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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the melting apparatus (Claims 1, 10, 11) , the temperature control system (Claim 24), and the moveable cart (Claim 26) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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. For each claim the functional language is noted where the Specification does not include sufficient structure that one can perform the function / location in Specification absent the structure. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 - a melting apparatus configured to deliver a continuous flow of molten glass to the inlet / [0062]. An equivalent may be a slot, a funnel, or a channel.
Claim 10 – the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet at a viscosity in the range of from about 5P to 200P / [0062]. An equivalent may be an inlet of any refractory material, such as ceramic, or high temperature metal such as chrome alloys.
Claim 11 – the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet that is less than a liquidus viscosity of the molten glass / [0062]. An equivalent may be an inlet of any refractory material, such as ceramic, or high temperature metal such as chrome alloys.
Claim 26 – the caster is configured to be supported on a moveable cart / [0051]. An equivalent may be a caster with, below the caster, multiple “legs” or a 4-sided rectangular support attached to the bottom of the caster. Or, mechanical attachments to the side or top of the caster that extend from the caster horizontally and then vertically upwards or downwards, to engage the cart.
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.
NOTE: The Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that Claim(s) 1-9, 12-15, and 23 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such the material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given no patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). The manner and method in which a machine is intended to be used is not germane to the patentability of the claimed structure (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235). The below are is/are considered a recitation of intended use:
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23 – casting structure(s); the casting structures could be any high temperature resistant material of any shape that fits into the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or silicon nitride threads.
Claim 3 – to form a core layer of the cast glass composite structure; the molten glass contacting both sides of the flexible glass sheet to form clad layers of the cast glass composite structure. The glass could enter the caster in a way that only one side of the glass sheet is in contact with the molten glass.
Claim 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9– flexible glass sheet; other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
Claim 6 – to form clad layers of the cast glass composite structure; to form a core layer of the cast glass composite structure. “Forming” is a method, not an apparatus.
Further,
Regarding Claim 10 - the Examiner understands the unit “P” to mean Poise.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 6 – to form a core layer the cast glass composite structure/ to form a core layer of the cast glass composite structure.
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 1, 10, 11, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 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.
Claims 10-11 - The Specification is absent sample data illustrating the melting apparatus providing viscosity of the glass at a liquidus viscosity and below the liquidus viscosity.
Claims 13-14 - The Specification [0063] and drawings (Figs. 6-13) are absent description or illustration of the means/apparatus to feed casting structures. The Specification and noted figures identify a chassis 176 and the chassis is illustrated as being in the caster, yet mechanical means to feed the chassis through in the caster is absent.
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 - a melting apparatus configured to deliver a continuous flow of molten glass to the inlet / [0062]. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function. The disclosure is absent an illustration of the melting apparatus and/or how the melting apparatus is configured to deliver a continuous flow of molten glass to the inlet, making the claim limitation indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, anything that can deliver a continuous flow of molten glass to the inlet, such as but not limited to, a slot, a funnel, or a channel is considered.
Claim 10 – the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet at a viscosity in the range of from about 5P to 200P / [0062]. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function. The disclosure is absent an illustration of the melting apparatus and/or how the melting apparatus is configured to deliver a continuous flow of molten glass in a specific range of viscosity, making the claim limitation indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, any refractory material for an inlet that can deliver molten glass to the inlet at a viscosity in the range of from about 5P to 200P to the inlet, such as, but not limited to, ceramic, or high temperature metal such as chrome alloys, is considered.
Claim 11 – the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet that is less than a liquidus viscosity of the molten glass / [0062]. ]. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function. The disclosure is absent an illustration of the melting apparatus and/or how the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass that is less than the liquidus viscosity of the molten glass, making the claim limitation indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, any refractory material for an inlet that can deliver molten glass to the inlet at a viscosity less than the liquidus temperature to the inlet, such as, but not limited to, ceramic, or high temperature metal such as chrome alloys, is considered.
Claim 26 – the caster is configured to be supported on a moveable cart / [0051]. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function. The disclosure is absent an illustration of the caster being supported on moveable cart or structure of the moveable cart support, making the claim limitation indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, any equivalents such as, but not limited to, attaching below or above the caster,: multiple “legs”, a 4-sided rectangular support caster, or mechanical attachments to the side of the caster that extend from the caster horizontally and then vertically upwards or downwards, to engage the cart, is considered.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All remaining dependent claims not specifically cited are also considered to be indefinite at least because of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-5, 6-10, 12, 15, 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPGPUB 20200002211A1 by Dannoux et. al. (herein “Dannoux”) in further view of
USPGPUB20160083282 by Jouanno et. al. (herein “Jouanno”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Dannoux teaches a casting system, comprising,
a caster; [0005], “…flowing glass into a caster…”
having a wall configured to define a casting passage extending through the caster in a casting direction;
the casting passage having an inlet and an outlet fluidically connected to the inlet;
a melting apparatus;
configured to deliver a continuous flow of molten glass to the inlet;
Fig.1, [0037], “…Referring now to FIG. 1…a glass ribbon 30b is provided that includes a step 110 of flowing a glass 30 from a melting apparatus 10 into a caster 20 having a width 22 from about 200 mm to about 5 m and a thickness (t) 24 (see FIG. 2) of 1 mm or greater to form a cast glass 30a”. Here, the (dimension of the outer diameter of the caster 20 / width 22 of the passage)/2 defines a wall and a casting passage width 22 and the wall extends in the casting direction (see arrows). The caster has an inlet at the top of the caster and outlet at the bottom of the caster, fluidly connected.
While Dannoux discloses feeding the molten glass from a melting apparatus to the caster, Dannoux does not disclose,
and a feed system;
configured to feed a casting structure into the inlet and through the casting passage;
such that the molten glass contacts the casting structure and forms a cast glass composite
structure continuously discharged from the outlet; this limitation is viewed as a recitation of
intended use, See Claim Interpretation.
In an analogous endeavor of manufacturing a continuous glass ribbon, Jouanno discloses an apparatus 360 comprising a substrate forming stage 369 to form a continuous ribbon 370 and a flexible glass applying stage 366 including supply rolls 384/386 that supply continuous glass ribbons 388/380 where the flexible glass is applied to the opposing surface of the ribbon 370 ([0073], [0074], Fig. 8). Further, in an analogous fashion, the laminated structure is pressurized by vacuum device 403, pressure rollers, platens 432, or a belt assembly 462 which each form a passage for the laminated structure, where the lamination occurs at elevated temperature [0065], similar to the caster of Dannoux providing a passage for forming the cast glass (Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 12) with molten glass (i.e. at an elevated temperature). Here, a casting structure of flexible glass ribbons are through a passage for lamination (casting) such that the ribbon substrate contacts the flexible glass ribbon structure to form a laminated composite structure which is continuously discharged.
Jouanno discloses the claimed invention except for a molten glass ribbon substrate/core where the flexible glass ribbons move through a caster. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feed device of Jouanno into the caster apparatus of Dannoux, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the mechanical reliability of a flexible glass laminate by bonding to a substrate material, as noted by Jouanno [0004]. Further, the Examiner wishes to point out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See (MPEP 2145(III)).
Regarding Claim 3 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein the casting structure comprises,
a flexible glass sheet; this limitation is viewed as a recitation of intended use, See Claim
Interpretation. Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
the feed system configured to feed the flexible glass sheet along a center of the casting
passage;
to form a core layer of the cast glass composite structure; this limitation is viewed as a recitation
of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. The glass could enter the caster in a way that only one
side of the glass sheet is in contact with the molten glass.
the molten glass contacting both sides of the flexible glass sheet; this limitation is viewed as a
recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. The glass could enter the caster in a way
that only one side of the glass sheet is in contact with the molten glass.
to form clad layers of the cast glass; this limitation is viewed as a recitation of intended use, See
Claim Interpretation. “Forming” is a method, not an apparatus.
Jouanno discloses an apparatus 360 comprising a substrate forming stage 369 to form a continuous ribbon 370 and a flexible glass applying stage 366 including supply rolls 384/386 that supply continuous glass ribbons 388/380 where the flexible glass is applied to the opposing surface of the ribbon 370 ([0073], [0074], Fig. 8). Further, in an analogous fashion, the laminated structure is pressurized by vacuum device 403, pressure rollers, platens 432, or a belt assembly 462 which each form a passage for the laminated structure, where the lamination occurs at elevated temperature [0065], similar to the caster of Dannoux providing a passage for forming the cast glass (Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 12) with molten glass (i.e. at an elevated temperature). Here, the feed system supplies flexible glass sheet off-center to the vacuum device 403 (analogous to the caster)
Jouanno discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the feed system to feed a flexible glass sheet to the center of the casting passage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the feed system to feed a flexible sheet to the center of the casting passage (analogous to vacuum device 403),
since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of an element (the rollers) without modification of
the operation of the device (rollers still roll regardless of feeding one or two flexible glass sheets)
involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the feed system to
feed a flexible glass sheet to the center of the casting passage for the purpose of being efficient in where
the flexible glass is placed, i.e. one does not need a separate casting system. “we have repeatedly held
that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior
art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger,
cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient and because the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-
sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references
even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves."
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
Regarding Claim 4 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 3.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the flexible glass sheet is a redrawn sheet having a thickness in a range of from about 25 um to
about 400 um; this limitation is viewed as a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation.
Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
Regarding Claim 5 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 3.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the flexible glass sheet has a composition that is different than a composition of the molten
glass; this limitation is viewed as a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Other
materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
Regarding Claim 6 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the casting structure comprises two flexible glass sheets; this limitation is considered a recitation
of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC
woven fiber tape could be used.
the feed system configured to feed the two flexible glass sheets respectively along opposite
sides of the casting passage;
to form clad layers of the cast glass composite structure; this limitation is considered a recitation
of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC
woven fiber tape could be used.
the molten glass contacting one side of each of the two flexible sheets; this limitation is
considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Other materials, for example,
ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
to form a core layer the cast glass composite structure; this limitation is considered a recitation
of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. “Forming” is a method, not an apparatus.
Jouanno discloses two flexible glass sheets that are fed along opposite sides of a ribbon substrate as
disclosed in Claim 1 ( comprising a substrate forming stage 369 to form a continuous ribbon 370 and a
flexible glass applying stage 366 including supply rolls 384/386 that supply continuous glass ribbons
388/380 where the flexible glass is applied to the opposing surface of the ribbon 370 ([0073], [0074],
Fig. 8), where Jouanno discloses the claimed invention except for a molten glass ribbon substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feed device of Jouanno into the caster apparatus of Dannoux, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the mechanical reliability of a flexible glass laminate by bonding to a substrate material, as noted by Jouanno [0004].
Regarding Claim 7 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the two flexible glass sheets are redrawn sheets each having a thickness in a range of from
about 25 um to about 400 um; the instant claim is considered a recitation of intended use, See
Claim Interpretation. Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could
be used.
Regarding Claim 8 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the two flexible glass sheets have compositions that are different than a composition of the
molten glass; the instant claim is considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim
Interpretation. Other materials, for example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
Regarding Claim 9 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 6 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 6.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the two flexible glass sheets have compositions that are different from one another. the instant
claim is considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Other materials, for
example, ceramic tape or SiC woven fiber tape could be used.
Regarding Claim 10 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet; [0038],[0039]. Fig. 1,
“…the glass 30 as it leaves the melting apparatus 10 and flows into the caster 20…”, “…melting
apparatus 10 can include a melter with an orifice that distributes the melted glass 30 as it leaves
the melting apparatus 10…”.
at a viscosity in a range of from about 5 P to about 200 P; [0042], Fig. 1, “…the glass 30, as it
leaves exit element 4 of the melting apparatus and flows into the caster has a viscosity of less
than 5 x102 (500) Poise.
Regarding Claim 12 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein the casting structure comprises,
a plurality of casting structures positioned in a fixed arrangement relative to one another; the
instant claim is considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. Explain again
and be brief. Do this for all others.
Regarding Claim 15 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 12 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 12.
wherein the casting structures one or more of,
comprise,
internal structures configured to be surrounded by the molten glass;
such that the internal structures are spaced from all lateral surfaces of the cast glass composite
structure;
comprise,
external structures configured to be exposed along at least one lateral surface of the
cast glass composite structure;
are oriented one or more of perpendicular, parallel, and transverse to the casting direction;
are one or more of hollow tubes, solid rods, and spirals;
have compositions that are different than a composition of the molten glass;
are one or more of glass, glass ceramic, and metal;
are removable;
and are dissolvable.
All limitations of the instant claim are considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation.
The casting structures could be any high temperature resistant material of any shape that fits into the
caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or silicon nitride threads.
Regarding Claim 23 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the casting structure is a metal mesh; the instant claim is considered a recitation of intended
use, See Claim Interpretation. The casting structures could be any high temperature resistant
material of any shape that fits into the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or
silicon nitride threads.
Regarding Claim 24 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein further comprising,
a temperature control system;
configured to control a temperature gradient of the caster;
the temperature gradient comprising a first temperature proximate the inlet transitioning to a
second temperature proximate the outlet;
the first temperature higher than the second temperature;
[0044], [0042], Fig. 1, “Referring now to step 120 …this step is for cooling the cast glass 30a in the
caster 20 to…a temperature of no lower than 50° C. As such, the caster 20 can be of varied
construction…with …additional cooling capabilities (temperature control system), as understood by
those of ordinary skill in the field of the disclosure, provided that it is capable of cooling the glass 30
through … to cool the cast glass 30a to a temperature of no lower than 50° C., e.g., as it is being
conveyed in the direction of the arrows shown in FIG. 1 …”, “…the glass 30 is flowed from a
temperature of 1000°C or greater…”. Here, glass 30 is proximate the inlet 4 at 1000°C or greater and
additional cooling capabilities (temperature control system) cool the glass 30 to form glass 30a,
where glass 30a is at a temperature no less than 50° C, as glass 30a flows through the caster,
indicating glass 30a at the proximate the outlet of the caster is at least 50° C, where
1000°C to 50°C represent the temperature gradient.
Regarding Claim 25 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the caster has a width and a thickness that is less than the width; [0037], “…a caster having a
width… from about 100 mm…and a thickness (t) from about 1 mm…”.
Regarding Claim 26 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the caster is configured to be supported on a moveable cart;
Dannoux discloses the claimed invention except for being supported in a moveable cart. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to add movability to the caster, since it has been held that making an old device portable or
movable without producing any new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to add movability to the caster in order to utilize the caster on different
glass casting devices. The fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to
patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. In re
Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732,93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Regarding Claim 27 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the casting passage is oriented vertically; Fig. 1, Fig. 2; Fig. 1 illustrates an orifice opening 12 at
the top of the caster 20 where the molten glass 30a is flowing though a passage from top to
bottom, where the caster is oriented vertically.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in further view of
Jouanno and in further view of Evidentiary Reference U.S. Patent 8,397,539 by Chang et. al. (herein
“Chang”).
Regarding Claim 2 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the feed system is configured to feed the casting structure at a feed rate that corresponds to a casting rate at which the molten glass moves through the casting passage;
Jouanno further discloses the substrate sheet and the flexible glass sheet are delivered to the nip simultaneously in a single sided flexible glass sheet lamination to the substrate sheet [0072], which pervades through other embodiments, i.e. a flexible glass sheet laminated on either side of the substrate sheet (Fig. 8), where the laminated sheets are feed to a vacuum device 403 (forming the laminated sheet). Here, the flexible glass sheets and substrate sheet are provided simultaneously (feed rates the same). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the simultaneous feed rate of the substrate sheet and the flexible glass sheets of Jouanno for the molten glass substrate sheet and the flexible glass sheets for the caster apparatus of Dannoux, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of avoiding excess tension or introducing slack in the ribbon, as noted by Evidentiary Reference Chang where regarding lamination processes for thin glass sheets, the draw speed and the speed of laminating (analogous to Dannoux glass feed rate and flexible glass feed rate in the caster) should be precisely controlled such that the speeds are approximately equal to avoid introducing excess tension in the glass and/or introducing slack in the glass ribbon ( Col 1 lines 40-44).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in further view of
Jouanno and in further view of Evidentiary Reference USPGPUB 20190169059A1 by Fredholm (herein
“Fredholm”).
