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 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
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.
Claim 1-7 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 “a nozzle to be immersed from above the liquid surface”. The limitation is written in passive voice wherein a present tense and past tense verb are used in conjunction. It is not definite if the nozzle is already immersed or intended to have the function in the future, rendering the claim indefinite. While the figures draw the intended interpretation, the grammar should be amended to definitively state the location of the nozzle; otherwise, this limitation for an apparatus claim will be interpreted as intended use. Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected because they depend from and thus include all the limitations of claim 1 and do not solve the deficiencies thereof.
The preamble of claims 2-7 include “for a glass article”. This was already introduced in claim 1 and creates antecedent basis issues. Please change to “the glass article” or omit this portion of the preamble which is inherent for the dependent claims.
Claim 5 states “the nozzle comprises a pipe portion” wherein claim 1 differentiates the nozzle from the pipe. While the Examiner understands the intended interpretation, there is confusion regarding the portion made of platinum or a platinum alloy to be of the nozzle or the pipe. The Examiner suggests the full limitation be “wherein the nozzle or pipe comprises a portion made of…” because there is no delineation regarding the specific portion and the nozzle is essentially the outlet of the pipe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trethewey (US-3200971-A).
Regarding claim 1, Trethewey teaches of a manufacturing apparatus for a glass article (Col. 8 Line 23-30; Col. 1 Line 27-33) comprising a storage tank configured to store a molten glass (Col. 6 Line 48-53); and a liquid-surface height measurement device configured to measure a height of a liquid surface of the molten glass stored in the storage tank (probe 24, Col. 3 Line 41-45), wherein the liquid-surface height measurement device comprises a pipe which is led from an outside of the storage tank into the storage tank at a position higher than the liquid surface (metal probe 146; Col. 6 Line 61-68) configured to allow supply of a gas to a nozzle immersed from above the liquid surface into the molten glass (downturned end 148/25; Col. 6 Line 71-75), and a pressure gauge configured to measure a pressure in the pipe or the nozzle (pressure detector 56, Col. 5 Line 47-68; Col. 4 Line 17-35).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Trethewey teaches the pipe is led from the outside of the storage tank into the storage tank through a hole formed in a side wall of the storage tank (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Trethewey teaches the nozzle is held at a predetermined height by the pipe (Col. 3 Line 24-26).
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 1, Trethewey teaches the nozzle comprises a pipe portion made of platinum alloy (Col. 6 Line 68-71).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trethewey (US-3200971-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chew (US-2999511-A).
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1 above, Trethewey does not expressly teach the pipe comprises a cooling structure. In the same field of endeavor, Chew teaches of a liquid-surface height measurement device (Col. 4 Line 36-50) that has a pipe comprising a cooling structure (Col. 4 Line 13-19). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-surface height measurement device of Trethewey to have a cooling structure as a known structural arrangement in the art to reduce the rate of corrosion acted on the liquid-surface height measurement device while in the corrosive environment in the storage tank and molten glass.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trethewey (US-3200971-A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Macedo et al (US-6334337-B1).
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 5, Trethewey teaches the liquid-surface height measurement device should suitable be made from a high temperature resistant metal (Col. 6 Line 69-71). Trethewey teaches the storage tank is made of refractory material (Col. 3 Line 15-18) but is silent with regard to a fire-resistant refractory layer. In related supplied gas to molten glass art, Macedo teaches of the nozzle immersed from above the liquid surface into the molten glass (Fig. 2/4; Col. 5 Line 6-10) comprises a refractory layer (Fig. 4 annular space 86; Col. 5 Line 15-18 wherein a skilled artisan readily knows mullite is a fire-resistant refractory) covering the pipe portion (support pipe 78). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a refractory layer covering the pipe portion as known means to protect the pipe from the corrosive tank environment (Col. 5 Line 18-22).
Macedo teaches the refractory layer is in between an air supply pipe (pipe 78) and a reinforcing pipe (sleeve 80; Col. 5 Line 11-17), both of which are made of INCONEL. Trethewey teaches the liquid-surface height measurement device should suitable be made from a high temperature resistant metal such as platinum and its alloys (Col. 6 Line 69-71). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reinforce the liquid-surface height measurement device of Trethewey by using the supply pipe/refractory/reinforced sleeve arrangement as taught by Macedo and modifying the supply pipe and reinforced sleeve to be constructed of platinum and its alloy as known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 6, Trethewey teaches the distal end portion of the pipe portion is not covered with the fire-resistant layer and is exposed (no fire-resistant layer in Trethewey). Macedo also teaches only a portion of the pipe is covered with the fire-resistant layer (Fig. 4) wherein their nozzle equivalent at the distal end of the pipe made of platinum is also free from being covered and is exposed (Col. 4 Line 55-64, Fig. 3 insert 64 made of the same material as insert 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-4422326-A teaches the location of a similar device
US-5868814-A teaches an alternative structure for a similar device
US-20210101817-A1 teaches a close but not as instantly claimed structure for a bubbler
JP-2021151948-A teaches a similar measuring device compatible at a different location in the storage tank
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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 on 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights