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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections/Interpretation
Claim 1; line 4 states “the molten member” Examiner previously has interpreted it as “the molding member” first introduced in claim 1; line 2. Examiner will continue to interpret the claim as is known by a skilled artisan familiar with an overflow downdraw method and in view of the specification. Examiner would appreciate correction of claim 1.
Claim 6 is interpreted that the molding member consists only of graphite
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.
Claim 1 is 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. [0035] of the certified priority translation only recites exhausting from a gas outlet [0075] indicates the outlet not illustrated there is insufficient support for the claim limitation of claim 1 reciting; “said gas outlet is positioned above the upper end of the molding member.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20160340222) and Delia (WO 2013081827) and Kim (KR 20110036654) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Dejneka discloses a method of continuously producing glass (Fig 1, 103) via an overflow downdraw method (all Fig 1) using an apparatus of a molding member (101) [0022] comprising
Supplying molten glass from delivery vessel (133) to and inlet (141) to a molding member (143) [0023]
Flowing the molten glass via a first flow over one weir (203) of the molding member (143) and a second flow over the second weir (205) [0024]
Joining the first and second glass flows at a lower edge (219) of the molding member (143) to form glass ribbon (103) [0024]-[0026]
Dejneka discloses the molding member (143) made of a refractory [0029] and maintaining an atmosphere around the molding member (143) for at least 5 hours of glass overflow [0039] to maintain a reducing atmosphere around the molding member (143) less than 100 ppm oxygen [0017], [0045]. Dejneka suggests providing the reducing atmosphere to the molding member (143) with nitrogen or other inert gases [0044].
Dejneka is silent as to the structure of producing the reducing atmosphere is provided and maintained around the molding member (143).
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw Delia discloses a method for producing glass flowing overs a molding member (30) within a muffle chamber (12), or fence [0040] that allows for control over the atmosphere surrounding said molding member and input of nitrogen via gas inlets (40) in the side of the fence (12) [0046].
Dejneka desires to control a reducing atmosphere of inert gas such as nitrogen around the overflow forming mold while the glass flows over the forming mold but fails to disclose the structure to carry out providing said atmosphere. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to the known structures for controlling an atmosphere, specifically with the ability to input nitrogen, around an overflow forming mold and adopt the structure of Delia to control a nitrogen reducing atmosphere as desired.
The combined teachings of Dejneka with Delia disclose releasing the formed glass ribbon from an inner space within the fence though a glass outlet in a bottom wall of the fence (See ribbon 4 in Fig 1 through outlet of 12); and
Dejneka discloses a refractory molding member (143) [0036] such as a zircon containing refractory [0006], [0029]-[0030]. However fails to specifically recite a graphite core.
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw molding member, or also known to a skilled artisan, an isopipe, (abstract) Kim discloses providing graphite heating cores (e), within the glass molding member.
A heating device provided in the interior of the iso-pipe (110) (e) can include at least one or more of graphite, and glass to a heating device and to the heating load of the whole of the isopipe 110, and in accordance with the object or may optionally be provided to make the temperature line in the desired region of interest.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding member of Dejneka with graphite cores of Kim as motivated to control the temperature of the molding member at the desired area of interest.
Dejneka as modified by Delia and Kim above make obvious every feature of present claim 1 except for the outlet positioned above the upper end of the molding member. As indicated above there is no support in the present application for specifically providing said outlet above the molding member.
It would however be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outlet to the enclosure of Delia as applied to Dejneka because Dejneka desires to maintain an oxygen amount in the atmosphere surrounding the molding member below 100 ppm by inserting nitrogen and maintaining the reducing nitrogen atmosphere [0019] thus a skilled artisan would have an outlet to prevent over pressurizing the amount of nitrogen provided in the enclosure or to circulate the nitrogen as motivated to maintain oxygen below ppm.
