DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demirbas et al. (US 2014/0144183A1) in view of De Angelis et al. (US 2011/0203321 – hereinafter DeAngelis), Kocatulum et al. (WO2018/111951 – hereinafter Kocatulum).
Regarding claim 1, Demirbas (Fig. 1 and [0027], [0033]-[0034]) discloses a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a delivery vessel (“collection vessel 113”) connected to a conduit (“downcomer tube 123”) and the conduit connected an inlet 124 of a forming vessel (“forming body 114”). Demirbas discloses the conduit (“downcomer tube 123”) supplying molten glass 134 (corresponding to a molten material) to the forming vessel (i.e. forming body) for producing a ribbon of glass 133. Based on these disclosures, Demirbas provides for flowing molten material from a delivery vessel to a forming vessel through a channel formed by a conduit in a flow direction of the conduit.
Demirbas fails to explicitly state the conduit comprises a closed sidewall surrounding the channel and continuous from the delivery vessel to an inlet of the forming vessel. However, Demirbas (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses an example of a connecting tube 121 (i.e. conduit), where the tube 121 forms a closed sidewall that surrounds and forms a channel and (Fig. 1) illustrates the conduit (i.e. downcomer tube 123) is continuous from the delivery vessel to an inlet of the forming vessel. Accordingly, it can be construed or it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the conduit comprising a closed sidewall surrounding the channel and continuous from the delivery vessel to an inlet of the forming vessel.
Demirbas fails to disclose heating the molten material flowing through the channel with a heating enclosure surrounding the conduit. However, Demirbas ([0033]) also discloses the glass manufacturing apparatus, including the conduit (i.e. downcomer 123) encased in refractory assembly 125 and ([0044]) the conduit encapsulated in an automatic control device, such as a control chamber designed to control the oxygen content to low levels. Additionally, DeAngelis (Figs. 1 and 3 and [0044]-[0045]) discloses a glass manufacturing apparatus comprising a downcomer 20 and inlet pipe 40 thermally insulated by insulating refractory material with refractory blocks 96 along the downcomer, heating elements (“heating members 98, 100”), and casings 76 and 108 to control atmosphere. Additionally, Kocatulum (Figs. 1-5 and [0042]) discloses a downcomer tube 100 including an upper heating zone 110 and third heating zone 171 including a lower heating zone 150 around the downcomer tube to mitigate heat loss. Kocatulum (Figs. 1-5 and [0030], [0037] and [0045]) discloses the lower heating zone 150 including a controlled atmosphere enclosure 155 with at least one heating element 156. DeAngelis and Kocatulum teach the combination of oxygen/atmosphere control and heating applied to a downcomer tube in enclosures. Demirbas teaches a refractory material encasing the downcomer and encapsulated in an automatic control device for oxygen/atmosphere control. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by DeAngelis and Kocatulum, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Demirbas could be improved by adding heating of the molten material flowing through the channel of the conduit with a type of heating enclosure surrounding the conduit in order to mitigate heat loss, as taught by Kocatulum.
Regarding details of the heating enclosure, as discussed above, Demirbas in view of DeAngelis and Kocatulum provides for heating the molten material with a heating enclosure in combination with control of the oxygen/atmosphere. DeAngelis also teaches multiple casings 76 and 108 (corresponding to a plurality of walls surrounding a chamber that form an enclosure) and Kocatulum (Fig. 2 and [0029]) teaches a plurality of heating elements 122 or 156 (i.e. plurality of heating elements) within a heating enclosure and teaches insulation 120 or 154 in combination with a casing or an outer shield 158 (i.e. a wall), and flanges 126 or 160. Kocatulum ([0034]) further discloses the at least one heating element may be in direct contact or spaced apart from the downcomer, and DeAngelis (Fig. 3 and [0035]) teaches flanges 56, 82 and illustrates attachment of the flange to provide for attachment to downcomer casing 76 and ([0039]) teaches removable attachment of bellows 54, which is also construed as a casing/enclosure. Accordingly, since Kocatulum teaches the outer shield 158 and transition flange 126 are separate pieces to be combined and the heating elements may be spaced apart from the downcomer and DeAngelis broadly teaches a casing removably attached to a flange, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heating enclosure comprising a plurality of walls as separate pieces that are removably attached, and therefore provides for a plurality of removable walls that correspond to heating walls, and comprising spaced apart and removable heating elements positioned within the chamber between a corresponding heating wall of the plurality of heating walls and the conduit to increase a temperature within the channel, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Demirbas (Figures) discloses the flow direction is in a direction of gravity. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Demirbas in claim 1 provides for flowing the molten material comprises flowing the molten material in a direction of gravity, as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Kocatulum (Figs. 5 and 6A and [0051]) teaches different heating zones, such as an upper heating zone 110, a lower heating zone 150, and a third heating zone 171 and teaches temperature variations along the downcomer tube and ([0055] and Fig. 8B) teaches different temperatures as a function of distance along the downcomer tube for the upper heating zone and a lower heating zone. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heating the molten material comprises a plurality of heating elements, such as the zones taught by Kocatulum, and a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements, such as in an upper heating zone, at a temperature different than a temperature of a second heating element, such as in a lower heating zone, different than a temperature of a second heating element of the plurality of heating elements.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Kocatulum (Figs. 5 and 6A and [0051]) teaches different heating zones, such as an upper heating zone 110, a lower heating zone 150, and a third heating zone 171 and teaches temperature variations along the downcomer tube and ([0055] and Fig. 8B) teaches different temperatures as a function of distance along the downcomer tube for the upper heating zone and a lower heating zone. With the teachings of an upper heating zone, a lower heating zone, and a third heating zone, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heating of the molten material flowing within a downcomer tube with a first heater, such as an upper heating zone, positioned upstream from a lower heating zone as the heating enclosure and relative to the flow direction, and a second heater, such as heating elements in the third heating zone downstream from the lower heating zone as the heating enclosure relative to the flow direction.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above, ([0055], Figs. 7 and 8B) teaches different temperatures as a function of distance along the downcomer tube from the upper heating zone and a lower heating zone. Kocatulum (Fig. 8B) illustrates the temperature at 150+162 (lower heating zone with insulation) is greater than the temperature at 110 (upper heating zone) and section 104 downstream of 150 has a lower temperature. This provides for operating the heating enclosure (i.e. lower heating zone 150+162 (with insulation) at a temperature greater than a temperature of the first heater and a temperature of the second heater (at location 104).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Kocatulum (Figs. 5 and 6A and [0051]) teaches different heating zones, such as an upper heating zone 110, a lower heating zone 150, and a third heating zone 171 and teaches temperature variations along the downcomer tube and ([0055] and Fig. 8B) teaches different temperatures as a function of distance along the downcomer tube for the upper heating zone and a lower heating zone. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, heating the molten material comprises generating a temperature gradient in the molten material, since Fig. 8B teaches different temperatures as a function of distance along the downcomer tube.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the rejection of claim 7 above, Kocatulum teaches the temperature affects viscosity of molten glass flowing through the downcomer and into a forming body inlet. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the temperature gradient taught by Kocatulum in claim 7 above in the downcomer and into a forming body inlet, provides for the generating a temperature gradient that alters a flow of the molten material from the forming vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9-11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claims 2 and 9-11, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest removing a first heating element of the plurality of heating elements and the corresponding heating wall to expose the chamber to an exterior of the heating enclosure and cool the molten material flowing through the channel. Claims 9-11 depend from claim 2 and are also allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights