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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to EP22382076.2, with a filing date of 01/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2024, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Remarks for Status of Claims filed 07/1/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application, Claims 1-11 have been amended and Claims 12-13 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Therefore, what must be shown:
the length, Lc.
the diameter calibration means for modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube.
the (diameter) calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter of the glass tube.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character 2 in FIG. 5 as noted in the description (Page 15 line 15).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specifications
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 4 line 2 should read “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 4-7 below – all noted ranges are understood by the Examiner to be inclusive.
Claim 4 – 30% to 130%
Claim 5 – 0mm to 5 mm
Claim 6 - 1100°C to 1300°C; 1180°C to 1220°C
Claim 7 – 40 and 100rpm; 53 and 73rpm; 2 and 15mm/s.
Regarding Claim 11 – the Examiner understands the coefficient of expansion is a linear coefficient of thermal expansion for the glass and for the metal.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are 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 the word “means” 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: modify the diameter of the first end of the glass tube
in claim 1.
In lines 33-34 of claim 1, the claim recites “diameter calibration means configured for modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube. This limitation meets the three-prong test because it uses a “means” placeholder coupled with functional language “configured for modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube” and does not include any structure that can perform that function. The specification ( Page 10, lines 5-6) is not properly described. The specification is lacking in sufficient configuration/structure of the diameter calibration means; “ a circular profile with a flat outer surface” is inadequate to describe the diameter calibration means. As well, there is absent an element in any figure in the application that illustrates the diameter calibration means. Examiner notes there is insufficient structure in the specification to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 –
“ modifying the thickness et of the first end”/” modifying a thickness et of the first end…”
“heating a first end of the glass tube”/ “heating the first end of the glass tube”.
“comprises a first end having a diameter D1”/ comprises a first end of the first roller having a diameter D1”.
“the diameter D1 of the first end being smaller”/ “the diameter D1 of the first end of the first roller being smaller”.
“diameter D2 of the second end with a step”/ “diameter D2 of the second end of the first roller with a step”.
“being formed between both”/ “ being formed between the first end of the first roller and the second end of the first roller”.
“moving either the pair of rollers, or else the glass tube, and/ or both along direction” /
“moving the roller pair and the glass tube along direction”.
“comes into contact with the pair of rollers” / “comes into contact with the pair”.
“diameter calibration means”/ “ a diameter calibration means”
“attaching the metal ring with the first end”/ “attaching the metal ring to the first end”.
Regarding Claim 2 – “ are performed at at least one of the ends”/” are performed on at least one of the ends of the glass tube”.
Regarding Claim 3 –
“having a diameter Dt “/ “ having t”.
“the pair of rollers”/ “ the pair”.
“to the outside of” / “to
“to the inside of” / “to
Regarding Claim 7 –
“40 and 100rpm”/ “ 40rpm and 100rpm”.
“53 and 73rpm” / “53rpm and 73rpm”.
“2 and 15mm/s / “2mm/s and 15mm/s”.
Regarding Claim 8 – “wherein the calibration means”/ “wherein the diameter calibration means”; “contact with the glass during” / “contact with the glass tube during”.
Regarding Claim 11 –
“expansion of the glass” / “ expansion of the glass tube”.
“expansion of the metal” / “expansion of the metal ring”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1 – “ diameter calibration means configured to modify the diameter of the first end of the glass tube” (page 10, lines 5-6) is not properly described. The specification is lacking in sufficient configuration/structure of the diameter calibration means; “ a circular profile with a flat outer surface” is inadequate to describe the diameter calibration means. As well, there is absent an element in any figure in the application that illustrates the diameter calibration means.
Regarding Claim 8 – “the calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter of the glass tube” (page 10 lines 16-17) is not properly described. The specification is lacking in sufficient configuration/structure of the calibration means. As well, there is absent an element in any figure in the application that illustrates the calibration means. Further, there is absent a description of how the modified outer diameter of the glass tube is calibrated by the calibration means.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and Claim 8 -
Claim 1 – “positioning at the first end of the glass tube (a) diameter calibration means configured for modifying the diameter of the first end”.
