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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on 06-10-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06-10-2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09-23-2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Foreign Patent Document 2, JP S54121203, has been lined through because only a translation has been provided, and not a copy of the original document.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the term “hot repair” is interpreted as repair of the region at a temperature higher than 300°C, as recited in line 9 of claim 1.
The phrase “at least one element” as recited in claims 2 and 5 and the phrase “at least one said element” in claim 14 are interpreted to mean at least one of the shuttering elements as recited in claim 1.
In claim 11, line 5, “said ceramic” is interpreted to refer to the ceramic of the shuttering elements as recited in claim 1.
In claim 11, the terms “and/or” recited in line 5 and line 7 are interpreted to refer to the limitations preceded by a dash in lines 5-9. That is, the limitations of lines 1-4 and 10 are required, and at least one of the limitations preceded by a dash is required.
In claim 12, the “and/or” in line 2 is interpreted to refer to the interior shuttering and/or the nozzle.
In claim 12, “discarded in the region to be repaired after said repair” in lines 4-5 is interpreted in view of the specification at page 10: “…which is to say that they are not extracted before operation of the furnace resumes”.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the form” should be --a form-- because the limitation has not been previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a ceramic” should be --the ceramic-- because the limitation has already been recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the word “of” appears to be superfluous. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molten glass" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the element” in line 1. This is unclear because claim 5 recites “at least one element”, and it is not clear if claim 6 is limiting the claim to a single element or referring to a particular single element. Examiner recommends --the at least one element--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the manufacture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wear" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what defines “outside of the region”, e.g., outside of the furnace, or merely anything that isn’t the region to be repaired.
Claim 11 recites “after step b), a step 5)” in lines 1-2. This is unclear because there are no steps 1)-4) recited, and it is not clear if there are missing unrecited steps.
Claim 11 recites “the proportion of any constituent of the sintered repair product present in a proportion of greater than 5%” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this means that every constituent must be present in a proportion of greater than 5%, or if it means that at least one constituent must be present in a proportion of greater than 5%.
Claim 11 recites “when one of claims 8 to 10 applies” in line 8. This is unclear because claim 11 does not depend from any of claims 8 to 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the oxides" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a ceramic” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same ceramic as recited in claim 1, line 16, or if it is or can be a different ceramic.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ceramic of at least one accessory" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the bath of molten glass" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the bath of molten glass" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites steps 1), 3), 5), and 6). This is unclear because there are no steps 2) or 4) recited in the claims, and it is unclear if there are missing unrecited steps.
Claim 22 recites “panels made of a ceramic” in line 2. It is unclear if this “ceramic” is the same as the “ceramic recited in claim 1, line 16, or if it is a different ceramic.
Claim 23 recites “the weight of more than 50% by number of the shuttering elements is greater than 3 kg and less than 50 kg”. It is unclear if this is referring to the weight of each shuttering element or to a collective weight of the shuttering elements.
Claim 23 recites “the largest dimension of more than 30% by number of the shuttering elements is greater than 400 mm and less than 1600 mm”. It is unclear if this is referring to a dimension of each shuttering element, or to a collective size of the shuttering elements, e.g., in an installed arrangement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the prior art suggests elements of the claimed invention, it does not fairly teach or suggest all of the claimed features in combination.
EP 0739861 A2 (Favretto) is considered to be the closest prior art. Favretto describes repairing a glass melting furnace having a tank with a floor defining a substantially horizontal bottom of the tank and a vertical side wall encircling the bottom. Favretto teaches an embodiment in which refractory elements (21) are installed so as to produce a mold around a region to be repaired, and the mold is filled with a repair product. The refractory elements may be considered shuttering elements. The region to be repaired is kept at a temperature higher than 300°C. However, in this embodiment, the region to be repaired is in the floor of the tank (Figs. 6-7). Favretto teaches another embodiment in which a side wall of the tank is repaired (Fig. 8). In this embodiment, box-like supports (27) and installed so as to produce a mold around a region to be repaired, and the mold is filled with a repair product. The box-like supports may be considered shuttering elements. However, the box-like supports are described as being water-cooled in order to locally cool the region to be repaired. The material of the box-like supports and the temperature of the cooling are not specified. It would not necessarily have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the box-like supports of the same material as the refractory elements because they function in very different ways, and a refractory ceramic would not be an obvious choice for an element that is cooled and is intended to cool a region because refractory ceramics generally do not have a high thermal conductivity. Favretto also fails to teach the furnace having a metallic structure on which rests a superstructure.
US 4,465,648 (Kiriyama) suggests repairing a wall of a blast furnace by injecting repair material into a spot (3) via a nozzle (4) which carries reinforcing studs (5) that remain in the repaired material. Kiriyama does not utilize interior shuttering with shuttering elements made of a ceramic, the temperature is not specified, and the furnace is not intended to contain molten glass.
US 3,148,230 (Behner) suggests utilizing a cellular metal structure which serves as a mold for filling with refractory repair material over a furnace wall. Behner does not specify temperature or glass melting, and the cellular structure, which may be considered interior shuttering, is not ceramic.
US 2,178,134 (Blau) suggests inserting refractory ceramic plates to repair work portions of a glass furnace, which may be considered shuttering elements. Blau does not fill space defined by the plates with a repair product.
CN 113758257 A (Du) suggests inserting a ceramic repairing body (4), which may be considered an interior shuttering with portions defined as shuttering elements, and filling a space between the repairing body (4) and the furnace lining (1) with a filling agent (3), which may be considered a repair material. However, the furnace of Du is a smelting furnace, and Du requires that the temperature of the furnace be cooled to below 40°C before repair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights