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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 13-18 in the reply filed on Aug. 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner acknowledges new claims 19-32 are method claims read on the invention of elected Group II.
Claim Amendments - EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Applicant has failed to point out where Applicant has support for the amendments to the claims or for the new claims. Please see MPEP § 2163.06.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the terms “inner wall” and “outer wall” recited in new claims 28-29 are not recited in the specification. The specification uses the terms first enclosure wall 307 and second enclosure wall 309.
Additionally, the term “first quantity of gas” is also not recited in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 2 of claim 13, the term “directing the glass ribbon” in line 2 should be “directing a glass ribbon”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 2 of claim 30, the term “directing the glass ribbon” in line 2 should be “directing a glass ribbon”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 28 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 13-32 is/are 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. Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite “the glass ribbon . . . and in contact with a first quantity of gas in the first chamber”, and in claim 30 also recites this limitation. It is unclear to the Examiner where Applicant has support for this amendment, since the specification does not indicate the glass ribbon is in contact with a first quantity of gas in the first chamber. The term “quantity of gas” is not in the specification, and there is no specific recitation of a first quantity of gas in the first chamber. The Examiner notes there is support in PGPUB [0066], for delivering gas to the “first chamber portion 319” within the second chamber 305, and [0068] discussion of atmosphere surrounding the glass ribbon and a chimney effect, but does not specify “a first quantity of gas” in the first chamber. If this is in error please provide support for this amendment, by providing paragraphs numbers or page and line numbers. Claims 14-29 and depend from claim 13 and claims 31-23 depend from claim 30 and therefore, the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Additionally, Claim 15 claims heating the first quantity of gas in the first chamber with a heating element positioned within the second chamber. It is unclear to the Examiner where there is support for heating the first quantity of gas.
Response to Arguments/COMMENTS - Claims
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) in regard to the prior art of Pub’674 have been considered and are persuasive.
There are no prior art rejections against independent claims 13 and 30. However, allowability of the claims are unable to be determined due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issues with claims 13-32 discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Chalk (US 2011/0126591) and Pittbladdo (US 2016/0264445).
Chalk (abstract, Fig. 1, and [0002]) discloses a method and apparatus for manufacturing a glass ribbon 8. Chalk (abstract, Fig. 1, [0012], and [0039]) discloses drawing a glass ribbon 8 from a forming body 2 (corresponding to a glass ribbon forming device) positioned at least partially in a first chamber within glass-making machine enclosure 60. Chalk (Fig. 1) illustrates the glass ribbon 8 is directed from the bottom of the glass ribbon forming device along a travel path in a travel direction downward. Additionally, Chalk [0045] teaches environmental conditions in lower chamber 50 and enclosure 60 creates convective air flows along paths, such as illustrated by arrow 52, from the lower chamber to the enclosure 60 and teaches the temperature differential within enclosure 60 creates convective air flows exemplified by arrow 63 upward within the enclosure 60. The convective air flows disclosed by Chalk provide for the claimed glass ribbon in contact with a first quantity of gas in the first chamber, as claimed. Accordingly, the disclosures by chalk above, provide for the claimed step of directing.
Chalk (abstract) discloses managing pressure within a door housing (20) relative to pressures in a glass-making machine enclosure 60 (corresponding to a first chamber) and an upper chamber 40. Chalk discloses pressure management at a location in the housing 25 is managed to be less than a location 65 within enclosure 60 (i.e. first chamber). Chalk [0013] teaches managing flow of fluid out of the housing, 0044 fluid flow paths 64 between enclosure 60 and the upper chamber 40 by openings including electrical connection ports or fluid connection ports. Chalk [0045] teaches environmental conditions in lower chamber 50 and enclosure 60 creates convective air flows along paths, such as illustrated by arrow 52, from the lower chamber to the enclosure 60 and teaches the temperature differential within enclosure 60 creates convective air flows exemplified by arrow 63 upward within the enclosure 60. Chalk [0045] teaches air flow movements along paths 52 and 63 contribute to pressure within the enclosure 60 (i.e. first chamber) at location 65. However, Chalk fails to disclose or fairly suggest delivering additional gas to a second chamber to increase a second pressure in the second chamber such that the second pressure is greater than a first pressure in the first chamber to reduce or stop an upward gas flow, as claimed in claim 30.
Pittbladdo (US 2016/0264445) (Fig. 29A-29B and [0188], [0278]) discloses a glass ribbon forming device (“forming structure 9”) positioned at least partially in a first chamber (“muffle chamber 113”) and a second chamber (“heating chamber 131”) and delivering additional gas (“air 290”) to the second chamber positioned on multiple sides of the glass forming device. Pittbladdo discloses the additional gas is to make the pressure in the heating chamber 131 (i.e. second chamber) equal to that in the adjacent forming chamber 113 (i.e. first chamber). Accordingly, Pittbladdo fails to disclose delivering additional gas to a second chamber positioned on multiple sides of the glass forming device to increase a second pressure in the second chamber such that the second pressure is greater than a first pressure to reduce or stop an upward gas flow along the glass ribbon in an upward direction opposite the travel direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 8:15am-4:15pm.
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