MPEP 2144.04 states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the gas outlet above the upper end of the molding member as an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20160340222) and Delia (WO 2013081827) and Kim (KR 20110036654) as applied above and further in view of as cited in the machine translation provided herein and Koyama (JP 2015124112).
Regarding claims 4 and 12-14, Dejneka, Delia, and Kim fail to disclose cooling rollers.
In analogous art of overflow downdraw Koyama further discloses providing cooling rollers (22) it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dejneka Delia with Cooling rollers (22) as motivated to draw and cool the glass ribbon
MPEP 2144.04 states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
Placement of the cooling rollers is an obvious matter of design choice to draw and cool the glass in the desired location to begin solidification of the ribbon as known by a skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka and Koyama further suggests the forming body (14) may be made of a zirconia or alumina refractory. It would be obvious to use any or multiple of the materials of Koyama for the forming body of Delia as motivated that they are suitable materials.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 depends from claim 1. And it would be obvious to optimize the dimension of the graphite core heating element taught by Kim as motivated to locally heat the molding member.
Regarding claims 17-19, Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Dejneka discloses a method of continuously producing glass (Fig 1, 103) via an overflow downdraw method (all Fig 1) using an apparatus of a molding member (101) [0022] comprising
Supplying molten glass from delivery vessel (133) to and inlet (141) to a molding member (143) [0023]
Flowing the molten glass via a first flow over one weir (203) of the molding member (143) and a second flow over the second weir (205) [0024]
Joining the first and second glass flows at a lower edge (219) of the molding member (143) to form glass ribbon (103) [0024]-[0026]
Dejneka discloses the molding member (143) made of a refractory [0029] and maintaining an atmosphere around the molding member (143) for at least 5 hours of glass overflow [0039] to maintain a reducing atmosphere around the molding member (143) less than 100 ppm oxygen [0017], [0045]. Dejneka suggests providing the reducing atmosphere to the molding member (143) with nitrogen or other inert gases [0044].
Dejneka is silent as to the structure of producing the reducing atmosphere is provided and maintained around the molding member (143).
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw Delia discloses a method for producing glass flowing overs a molding member (30) within a muffle chamber (12), or fence [0040] that allows for control over the atmosphere surrounding said molding member and input of nitrogen via gas inlets (40) in the side of the fence (12) [0046].
Dejneka desires to control a reducing atmosphere of inert gas such as nitrogen around the overflow forming mold while the glass flows over the forming mold but fails to disclose the structure to carry out providing said atmosphere. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to the known structures for controlling an atmosphere, specifically with the ability to input nitrogen, around an overflow forming mold and adopt the structure of Delia to control a nitrogen reducing atmosphere as desired.
The combined teachings of Dejneka with Delia disclose releasing the formed glass ribbon from an inner space within the fence though a glass outlet in a bottom wall of the fence (See ribbon 4 in Fig 1 through outlet of 12); and
Dejneka discloses a refractory molding member (143) [0036] such as a zircon containing refractory [0006], [0029]-[0030]. However fails to specifically recite a graphite core.
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw molding member, or also known to a skilled artisan, an isopipe, (abstract) Kim discloses providing graphite heating cores (e), within the glass molding member.
A heating device provided in the interior of the iso-pipe (110) (e) can include at least one or more of graphite, and glass to a heating device and to the heating load of the whole of the isopipe 110, and in accordance with the object or may optionally be provided to make the temperature line in the desired region of interest.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding member of Dejneka with graphite cores of Kim as motivated to control the temperature of the molding member at the desired area of interest.
Dejneka as modified by Delia and Kim above make obvious every feature of present claim 1 except for the outlet positioned above the upper end of the molding member. As indicated above there is no support in the present application for specifically providing said outlet above the molding member.
It would however be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outlet to the enclosure of Delia as applied to Dejneka because Dejneka desires to maintain an oxygen amount in the atmosphere surrounding the molding member below 100 ppm by inserting nitrogen and maintaining the reducing nitrogen atmosphere [0019] thus a skilled artisan would have an outlet to prevent over pressurizing the amount of nitrogen provided in the enclosure or to circulate the nitrogen as motivated to maintain oxygen below ppm.