Claim 8 – “the (diameter) calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter”.
It is unclear if,
there are two different diameter calibration means, where a first diameter calibration means is configured for modifying the diameter of the first end, and a second diameter calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter;
or,
if there is only a single diameter calibration means configured for modifying the diameter and calibrating the modified outer diameter,
rendering the claims indefinite in regard to the function of the diameter calibration means. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands either a) or b) read on the Claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claims 4, 6-7, 9-10 a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that
falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the
resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See
MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance,
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “increase the thickness et of the first end of the glass tube between
30% and 130%” and the claim also recites “more preferably 60%” which is/are the narrower
statement(s) of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “temperature comprised between 1100°C and 1300°C” and the
claim also recites “preferably between 1180°C and 1220°C ” which is/are the narrower statement(s)
of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “rotational speed of between 40(rpm) and 100rpm” and the
claim also recites “preferably between 53(rpm) and 73rpm ” which is/are the narrower statement(s)
of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “translational speed of between 2(mm/s) and 15mm/s” and the
claim also recites “preferably 9mm/s ” which is/are the narrower statement(s) of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “is made of a glass material” and the claim also recites “preferably
borosilicate type 1 ” which is/are the narrower statement(s) of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “is made of a stainless steel alloys or Co-Ni alloys” and the claim
also recites “preferably Kovar ” which is/are the narrower statement(s) of the range/limitation.
The Claims 4, 6-7, 9-10 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether
the feature introduced by such narrower language is ,
merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required
feature of the claims.
Regarding Claims 4, 6-7, 9-10 for the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands
to use the broadest applicable range as the claimed range in each claim.
Regarding Claim 10 - contains the trademark/trade name “Kovar”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe stainless steel alloys or Co-
Ni Alloys, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 limitation “positioning at the first end of the glass tube diameter calibration means configured for modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of sufficient description of structure that performs the function of the claim, i.e. modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube.
Claim 8 limitation “ the (diameter) calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter of the glass tube are kept in contact with the glass during the process of attaching with the metal ring” ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of structure that performs the function of the claim, i.e. calibrating the modified outer diameter of the glass tube .
Therefore, Claims 1 and 8 is/are indefinite and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (as submitted in the IDS
dated 07/17/2024 ) USPGPUB 20151007808A1 by Chiarappa et. al. (herein “Chiarappa”) and in further
view of (as submitted in the IDS dated 07/17/2024 ) U.S Patent 3,360,353 by Sundstrom et. al.
(herein “Sundstrom”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Chiarappa teaches
method for the production of a glass-metal attachment for a solar receiver; [0001].
the solar receiver comprising,
a glass tube; [0018], “The aforementioned aim is achieved by a glass-to-metal sealing device of a solar receiver, the device comprising a metal collar and a glass cylinder to be sealed together”.
having a diameter Dt with a thickness et; Annotated Fig. 5a/b
and a metal ring with a diameter Da and a thickness ea; Annotated Fig. 4a/b.
wherein the glass tube comprises,
two ends; Annotated Fig. 5a.
See noted Annotated figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1154
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1162
931
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the method comprising the steps of,
modifying the thickness et of the first end of the glass tube to a modified thickness em and
the modified thickness em being greater than the thickness et of the first end of the tube; [0080], Fig. 5b, “the end portion of the glass cylinder 12 is melted via a dedicated thermal process so as to form, at the glass edge, an enlarged molten glass having a sphere-like shape, hereinafter denoted as molten glass ball GB. As shown in FIG. 5(b) the glass edge has a maximum thickness of circa 12.6 mm (Gi+Ge+m) while the thickness Gt of the glass cylinder away from the glass ball Gb is a regular glass thickness of circa 3 mm”.
