heat and melt the material. The originally filed specification in the application indicates from page 4-5 that 50% or more of the energy to heat the material being from the electric heaters and page 5 states, “less than 20% comes from the submerged combustion burner” For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that claim 19 requires an electric heater with some percentage of heating and at least one submerged combustion burner where the submerged combustion heater contributes less than 20% energy to the heating.
Claim 20 is indefinite for depending from claim 17. Claim 17 has been cancelled. For the purpose of this examination claim 20 will be examined as depending from claim 16.
Claim 25 is indefinite for depending from claim 17. Claim 17 has been cancelled. For the purpose of this examination claim 20 will be examined as depending from claim 16 and is thus a duplicate claim to claim 24.
Claim 36 is indefinite because it is unclear what are considered “unwanted bubbles” and how this precisely limits the structure of the device, specifically where the material does not limit the structure of the device. Claim 36 will be interpreted as indicated in the claim interpretation indicated above.
Claim 26 is indefinite as being dependent from claim 19.
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) 16, 18, 23, 33, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojaji et al. (US 20160207817).
Regarding claims 16, 18, 33, and 36Hojaji discloses a glass melter (300) Fig 3, [0110]-[0111] which is necessarily enclosed by a bottom wall and side walls to hold the glass melt [0115]-[0116].
The hybrid melting device disclosed by Hojaji [0116] wherein a hybrid melter includes submerged combustion burners followed by electric heating between melting zone 310 and 320 in Fig 3 [0116]-[0117] downstream of said burners as indicated in [0114] the melt is eventually discharged from the melting space [0115] the electric heating causes the claimed hot spot
According to MPEP 2112.01 Where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present rejection the structure of claim 16 is taught and thus the claimed hot point is expected by a skilled artisan in the art of glass melting and Regarding claim 36 submerged burners yield turbulence the incorporates air bubbles and electrodes do not yield “unwanted bubbles” given the broadest reasonable interpretation
Regarding claim 23, Hojaji discloses hydrogen as fuel for the submerged burner [0114]
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojaji et al. (US 20160207817) as applied above and further in view of Baker (US 20160107914)
Regarding claims 34-35, Hojaji suggests submerged combustion melters as indicated above however fails to state the details of the submerged burners
In an analogous art of submerged combustion burners suitable for melting devices Baker discloses submerged combustion burners where burners are jacketed with a cooling system [0027], [0057] and a fuel and oxygen and supply control [0110] and delivering a rotational flow. Where Hojaji is silent as to the details of the construction of the burner it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to available submerged combustion burners for melting devices suitable in the art to use.
Claim(s) 16, 18-21, 33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (WO 2018089436) and in view of Wang et al. (US 20210094861).
Regarding claims 16, 18-20, and 21, Cook discloses a melting device comprising a melting space defined by a bottom and side walls as shown in Fig 3-5, [0066].
The melting device comprises at least one electrical conductive heater [0051], [0054] and
Cook suggests a glass melting furnace (12) of burners (116) above the glass surface [0066] and electrode heating [0054]-[0055], [0061] as well as providing submerged combustion burner in the melting space [0003], [0054].
Cook recites the electrodes providing 20-80% of the heat energy [0067] thus 20% or less of the heat energy comes from the submerged combustion burners and any remaining heat energy is supplied by the overhead combustion burners.
Cook depicts electrodes further downstream from any burners (Fig 3) and even with the suggestion of submerged combustion provided [0066].
In an analogous art of glass melting Wang discloses submerged combustion burners melting the glass feed material rapidly and avoiding a batch blanket on top [0023].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to modify the melter of Cook with the addition of submerged burners placed near the batch feed upstream the electrodes as motivated to rapidly melt the batch material and thus a skilled artisan would readily expect the combination to yield a hot point via any electrodes downstream any of the submerged combustion burner.
Regarding claim 33, the material within the apparatus does not limit the device itself.
Regarding claim 36, it is well established in the art and stated by Wang the submerged combustion in a vitrifiable material causes turbulence which causes entrapped air, whether it is wanted or unwanted does not limit the claimed device. Electrodes are known to change convection currents
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (WO 2018089436) and Wang et al. (US 20210094861) as applied above and further in view of Noman et al. (US 20150128926).
Regarding claims 24-26, cook suggests more than one submerged combustion burner and Wang suggests multiple submerged combustion burners which protrude from the bottom of the melter neither prior art references specify the heights of the burners relative to the bottom wall.
In an analogous art of burners Noman discloses multiple burners of varying heights successively taller (Fig. 2) for use in a furnace [0005] The flame produced by each burner head of each burner may receive different amounts of air proximate the burner heads, which affects the temperature, size, and/or shape of the flames produced. Noman discloses [0024]-[0027], [0032] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heights of the burners from the bottom wall as motivated to optimize the flame profile as taught by Noman.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (WO 2018089436) and Wang et al. (US 20210094861) as applied above and further in view of Knavish (US 4001001)
Regarding claims 27-29, Cook suggests submerged combustion melters as indicated above however fails to state multiple protrusions in the bottom wall of the melting device that increase successively in the melt flow direction.
In an analogous art of an electric and combustion glass melting furnace (abstract), Knavish discloses multiple protrusions, of steps 67 and or planes 69 (Col 4; line 43-48, Fig 1) in the bottom wall of the melting device that increase successively in the melt flow direction .
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the melter of Cook with steps, or protrusions, as motivated to aid in establishment of desirable flows in a pool of glass.
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (WO 2018089436) and Wang et al. (US 20210094861) as applied above and further in view of Baker (US 20160107914)
Regarding claims 34-35, Cook suggests submerged combustion melters as indicated above however fails to state the details of the submerged burners
In an analogous art of submerged combustion burners suitable for melting devices Baker discloses submerged combustion burners where burners are jacketed with a cooling system [0027], [0057] and a fuel and oxygen and supply control [0110] and delivering a rotational flow. Where Cook is silent as to the details of the construction of the burner it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to available submerged combustion burners for melting devices suitable in the art to use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-31 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art discloses or suggests a melter at least one electrical conduction device electric heater with bottom walls and sidewalls with the bottom wall having a melt flow direction that defines the structure of the melter and the bottom wall comprising multiple protrusions protruding into a material melt where the heights of said protrusions in the bottom wall increase successively in said melt flow direction and submerged combustion burners extend from the top of said protrusions in the bottom wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does argue that the submerged combustion burners cause turbulence and yields bubbles and thus electrodes are downstream of the submerged combustion burners to avoid further bubbles. This is extremely well-known in the art of glass submerged combustion melting, refiners after the submerged combustion melting often uses electrodes to heat bubbles cause them to rise and eliminate. Hybrid furnaces with submerged combustion burners often have the burners upstream to dissolve batch material rapidly upon entry to a melting system. Additional prior art is used to address Applicant’s concerns and the present claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3108149, KE20060020888 second row of booster electrodes to create additional hot spot further downstream
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