MPEP 2144.04 states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the gas outlet above the upper end of the molding member as an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7, 9, 17-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20160340222) and Delia (WO 2013081827) Kim (KR 20110036654) and further in view of as cited in the machine translation provided herein and Koyama (JP 2015124112).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9, 17-19 Dejneka discloses a method of continuously producing glass (Fig 1, 103) via an overflow downdraw method (all Fig 1) using an apparatus of a molding member (101) [0022] comprising
Supplying molten glass from delivery vessel (133) to and inlet (141) to a molding member (143) [0023]
Flowing the molten glass via a first flow over one weir (203) of the molding member (143) and a second flow over the second weir (205) [0024]
Joining the first and second glass flows at a lower edge (219) of the molding member (143) to form glass ribbon (103) [0024]-[0026]
Dejneka discloses the molding member (143) made of a refractory [0029] and maintaining an atmosphere around the molding member (143) for at least 5 hours of glass overflow [0039] to maintain a reducing atmosphere around the molding member (143) less than 100 ppm oxygen [0017], [0045]. Dejneka suggests providing the reducing atmosphere to the molding member (143) with nitrogen or other inert gases [0044].
Dejneka is silent as to the structure of producing the reducing atmosphere is provided and maintained around the molding member (143).
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw Delia discloses a method for producing glass flowing overs a molding member (30) within a muffle chamber (12), or fence [0040] that allows for control over the atmosphere surrounding said molding member and input of nitrogen via gas inlets (40) in the side of the fence (12) [0046].
Dejneka desires to control a reducing atmosphere of inert gas such as nitrogen around the overflow forming mold while the glass flows over the forming mold but fails to disclose the structure to carry out providing said atmosphere. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to the known structures for controlling an atmosphere, specifically with the ability to input nitrogen, around an overflow forming mold and adopt the structure of Delia to control a nitrogen reducing atmosphere as desired.
The combined teachings of Dejneka with Delia disclose releasing the formed glass ribbon from an inner space within the fence though a glass outlet in a bottom wall of the fence (See ribbon 4 in Fig 1 through outlet of 12); and
Dejneka discloses a refractory molding member (143) [0036] such as a zircon containing refractory [0006], [0029]-[0030]. However fails to specifically recite a graphite molding member and core.
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw molding member, or also known to a skilled artisan, an isopipe, (abstract) Kim discloses providing graphite heating cores (e), within the glass molding member.
A heating device provided in the interior of the iso-pipe (110) (e) can include at least one or more of graphite, and glass to a heating device and to the heating load of the whole of the isopipe 110, and in accordance with the object or may optionally be provided to make the temperature line in the desired region of interest.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding member of Dejneka with graphite cores of Kim as motivated to control the temperature of the molding member at the desired area of interest.
In an analogous art of overflow downdraw molding member, or also known to a skilled artisan, an isopipe Koyama discloses graphite as a suitable material of graphite for the molding member.
The combined teachings of Dejneka and Koyama disclose a graphite molding member. There is nothing in the claims that distinguishes the graphite molding member from the graphite core portion therefore any portion of said molding member is considered the core bar given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Simple substitution of one refractory material for the molding member or other structure in the forming apparatus (Dejneka) for graphite (Koyama) is obvious to a skilled artisan absent any unexpected results MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Koyama suggests the molding member should comprises cap members (230, 240) Fig 3, on opposite ends of the molding member in a longitudinal direction; It would be obvious to provide the molding member of Delia as motivated to adjust a width of the glass ribbon is determined by positions of the cap members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have required new search and consideration and required a new grounds of rejection.
Applicant is deviating from separate species and is welcome to contact the Examiner for an interview to avoid restriction by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights