DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 9-14 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 15-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of 9-14 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that similar class and scope in search. This is not found persuasive because the structural limitations between claim 1/20 and 9 only have limited similarity, the breadth of claim 1 do not require the specifics/narrower search to read on claim 9 and allow the dependent claims stemming from claim 1 to further differentiate the argued inventions. The interpretation of the throat limitation qualifies as a separate search burden separate from a refiner well/outlet.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 requires the comma between “wall” and “each” in line 5 be replaced with a semicolon to clarify the phrasing/construction of the sentence.
Claim 9 line 10 recites “and opposed refiner well sidewalls” wherein the “and” renders the claim as a run-on sentence.
Claim 9 requires the comma between “floor” and “the” in line 13 be replaced with a semicolon to clarify the phrasing/construction of the sentence.
Claim 11 recites “opposed first and second flow restrictor sidewalls”. The Examiner requests that the limitation be introduced separately as “a first flow restrictor sidewall and an opposed second flow restrictor sidewall”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Steitz et al (US-4424071-A).
Regarding claim 9, Steitz teaches a refiner for a glass melting system (Col. 3 Line 5-13), comprising a housing (Fig. 2) that includes: a refiner floor, a refiner upstream wall, a refiner downstream wall spaced apart from the refiner upstream wall, two opposed refiner sidewalls extending between the refiner upstream wall and the refiner downstream wall (see annotated cropped Fig. 2, sidewalls 21 in Fig. 1), each of the refiner upstream wall, the refiner downstream wall, and the opposed refiner sidewalls extending upwardly from the refiner floor to a refiner roof to establish a refining chamber (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated, cropped Fig. 2 of Steitz)]
Steitz further teaches a refiner well floor below the refiner floor, a refiner well upstream wall extending upwardly to the refiner upstream wall, a refiner well downstream wall extending upwardly from the refiner well floor to the refiner floor (annotated Fig. 2), opposed refiner well sidewalls extending upwardly from the refiner well floor to the refiner floor and extending between the refiner well upstream wall and the refiner well downstream wall (sidewalls 21), and a backflow restrictor wall that projects upwardly from the refiner floor, the refiner well floor, the refiner well upstream wall, the opposed refiner well sidewalls, and the backflow restrictor wall defining a refiner well that passes upwardly through the refiner floor and has a refiner well outlet that is elevated above the refiner floor (annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 13, depending from claim 9, Steitz teaches the refiner has a constant regular cross-section shape at least part way to the refiner well floor (Fig. 1, dashed region surrounding 17).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Steitz et al (US-4424071-A)
as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 13, Steitz teaches the refiner well is a rectangular cross-sectional shape (see claim 13 rejection above). Steitz does not expressly teach the rectangular cross-sectional shape is a square shape. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966). The court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of of the claimed container was significant. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), it would be anticipated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a square cross-sectional shape would not significantly affect the functionality of the rectangular cross-sectional shape. The burden is on the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Steitz et al (US-4424071-A)
as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Pieper (DE-3903016-A1, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 10-11, depending from claim 9, Steitz does not expressly illustrate their backflow restrictor wall is a continuous wall that extends out from the refiner upstream wall and fully surrounds the refiner well. In the same field of endeavor, Pieper illustrates the backflow restrictor wall is a continuous wall that extends out from the refiner upstream wall (radiation protection wall 8, Fig. 4) and fully surrounds the refiner well (annotated cropped Fig. 4) wherein the backflow restrictor wall includes opposed first and second flow restrictor sidewalls, each of which extends away from the refiner upstream wall along the refiner floor, and a flow restrictor downstream wall that extends between the opposed first and second flow restrictor sidewalls (annotated Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refiner well construction of Steitz to incorporate the surrounding backflow restrictor wall with opposing flow restrictor sidewalls as known construction to constrict flow and prevent backflow as taught by Pieper [0027].
PNG
media_image2.png
686
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated, cropped Fig. 4 of Pieper)]
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 11, Pieper teaches that the flow restrictor downstream wall includes a planar top surface and an angled exterior side surface that is sloped away from the refiner well (Fig. 3, planar following the flow from label 4 to 25 and angled/sloped away near label 25). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refiner well construction of Steitz to incorporate the planar top and angled exterior side surface sloped away from the refiner well as known construction to constrict flow and prevent backflow as taught by Pieper [0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-1579364-A, US-5370723-A teaches the refiner floor above the refiner well floor
US-3160692-A teaches the cross-sectional shape of the refiner well outlet
US-4693740-A, US-5665137-A, KR-20000040850-A teaches a suitable primary reference
DE-3406619-C2, US-4929266-A, EP-0864543-A1 are relevant prior art references
US-5630860-A teaches the angled exterior side surface that is sloped away from the refiner well
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights