DETAILED ACTION
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, 8-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (2022/0212977) in view of She et al. (CN 111620556 as provided by applicant). Regarding claim 1, Tu teaches a device for decreasing a blowing width of a glass convection cooler ([0031]), wherein the convection cooler comprises, on both sides of a glass load to be cooled (figure 1, [0004], [0032]), a plurality of blowing boxes (12 and 600), including blowing boxes which are consecutive in a direction of movement of the glass (figs. 1 and 6-7, [0032]), the device comprising:
the consecutive blowing boxes, each of which has a starting end 12 from which air is fed into the blowing box and an ending end at an opposite end of the blowing box relative to the starting end, and each of which has blowing apertures from which air is configured to be discharged towards the glass load to be cooled (note multiple ridge like apertures on each blowing box 600 in figure 1, [0032]),
a plurality of closing plates 20 disposed in the consecutive blowing boxes, the closing plates being attached to a same shaft 35, the shaft passing through a pair of blowing boxes and being supported by the pair of blowing boxes (fig. 3), and
an actuator 32 configured to rotate the shaft such that the closing plates reduce or prevent air from flowing into the ending ends of the blowing boxes ([0033]).
As mentioned, Tu teaches arranging the shaft to passes through a pair of blowing boxes that are arranged vertically to coordinate closing of two blowing boxes simultaneously. As can be seen in figure 6, Tu teaches this arrangement allows the reduction of the blowing width of the glass convention cooler in the length direction of the glass (traveling direction), thereby saving energy. However, Tu fails to suggest arranging the shaft to pass through consecutive blowing boxes. In the same field of endeavor, She teaches a device for decreasing a blowing width of a glass convection cooler, the convection cooler comprising a plurality of blowing boxes located on both sides of a glass load to be cooled, wherein the blowing boxes are consecutively arranged along a direction of movement of the glass (figures 1-2, 2nd passage in summary section). She further teaches a plurality of closing plates (wind deflectors 4) disposed in the consecutive blowing boxes, the closing plates attached to a same shaft, the shaft connecting respective closing plates of consecutive blowing boxes, and an actuator configured to move the shaft such that the closing plates reduce or prevent air from flowing into ending ends of the blowing boxes (first six passages of summary, bottom two passages on page 2 figures1-2, top 7 passages on page 3). She teaches this offers the convenience of controlling air flow through consecutive blowing boxes simultaneously, thereby saving energy. As can be seen in figures 1-2 , She teaches this arrangement allows the reduction of the blowing width of the glass convection cooler in the width direction of the glass (perpendicular to the traveling direction). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have adapted the device of Tu to have a shaft with closing plates, passing through the consecutive blowing boxes and being supported by the consecutive blowing boxes as an alternative (or in addition to) arrangement so as to control the blowing width along a width direction of the glass, thereby conserving more energy.
Regarding claim 8, Tu suggests in the figures the actuator 32 is connected to the shaft at a distance equal to at least a 1/3 portion of a length of the shaft, from both ends of the shaft (see figs. 2-3), especially since both ends of the shaft are attached to the blowing boxes and provides no space for the actuator.
Regarding claim 9, Tu and She teach the consecutive blowing boxes are configured such that air is fed into the consecutive blowing boxes only from their respective starting end (see air arrows in fig. 6 of Tu, arrow 3 of figure 2 of She). She further teaches a closing line formed by the shaft and the closing plates attached thereto is located at a distance equal to at least half the length of a portion of the blowing box that is equipped with the blowing apertures from the starting end of the blowing box (note three closing lines in figure 1, wherein at least two of which are located at a distance of at least more than half the length of the box, 7th passage on page 4).
Regarding claim 13, Tu teaches rotating the shaft causes the closing plates to decrease the blowing width of the glass convection cooler ([0033]). In applying the modification of She to Tu, closing plates arranged in consecutive blowing boxes that are connected by a shaft, would be similarly rotated to decrease a blowing width of the glass convection cooler by decreasing a blowing width of each of the consecutive blowing boxes, the blowing width of each of the consecutive blowing boxes being perpendicular to the direction of movement of the glass just as the, as similarly shown in figures 1-2 of She.
Regarding claim 14, in applying the modification to Tu, a shaft similar to the shaft discloses by Tu would be applied to the consecutive blowing boxes, and the shaft would be configured to rotate along an axis that is parallel to the direction of movement of the glass, in a similar orientation as the shaft connecting the closing plates of She in figure.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (2022/0212977) in view of She et al. (CN 111620556 as provided by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carson et al. (3,522,029). Tu teaches a plurality of blowing boxes and She teaches the same shaft is connected to a plurality of closing plates, each closing plate disposed in a corresponding one of the consecutive blowing boxes. However, Tu and She doesn’t specify at least 10 blowing boxes. Carson teaches a glass convection cooler (blastheads 37/38) comprising a plurality of blowing boxes 56 (figs. 1 and 6, col. 4 lines 61-75, col. 5 lines 1-3). Carson shows in fig. 6 ten blowing boxes for the glass convection cooler. Carson also teaches controlling the amount of air flow out of the blowing boxes by sliding a closing plate to reduce or prevent air from flowing into the end portion of the blowing boxes (col. 7 lines 20-49, figures 5-7). Since the blowing boxes provide for cooling of the glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the necessary number of blowing boxes needed, i.e. 10 as exemplified by Carson, to achieved the desired cooling of the glass sheet and depending on the size of the glass sheet being cooled.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (2022/0212977) in view of She et al. (CN 111620556 as provided by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (JP H11139839 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 4, Tu teaches the shaft is arranged in relation to each closing plate such that the shaft divides the closing plate into first and second closing plate sections on different sides in relation to the shaft (see figure 2), but doesn’t specify sealing parts. Meada recognizes the traditional butterfly dampers comprising a closing plate mounted on a shaft employs a sealing part that leaves a gap where the rotary shaft penetrates the duct, and therefore cannot completely prevent air leaking during closing ([0004]). Maeda teaches an improved device comprising a closing plate (damper) for an air duct 20 of a glass convection cooler, the closing plate being attached to a shaft 42 and an actuator 48 configured to rotate the shaft such that the damper reduce or prevent air from flowing into an end portion of the air duct ([0007]). Maeda further teaches the shaft is arranged in relation to the closing plate such that the shaft divides the closing plate into first 30 and second 32 closing plate sections on different sides in relation to the shaft (figs.2-5, top two passages on page 4), wherein the closing plate comprises closing plate-specific sealing parts (34 and 60/62), against which edges of the closing plate are configured to be pressed in a closed position of the closing plate, wherein in the closed position, a first surface of the first closing plate section presses against one of the sealing parts, and a second surface of the second closing plate section presses against the one and/or another one of the sealing parts, the first and second faces facing away from one another (figs. 4-5, bottom 3 passages on page 4, bottom half of page 5). Maeda teaches providing for such a sealing structure prevents air leakage when the closing plate is closed ([0005]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention have provided for a similar arrangement of the closing plate and sealing parts as that of Maeda, as it prevent air leakage when the closing plate is closed.
Regarding claim 5, She teaches blowing boxes that are polygonal and matching the shape and size of the closing plate to the cross sectional area of the blowing box where the closing plate is located. In other words, the closing plate has a width the same as the width of the inner wall of the blowing box and a length that is the same as the height of the blowing box at the location where the closing plate is used (12th passage on page 1, fig. 1-2). While Tu and Maeda don’t specify closing plate sections having different surface areas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized other shaped closing plates to better fit other shaped blowing boxes, i.e. polygonal ones. In using other shaped closing plates, it would be reasonable to expect the first closing plate section to have a greater surface area than the second closing plate section, and wherein the first surface of the first closing plate section configured to press against the sealing part is configured to face the ending end of the blowing box in the closed position (as similar shown in figure 4 of Maeda.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda shows a closing plate for a cylindrical duct that provides for first and second closing plate sections that are each about half of the entire surface area (see figures 4 and 6). Even with a modified shape of an irregular polygon, it would be reasonable to expect the surface areas of the first and second closing plate sections to each be at least 1/3 portion of the entire surface area of the closing plate, as Maeda teaches about even split between the two.
Regarding claim 7, Maeda further teaches supporting the shaft using bearings (top four passages on page 4). Bearings are a common means for providing smooth rotational movement between moving parts with reduced friction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further utilized bearings to support the shaft by the blowing boxes in the device of Tu, so as to provide smooth rotation of the closing plate when closing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Tu, applicant argues the closing plates are located in the air outlets and the blowing boxes are located further away. In response, the blowing boxes are interpreted to include the entire structure from the inlet (near 12) all the way to the tip end of 600. Thus, the closing plates are located at the entrance end (near 12) of the blowing boxes.
Applicant further argues Tu teaches away from the modification. Since Tu decreases a blowing width in the direction of travel to adjust for the length of glass, it would render the apparatus of Tu unsatisfactory to incorporate modification of the blowing width in width direction (perpendicular to the travel direction). This is not found persuasive because just as Tu is concern with saving energy by limiting the blowing air to the area of the blowing boxes that is needed to accommodate a glass sheet having a certain length, She also teaches saving energy by limiting the blowing air to the area of the blowing boxes that is needed to accommodate a glass sheet in the width direction. Thus, the addition of closing plates that can close consecutive blowing boxes would allow for further energy savings by blocking off sections of the blowing boxes in a width direction.
Furthermore, applicant argues the proposed modification of Tu would require substantial reconstruction of the apparatus of Tu. In response, “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Rather, the test in what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
Applicant argues She doesn’t teach a rotating shaft passing through consecutive blowing boxes. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This feature is taught by Tu.
Regarding claims 2-3, applicant argues the reasoning does not explain why one would attach a respective plate in each of the blowing boxes to the same shaft. As already disclosed by Tu and She, respective plates to each of the blowing boxes attached to the same shaft would provide for simultaneous closing of the blowing boxes.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argue Tu does not disclose quantitatively the placement of the actuator and the figures are not evidence of actual proportions. This is not found persuasive because the drawings teaches the ends of the shaft are attached to the inlets of the blowing boxes and the only positions along the shaft that would allow for the placement of the actuators is in between the inlets of the blowing boxes. Thus, while proportions are not explicitly disclosed, one skilled in the art would defer from the drawings to place the actuators approximately in the middle, in between blowing boxes, which would be at least 1/3 portion of a length of the shaft from both ends.
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues She does not offer textual positional relationship. This is not found persuasive. The figures are part of the disclosure and figures 1 and 3 visually teaches several embodiments, including a clear teaching of a closing plate placed at least half a distance of the blowing box from the starting end. Nonetheless, She provides an example on page 4 wherein the closing plate about 600 mm from the staring end (of a total of 800mm) is closed, which is ¾ of the length of the blowing box.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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