and,
attaching the metal ring with the first end of the glass tube; [0028], “…sealing together the end collar portions of the glass cylinder and the metal collar”.
wherein the step of modifying the thickness em of the first end of the glass tube to a modified thickness em comprises the steps of,
a) arranging the glass tube rotating about its longitudinal axis X-X'; [0069], [0070], “According to a preferred embodiment, the following thermal sealing process steps may be recommended for sealing the metal collar to the glass cylinder”, “a heating step, in which controls on temperature and on rotation are recommended”.
b) heating a first end of the glass tube; [0080], Fig. 5b, “the end portion of the glass cylinder 12 is melted via a dedicated thermal process so as to form, at the glass edge, an enlarged molten glass having a sphere-like shape,
wherein,
the heating of said first end is maintained until the metal ring is attached with the first end of the glass tube; [0072], “a joining step for inserting the beveled metal into the molten end portion of the glass cylinder, in which controls on temperature, on rotation, on burner relative positions and on mechanical produced forces (push/pull) on the will be final GMS joint are recommended”.
and wherein the step of attaching the metal ring with the first end of the glass tube comprises the steps of,
f) positioning at the first end of the glass tube diameter calibration means configured for modifying the diameter of the first end of the glass tube;[0069], [0071], “According to a preferred embodiment, the following thermal sealing process steps may be recommended for sealing the metal collar to the glass cylinder; [0071] a melting step, in which controls on temperature, on rotation and on calibration of the molten glass edge are recommended;
and,
g) attaching the metal ring with the first end of the glass tube; [0072],” a joining step for inserting the beveled metal into the molten end portion of the glass cylinder, in which controls on temperature, on rotation, on burner relative positions and on mechanical produced forces (push/pull) on the will be final GMS joint are recommended”.
While Chiarappa teaches shaping the end of the glass tube, rotation and translational movement (where it is reasonable that a form of roller is employed as rotational speeds and translational speeds are cited, [0077], [0078] and roller use is common in the glass industry), Chiarappa fails to teach c), d1) and e) below:
In a similar endeavor of shaping the end of a glass tube using rollers where the glass in the working zone may be desirable for subsequent bonding of elements to the shaped tube (Col 2 lines 2-5), Sundstrom teaches,
c) positioning the first end of the glass tube along the longitudinal direction X-X' between a first roller and a second roller; Col 3 lines 8-10, “Since the open end of the tubular piece of glass 30 is held in a softened condition between spaced rollers 10 and 12…”
wherein,
the first roller preferably comprises a first end having a diameter D1 and a length L1 and a second end having a diameter D2 and a length L2; See Annotated FIG. 2 below
the diameter D1 of the first end being smaller than the diameter D2 of the second end; See Annotated FIG. 23 below.
, with a step (e) being formed between both; Col 3 lines 30-33, “due to the spacing between the face 24 of inner roller 12 and the face 26 of the overlapping flange portion 22 of roller 10, there will be provided a "relief zone" indicated by arrow 34”. The relief zone is the step.
and,
the second roller is a cylinder having a diameter D3 and a length L3 ; See Annotated FIG. 2 below.
Annotated FIG. 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
777
739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
configured for being arranged separated from the first roller in its initial position; Col 2, lines 57-59, “Of course the rollers are moved apart prior to shaping…”
d1) moving the second roller in the transverse direction Y-Y', wherein Y-Y' is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction X-X', ; FIG. 2 , Col 2 lines 42-46, “A first outer, shaping or forming roller 10 is positioned in proximity to a second, inner, shaping or forming roller 12 for rotation about respective parallel axes”.
e) moving either the pair of rollers, or else the glass tube, and/or both along direction X-X'; Col 2 lines 57-58, “…the rollers are moved apart prior to shaping to allow tube insertion there between…”
such that the first end of the glass tube comes into contact with the pair of rollers and continues to move in direction X-X' with the thickness et of the first end of the glass tube being modified until achieving the modified thickness em; Col 3 lines 8-19, Col 3 lines 27-29, FIG. 2“ Since the open end of the tubular piece of glass 30 is held in a softened condition between the spaced rollers 10 and 12, which are rotated in opposite directions, and since the parallel axes of the rollers are held in precise position with the gap between the opposed peripheries 20 and 28 of the rollers being less than the average wall thickness of the tube prior to shaping, there will be a tendency for the glass positioned within the working zone, as a result of the pressure afforded by the rotating rollers 10 and 12, to move axially toward the area defined by the peripheral groove 18 and the inner face 26 of flange 22”, “Thus, the tubular ware 30 will include after forming or shaping, an outer lip portion 32 which is conventional in the art.” FIG. 2 illustrates the wall thickness of the tube 30 and the resulting lip 36 formed at the end of the tube.
where,
the thickness em being greater than the thickness et of the glass tube; FIG. 2. The thickness of the lip 36 > than the thickness of the wall of the glass tube 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass tube end forming method of Sundstrom in the glass to metal sealing process of Chiarappa, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of, as noted by Sundstrom,
eliminating “checking” by preventing uneven pressure during shaping (Col 1, lines 63-65),
the wall thickness of the finished ware is completely uniform, regardless of non-uniformity in wall thickness prior to shaping (Col 1 lines 66-70).
forming an inner radial lip which provides additional radial load strength (Col 2 lines 8-10).
All of the above motivations would support a non-failure/stronger glass to metal seal.
Sundstrom further teaches the diameter of the inner roller 12 is shown as generally constant although it may be tapered if desired, and the roller 12 is laterally positioned with respect to roller 10 such that a portion of the face 24 of roller 12 and a portion of the inner surface 26 of flange 22 are in overlapping relationship (Col 2 line 72, Col 3 lines 1-3). Further, that the width of the inner roller 12 is shown substantially less than that of the outer roller 10, however, it may be wider than roller 10 if desired (Col 2 lines 60-62), indicating roller design modifications can be performed as needed. Sundstrom fails to teach d2,
d1) moving the second roller in the transverse direction Y-Y', wherein Y-Y' is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction X-X', ; FIG. 2 , Col 2 lines 42-46, “A first outer, shaping or forming roller 10 is positioned in proximity to a second, inner, shaping or forming roller 12 for rotation about respective parallel axes d2) until the first roller and the second roller come into contact;
Sundstrom discloses the claimed invention except for the step of the first and second roller coming into contact . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the step of first and second roller coming into contact, since it has been held that omission of a step or, element and its function, in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, the omitted step would not be required in that its removal solely eliminates its function of the two rollers coming into contact with each other. Further, one would have been motivated to omit the step or element in order to reduce wear of the roller element due to the rollers coming into contact.
Further, Sundstrom discloses the claimed invention except for the exact shape/alignment configuration of the two rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape and alignment of the rollers, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of a mere design change, as the rollers would still “roll” and the tube would still be “shaped” and would not change the principle of the operation. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959), MPEP 2143.01 (VI).
As well, as Sundstrom provides the necessary elements to be present (rollers, tube) for shaping the end of the tube, the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein,
steps b) to e) are performed at
Chiarappa teaches step b) of the instant claim previously in Claim 1. Sundstrom teaches steps c), d), e) of the instant claim previously in Claim 1 and in FIG. 2.
Regarding Claim 3 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sundstrom teaches wherein,
in step c), the pair of rollers is positioned such that the increase in the modified thickness em of the glass tube having a diameter Dt is directed;
to the outside of the initial circumference of the glass tube; or
to the inside of the initial circumference of the glass tube; or
to the inside and to the outside of the initial circumference of the glass tube .
