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
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/29/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites “an outside atmosphere” thus any outside atmosphere
Claim 7 only recites a batch material to cullet ratio according to the United States Patent Office MPEP 2115 a device is claimed by its structural elements and without more, the inclusion of material worked upon or produced by the device of the claim did not, without more, does not make the claim patentable.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an extendable panel that extends downwardly below a batch inlet of the feeder alcove to molten glass, and is configured to maintain contact with the molten glass to seal off a feeder alcove interior and to restrict and reduce batch material passing from the feeder alcove directly to an exhaust. in claim 8.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a cleaning device configured to clean batch inlet of the feeder alcove. in claim 14. The specification [0035] indicates the cleaning device can include a chopper disposed on the end of the batch feeder but does not require a chopper. Any device that allows for cleaning of the inlet is considered a structural equivalent herein.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 8 requires an extendable panel that seals off the feeder alcove interior and is capable of restricting or reducing batch from passing directly into an exhaust. The molten glass is a material that may be within the device and varies throughout the use of the device as does an exhaust. For the purpose of the examination Claim 8 requires an extendable panel that seals the feeder alcove interior or any equivalent thereof.
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 8 recites the limitation "the molten glass" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2001766).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Brown discloses a batch feeding apparatus Fig 4, comprising:
a feeder alcove for providing batch material to a furnace, or melter, (page 1; lines 40-45)
the feeder alcove, or dog house, including at least one side wall and a cover (page 2; lines 7-10 and 55-75);
and a batch feeder (57) sealingly coupled to the cover member (52)
that feeds the batch material to the feeder alcove (Page 2; lines 52-60) and Fig 4.
Regarding claim 2, the feeder alcove comprises at least one fluid-cooled panel (52 or 54).
Regarding claim 3, comprises a plurality of panels, or respective section (at least Page 2; 55-70) Fig 2-4.
Regarding claim 4, the feeder alcove comprises at least one bubbler configured to provide compressed gas into the feeder alcove.
Regarding claim 5, the feeder alcove is sealed from an outside atmosphere either by the building facility where the exterior of the facility is “an atmosphere” or sealed from outside of the earth’s atmosphere given the broadest reasonable interpretation where “an outside atmosphere” can be any atmosphere.
Regarding claim 7, the batch material is not a part of the claimed feeder alcove structure and absolutely changes throughout manufacture. See MPEP 2115 material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses an extendable panel (57) capable of extending below a batch inlet of the feeder alcove and to seal off a feeder alcove interior and to restrict and reduce batch material (Page 2; lines 71-75, Fig 4)
Regarding claim 10, the batch feeder is oriented at an oblique angle to the feeder alcove (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Brown discloses combustion (page 1; line 49) thus heat will move to the feeder alcove from the melter
Regarding claim 14, Brown discloses the plate member (57) to scrape raw materials and clean the batch inlet (Page 2; lines 1-8)
Regarding claim 15 Brown discloses a hopper (55) storage device that provides batch material to the batch feeder.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huber (US 20170369352).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Huber discloses a batch feeding apparatus comprising;
A feeder alcove (corresponding to sidewall [0083] shown at least in Fig 2 of Huber included for convenience below). Said alcove capable for providing batch material to a melter (Fig 2)
The feeder alcove including:
The feeder alcove having at least one side wall (portion of 244A, 244B)
A cover (14, 214) and
an inlet for batch (a portion of 239B, or 22A) [0044], [0046] considered coupled to the cover and capable of feeding batch through the cover, Huber suggests augers or screw feeders for moving batch into inlets [0044] thus considered “sealingly coupled to the cover” given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Huber discloses any portions of or the entire panels of sidewall structure, floor, and ceiling of the melter may be fluid -cooled [0066]
Regarding claim 3, as depicted in Fig 2, the overall feeder alcove is considered to comprise a plurality of panels making up the walls, cover and any other depicted structure of the feeder alcove as presently claimed see Fig. 2 and [0046]-[0047].
Regarding claim 5, the feeder alcove is sealed from an outside atmosphere either by the building facility where the exterior of the facility is “an atmosphere” or sealed from outside of the earth’s atmosphere given the broadest reasonable interpretation where “an outside atmosphere” can be any atmosphere.
Regarding claim 7, the batch material is not a part of the claimed feeder alcove structure and absolutely changes throughout manufacture. See MPEP 2115 material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claimed structure.
Regarding claims 11, 12 Huber discloses the feedstock inlet in the ceiling is fed by an auger or screw feeder which a skilled artisan knows required a feed tube for the screw or auger to push the feed through [0044]
Regarding claim 13, any of the burners disclosed by Huber are considered a heating device configured to provide heat to the feeder alcove as the burner heat enters the feed area given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 15, there is necessarily some storage device holding feedstock to hold the batch to be fed whether it be a known hopper, a bin, a warehouse any of these meet the present claim given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 16, Huber discloses the batch feeding apparatus of claim 1 upstream of a melter (Fig 1-2)
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2001766) as applied above and further in view of Guerrero (WO2014008045)
Regarding claim 4, Brown does not disclose bubblers in the feeder alcove. In an analogous art Gurrero discloses bubblers in glass melters to provide enhanced glass recirculation and localized recirculation, (Col 1; lines 15-55) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add bubblers in the feeder alcove as motivated to recirculate the feed into the molten glass and ensure continuous melting.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2001766) as applied above and further in view of Howard (US 1999761)
Regarding claim 6, Brown does not indicate the feeder alcove at reduced pressure.
In an analogous art of batch feeding a glass furnace Howard discloses providing the glass making materials, or batch, under vacuum, or reduced pressure to remove any additional air or gases formed during melting to reduce the volume of material to be heated (Page 3, Col 2; lines 65-75)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the batch feeder of Brown under vacuum as motivated to reduce the volume of materials to be heated and make a more efficient melter.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20170369352) as applied above and further in view of Villeroy De Galhau (US 20150013386).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 14, Huber discloses the feeder inlets in the feeding alcove and indicates a known feeder screw or auger can be used with the inlets [0044] but fails to depict them in the figures. In an analogous art of feeding structures to feed batch into a glass melter Villeroy discloses a hopper or other supply holding device with an orifice to supply gas [0020] and a slide gate damper, or extendable panel to seal off the feeder and preventing a blockage or plug [0022] and allows for removal such that cleaning of the inlet may occur without stopping the melter.
It would be obvious to use the feeding screw/auger taught by Villeroy as motivated to allow for cleaning the inlet without stopping the melter. The angle at which the feeder is placed is merely an engineering choice a skilled artisan would determine based on placement of the hopper, relative to the melter or length of the screw feeder.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20170369352) as applied above and further in view of Howard (US 1999761)
Regarding claim 6, Huber does not indicate the feeder alcove at reduced pressure.
In an analogous art of batch feeding a glass furnace Howard discloses providing the glass making materials, or batch, under vacuum, or reduced pressure to remove any additional air or gases formed during melting to reduce the volume of material to be heated (Page 3, Col 2; lines 65-75)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the batch feeder of Brown under vacuum as motivated to reduce the volume of materials to be heated and make a more efficient melter.
Conclusion
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
