DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the Examiner has failed to provide a reasonable example that recites material differences. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus recites a simple structure of a container with two openings and a needle inside for essentially restricting flow at the outlet opening. Accordingly, such a structure could be use for dispensing other things for other industries, such as food ingredients. In other words, the structure is not limited to handling glass.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 5 and 11 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation 0.4/1 to 0.6/1, and the claim also recites 0.2/1 to 0.4/1 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 recites the drawing head comprises only one single further outlet opening in the form of the glass outlet for discharging the glass melt. It is unclear if this is further limiting the glass outlet of claim 1 to just one outlet, or if this is reciting an additional outlet to the one recited in claim 1. Please clarify.
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 1-3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 101054260 machine translation provided) in view of Xu (CN 101054257 machine translation provided). Xu ‘260 teaches an apparatus for producing a glass tube, comprising a drawing head (“crucible”) comprising a glass inlet (implied since quartz sand is provided in the crucible) and a glass outlet (implied since a glass tube is drawn), the drawing head having a total height h in the range of 1400-1600mm and an inner diameter d in the range of 340-360mm, wherein a ratio h/d is about 3.8/1 to 4.7/1, which falls within the claimed range of 2/1 to 7/1, and a drawing needle (“former”) (abstract). Xu ‘260 teaches a big-bore glass tube is drawn; accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the drawing needle to be placed within the crucible in order to create the bore within the glass tube. In event that this is not obvious, Xu ‘257 teaches in another reference a figure illustrating a similar apparatus for producing a glass tube, the apparatus comprising a drawing head, crucible 3, comprising a glass inlet (at top) and a glass outlet (at bottle), and a drawing needle, forming device 2 (example 1 on page 4, figure). As can be seen in the figure, the drawing needle is placed down the center of the drawing head. Xu ‘260 further teaches the drawing needle has a diameter of 230-260mm, which provides for a distance (a) between the drawing needle and an inner wall of the drawing head that is in the range of 40mm-65mm, which falls within the claimed range of 40 to 300mm.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above the distance a, calculated from the inner diameter range of 340-360mm and needle diameter range of 230-260mm, varies over the range of 40-65mm, which overlaps with the range of 50-150 mm.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, the ratio h/d, calclulated from the height range of 1400-1600mm and the diameter range of 340-360, varies over the range of 3.8/1 to 4.7/1, which overlaps with the range of 3/1 to 4.5/1.
Regarding claim 6, the inner diameter is in the range of 340-360mm, which is more than 130mm.
Regarding claim 11, Xu ‘257 teaches only one single glass outlet for discharging the glass melt (near 2 in figure).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 101012099 machine translation provided). Cheng teaches an apparatus for producing a glass tube, comprising a drawing head (crucible 2) comprising a glass inlet (top of crucible 2) and a glass outlet (5), and a drawing needle (former 3/4), wherein the drawing needle has a diameter of 290mm (top two paragraphs on page 3). Cheng teaches the drawing head has a height h of at least 1200mm and an inner diameter d of 540mm, which provides for a h/d ratio of 2.2/1. As can be seen in the figure, the height of the glass material (h=1200mm) makes up a significant part of the total height of the drawing head. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordrinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected a ratio h/d to be within the claimed range of 2/1 to 7/1, since the ratio h/d for the drawing head is at the very least 2.2/1 and can be a little bit more for a larger height. Cheng further teaches a distance (a) between the drawing needle and an inner wall of the drawing head of 125mm, calculated from the inner diameter of 540 and needle diameter of 290mm, which falls within the claimed range of 40 to 300mm.
Regarding claim 6, the inner diameter is 540 mm, as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches the inner diameter narrows down to 306mm at the outlet (near 5), which is considered close enough to 300mm.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 101054260 machine translation provided) and Xu (CN 101054257 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (JP2012167004 machine transaltion provided). Xu doesn’t disclose an inlet at a height less than the height of the drawing head. In a similar field of endeavor for making glass tube, Masuda teaches an apparatus comprising a drawing head with a drawing needle. Masuda molten glass can be supplied to the drawing head through an inlet located on the side of the drawing head (figures 1-2). Such an arrangement would allow for a steady supply of molten glass to the drawing head, which would naturally provide for consistent drawing of glass tube. Furthermore, it would appear the inlet is located approximately the midpoint of the total height of the drawing head in figures 1-2, which would provide for a ratio of a distance c (between the glass outlet and a central axis of the glass inlet) to the height of the drawing head h, c/h of about 0.5/1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for an inlet at the side of the drawing head, wherein the c/h ratio is about 0.5/1, as an alternative arrangement for supplying molten glass, so as to provide a steady level of molten glass in the drawing head, thereby allowing for consistent glass tubes to be drawn.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 101054260 machine translation provided) and Xu (CN 101054257 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher, Jr, et al. (2019/0161379). Regarding claims 8-9, Xu teaches the drawing head comprises a refractory material, such as tungsten-molybdenum (abstract), but doesn’t specify other materials. In a similar field of endeavor, Fisher, Jr. teaches an apparatus for forming glass tubes comprising a drawing head and a drawing needle. Fisher, Jr. also teaches the drawing head comprises a refractory material and suggests tungsten, molybdenum, and noble metals, such as platinum alloys ([0104]). Fisher, Jr. teaches platinum refractory material are electrically conductive. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed platinum alloys as an alternative to the tungsten-molybdenum refractory material of Xu, as it is a well-known substitute that predictably provides for successful handling of molten glass and can also allow for electrical conduction for heating purposes, as taught by Fisher, Jr.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 101054260 machine translation provided), Xu (CN 101054257 machine translation provided), and Fisher, Jr, et al. (2019/0161379) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gromann et al. (WO 2014/147164). Xu teaches the drawing head comprises a refractory material, such as tungsten (abstract), but doesn’t specify connections for electrical heating. Fisher, Jr. further teaches the refractory material, such as platinum, platinum alloys, and tungsten that are electrically conductive ([0104]), but doesn’t specify a connection for electrical heating. In the same field of endeavor, Gromann teaches an apparatus for producing glass tubes, the apparatus comprising a drawing head and a drawing needle (abstract). Gromann further teaches the drawing head comprises a refractory material, such tungsten, and comprises connections (33, 34) for electrical heating of the drawing head as well as the drawing needle (5th passage one page 9). Gromann teaches this arrangement provides heating for the glass melt from the and for a more uniform temperature profile to the glass melt (abstract, 4th passage on page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a connections for electrical heating in the drawing head of Xu and Fisher, Jr., as it can provide more uniform heating and a temperature profile in the glass melt, as taught by Gromann.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 101054260 machine translation provided), Xu (CN 101054257 machine translation provided), and Fisher, Jr, et al. (2019/0161379) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dick et al. (2002/0178753). Xu doesn’t specify another outlet for the drawing head. Dick teaches an apparatus for drawing glass tubes comprising a drawing head comprising an inlet for glass and an outlet for drawing a glass tube, and a drawing needle (fig. 1, [0004], [0020]. Dick further teaches in addition to the inlet and outlet, providing for a single glass overflow outlet for discharging faulty glass melt ([0021]-[0022]). Dick teaches a need to prevent bad glass into the glass melt forming the glass tube ([0006]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided for an overflow outlet for discharging bad glass in the apparatus of Xu, thereby preventing bad glass from contaminating the glass product, as taught by Dick.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-9 of copending Application No. 18/990,310 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a drawing head with an inlet and outlet, a drawing needle, and an overflow outlet, wherein the ratio of h/d is in the range of 2/1 to 7/1, a distance between the inner wall of the head to the drawing needle is from 50-150mm, a ratio between a distance between the axis of the inlet to the outlet and the height is in the range of 0.2/1 to 0.4/1, and the drawing head comprises platinum or platinum alloy lining, and connections for electrical heating.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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