Sundstrom teaches step c), and the three sub-limitations of the instant claim, previously in Claim 1 e) “FIG. 2 illustrates the wall thickness of the tube 30 and the resulting lip 36 formed at the end of the tube”. The resulting lip 36 is on the inside and outside of the circumference of the glass tube.
Regarding Claim 4 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
Chiarappa teaches wherein,
the modified thickness em increases the thickness et of the first end of the glass tube between 30% and 130%, more preferably 60%; FIG. 4b FIG. 5b.
Initial thickness Gt = 3mm
Modified thickness data = 3-6mm additional on each side plus .075mm on each side due to the width, m, in FIG. 4b; 3.075mm-6mm additional to each side;
Modified thickness = 6.150mm to 12mm
Modified thickness increases the thickness of the glass tube by:
((6.150mm-3.00mm)/3.00mm) *100 = 105%
((12.00mm – 3.00mm)/3.00mm)*100 = 300%
Therefore, the modified thickness increase is 105%-300%. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Chiarappa’s modified thickness increase % range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
Chiarappa further teaches,
in step b), the heating of the first end of the glass tube extends over a length Lc comprised between [0 mm; 5 mm]; [0080], [0085],FIG. 5b, “…the end portion of the glass cylinder 12 is melted via a dedicated thermal process so as to form, at the glass edge, an enlarged molten glass having a sphere-like shape…”, “Since the previously described thermal sealing process involves very high temperatures on the metal collar and on the glass cylinder (exceeding the softening and the melting points). FIG. 5b illustrates the tapered edge of the metal Kovar ring inserted to a depth of 2-5mm, which suggests a heating length Lc from at least 0mm to 5mm and possibly a larger length Lc, as the glass would need to be heated/molten to receive the Kovar ring to that depth. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Chiarappa’s depth range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Chiarappa teaches wherein,
the glass tube is a cylinder made of a glass material, preferably borosilicate type 1; [0048], “The glass cylinder 12 is made out of a borosilicate glass…”
Regarding Claim 10 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Chiarappa teaches wherein,
the metal ring is made of stainless steel alloys or Co-Ni alloys, preferably Kovar; [0048], “The metal collar 11 is made out of an austenitic alloy… in a preferred embodiment of the invention, for the CSP field, such austenitic alloy has suitable concentration of Nickel and Cobalt contents, according to the DIN 17745/ASTM F15 norms. In the field, the metals which fulfill such specifications are also known as Kovar-like alloys”.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiarappa in further view of
Sundstrom and in further view of (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith
and referenced herein) CN107062654A by Zhou et. al. (herein “Zhou”).
Regarding Claim 6 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
While Chiarappa teaches a thermal sealing process involves very high temperatures on the metal collar and on the glass cylinder (exceeding the softening and the melting points), and Sundstrom teaches the periphery of the open end of the glass is brought to a softening point prior to shaping, the combination fails to teach explicitly,
in step b), the glass tube is heated until reaching a temperature comprised between [1100°C; 1300°C], preferably between [1180°C; 1220°C];
In a similar endeavor of sealing a metal ring to a glass tube for a solar heat collecting tuber, Zhou teaches,
the use of Kovar rings (line 66).
borosilicate glass tube (line 177, 182).
method to fabricate a solar collection tube (line 54).
Both ends of the glass outer tube are sealed with Kovar rings (line 212).
the glass outer tube is softened or melted and fused with the Kovar ring (line 334)
The Kovar alloy according to GB / T4339-2008 standard at 20 ~ 400 ℃ average linear expansion
coefficient of 4.047 × 10-6 / ℃. (lines 246-247; Chiarappa cites the metal collar is made of an
austenitic alloy having a thermal expansion coefficient in the range of [3.5,6.0]10-6 °C-1 in the
temperature range of [50,450]° C, [0020]).
The above provides a nexus. Zhou further teaches, “The glass outer tube to be sealed and the Kovar ring
are contacted and positioned, the Kovar ring is warmed by the high temperature and the glass outer
tube is softened or melted and welded with the Kovar ring; the high temperature refers to 1000-1200 °
C” (lines 164-166). Further for Example 2, “The glass outer tube to be sealed and the Kovar ring are
positioned in contact with each other, the Kovar ring is warmed by the high temperature and the glass
outer tube is softened or melted and fused with the Kovar ring; the high temperature refers to 1200 ° C”
(lines 333-335). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 1200 ° C high temperature sealing process of
Zhou in the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of sealing
the borosilicate glass and Kovar at a high temperature fusion sealing where internal stresses are small
for the glass tube/Kovar ring (and the glass tube inner metal tube seal cited) so the Kovar rings will not
distort or burst upon cooldown to promote high temperature, high air tightness and high reliability, as
noted by Zhou (lines 191-196). Further, while an indirect motivation, the use of the borosilicate glass,
which deems a higher fusion temperature, provides a glass that which is excellent in acid and alkali
resistance, water resistance and corrosion resistance, and has good thermal stability, chemical stability
and electrical properties (lines 178-180).
Claim 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiarappa in further view
of Sundstrom and in further view of (English language translation of the Description and provided
herewith and referenced herein) CN111348842A by Li et. al. (herein “Li”).
Regarding Claim 7 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
Chiarappa teaches wherein,
the glass tube and the metal ring m, rotate at a rotational speed of between 40 and 100 rpm, preferably between 53 and 73 rpm; [0069], [0070], [0071], [0072], [0077], [0078] “ According to a preferred embodiment, the following thermal sealing process steps may be recommended for sealing the metal collar to the glass cylinder”,” a heating step, in which controls on temperature and on rotation are recommended”, “ a melting step, in which controls on temperature, on rotation and on calibration of the molten glass edge are recommended, “ a joining step for inserting the beveled metal into the molten end portion of the glass cylinder, in which controls on temperature, on rotation, …”. Here, Chiarappa cites rotation for both the glass tube and the metal ring.”… rotational speed should preferably be maintained within [12,100] rpm.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Chiarappa’s rotational rpm range that corresponds to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
While Chiarappa teaches a rotational speed of the glass tube and the metal ring, and a translational speed of the burner of 0-15mm/sec, and Sundstrom teaches rotation or rollers 10 and 12 (col 2 lines 44-46), the combination fails to teach in regard to the metal ring and the glass tube,
and a translational speed of between 2 and 15 mm/s, preferably 9 mm/s.
In a similar endeavor of sealing a metal ring to a glass tube for a solar energy heat collecting tube, Li teaches,
glass-metal automatic sealing equipment and method for solar heat collection tube (line 10).
glass tube (line 72).
Kovar rings (line 82, 91).
glass tube and metal ring rotate (line 91).
softening the glass tube up to 1200°C (line 101).
matched coefficient of expansion between metal and glass (line 31-32).
metal ring insertion depth of 3-8mm (line 107-108)
The above provides a nexus.
Li further teaches a mechanical translational system that brings the glass tube and the metal ring together, where just the metal ring is translated into the melted glass tube (lines 106-109). Li teaches the claimed invention except for use with rollers and translating both glass tube metal ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a translational system similar to Li’s into the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of with higher precision and high sealing efficiency, as noted by Li (line 51-52).
Further, Li teaches only the metal ring translating and not both the metal ring and glass tube translating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also provide translation to the glass tube, one being motivated to do so for the same purpose noted above by Li. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8 – Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
While Chiarappa teaches [0070] a heating step, in which controls on temperature and on rotation are recommended a melting step, in which controls on temperature, on rotation and on calibration of the molten glass edge [0071] and a joining step for inserting the beveled metal into the molten end portion of the glass cylinder [0072], the combination fails to teach explicitly wherein,
the calibration means for calibrating the modified outer diameter of the glass tube are kept in contact with the glass during the process of attaching with the metal ring;
Li further teaches a shaping device (FIG. 2/3, lines 152-153). The shaping device controls the thickness and uniformity of the sealing surface via the graphite plate 18 (lines 155-156) using the metal ring as a reference plane with roller 22 which rolls on the surface of the metal ring. The graphite plate shapes the softened glass nozzle, and controls the out diameter of the glass tube by changing the shaping coordinates (lines 160-161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shaping device (which controls the outer diameter of the glass tube) of Li in the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of controlling the proportion of the inner and outer sides of the metal ring (i.e. how much molten glass is on either side of the metal ring) as noted by Li ( lines 160-162).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiarappa and in further view of Sundstrom , and in further view of “ Engineering Materials 1 – An Introduction to Properties, Applications and Design (5th Edition), Table 31.1. Data for Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, α”, by Jones et. al (herein “Jones”)
Regarding Claim 11– Chiarappa and Sundstrom in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1
Chiarappa teaches wherein,
the coefficient of expansion of the glass αv is less than or equal to the coefficient of expansion of the metal αM when the step of attaching the metal ring with the first end of the glass tube is performed; [0019], [0020], “the glass cylinder is made out of a borosilicate glass having a thermal expansion coefficient in the range of [3.1,3.5]10-6 °C-1 in the temperature range of [50,450]° C”, “the metal collar is made of an austenitic alloy having a thermal expansion coefficient in the range of [3.5,6.0]10-6 °C-1 in the temperature range of [50,450]° C”, “… in a preferred embodiment of the invention, for the CSP field, such austenitic alloy has suitable concentration of Nickel and Cobalt contents, according to the DIN 17745/ASTM F15 norms. In the field, the metals which fulfill such specifications are also known as Kovar-like alloys”([0048]).
While Chiarappa teaches “high temperatures on the metal collar and on the glass cylinder (exceeding softening and melting points)”, ([0085]) and “a joining step for inserting the beveled metal into the molten end portion of the glass cylinder, in which controls on temperature…” Chiarappa fails to explicitly teach,
the coefficient of expansion of the glass αv is less than or equal to the coefficient of expansion of the metal αM when the step of attaching the metal ring with the first end of the glass tube is performed.
One skilled in the art would know that glass and metal have thermal expansion coefficients that change with increased temperature. Jones, in “ Engineering Materials 1 – An Introduction to Properties, Applications and Design (5th Edition), Table 31.1. Data for Linear Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, α” teaches coefficient of thermal expansion for borosilicate glass and Kovar with an average value that covers a broad range of temperatures, where the coefficient of thermal expansion of borosilicate glass is less than the coefficient of thermal expansion for Kovar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have less than or equal to coefficient of expansion (thermal) glass as compared to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal ring at the temperature the metal ring is attached to first end of the glass tube as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose providing coefficients of thermal expansion for the glass and the metal that are relatively close to one another to provide a softer mechanical stress on the overlap region between the metal and the glass as well as produce mainly compressive stresses in the glass (PHOSITA would know that glass is always stronger in compression), as noted by Chiarappa [0047], [0031].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
CN102515522A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith) teaches
borosilicate glass to Kovar metal ring seal for solar collector tubes, coefficient of thermal
expansion differences, physical dimensions of Kovar metal rings and glass tube.
CN103193380A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith) teaches borosilicate glass to Kovar metal ring seal for solar collector tubes, coefficient of thermal expansion differences, physical dimensions of Kovar metal rings and glass tube and oxidation of the Kovar rings.
CN206648325U (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith) teaches borosilicate glass to Kovar metal ring seal for solar collector tubes, coefficient of thermal expansion differences, physical dimensions of Kovar metal rings and glass tube.
USPGPUB 20160176747A1 teaches a method for creating a uniform glass tube diameter.
U.S. Patent 5,112,376 teaches heating a glass tube and calibrating the outer diameter via use of a mold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741