Regarding Claim 11 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Dannoux teaches wherein,
the melting apparatus is configured to deliver the molten glass to the inlet; [0038],[0039]. Fig. 1,
“…the glass 30 as it leaves the melting apparatus 10 and flows into the caster 20…”, “…melting
apparatus 10 can include a melter with an orifice that distributes the melted glass 30 as it leaves
the melting apparatus 10…”.
While Dannoux disclose liquidus viscosity and many types of glass compositions ([0040], [0041],
Dannoux does not disclose,
at a viscosity that is less than a liquidus viscosity of the molten glass;
Evidentiary Reference Fredholm, for a process of melting glass and delivering molten glass to a
forming process ([0004], Fig. 1) discloses the glass compositions have low liquidus viscosity (liquidus
viscosity = the viscosity of a particular glass at the liquidus temperature) and that the viscosity of
the molten glass delivered out of the molten glass delivery device may be less than the liquidus
viscosity of the molten glass 140. Tt would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention deploy a viscosity less than the liquid
viscosity of the molten glass as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing
crystallization of the glass, as noted by Fredholm ([0028], lines 8-12).
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in further view of
Jouanno and in further view of U.S. Patent 6,367,538 by Ghosh et. al. (herein “Ghosh”)
Regarding Claims 12 and 13 (dependent on Claim 12) - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim
1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination discloses a caster and feed system, the combination does not disclose wherein
the feed system comprises,
a plurality of casting structures positioned in a fixed arrangement relative to one another; Claim
12; the instant claim is considered a recitation of intended use, See Claim Interpretation. The
casting structures could be any high temperature resistant material of any shape that fits into
the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or silicon nitride threads.
a chassis configured to be fed through the casting passage; Claim 13
the plurality of casting structures configured to be connected to the chassis to position the
casting structures in the fixed arrangement; Claim 13
In an analogous endeavor of casting liquid metal objects that undergo unidirectional solidification from
the bottom to the top of the object (Col 1 lines 15-25) , Ghosh discloses a chassis structure that is
configured to move up and down (Abstract) that consists of an outer frame (called a mold basket) and
an inner stepped-varying diameter structure 12 (called a mold) (Col 3 lines 14-16, Fig. 1), what one could
call a chassis, where the varying diameter structure could support/connect different objects
sequentially from top to bottom. The structure provides lateral stability to the inner stepped-varying
diameter structure 12 (Col 5 lines 24-26). The structure is comprised of highly refractive materials (Col 5
lines 57-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a chassis-like structure of Ghosh which has the
ability to place structure in a specific location, in the apparatus of
the combination, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of providing stability to the structure,
and in turn, the cast material, as noted by Ghosh above (Col 5 lines 24-26). Further, the Examiner
wishes to point out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See (MPEP 2145(III)).
the plurality of casting structures configured to be connected to the chassis to position the
casting structures in the fixed arrangement; the limitation is considered a recitation of intended
use, See Claim Interpretation. The casting structures could be any high temperature resistant
material of any shape that fits into the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or
silicon nitride threads.
Regarding Claim 14 - Dannoux and Jouanno in the rejection of claim 12 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 12.
Dannoux teaches wherein the plurality of casting structures comprises,
a first plurality of casting structures; the limitation is considered a recitation of intended use, See
Claim Interpretation. The casting structures could be any high temperature resistant material of
any shape that fits into the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or silicon
nitride threads.
and a second plurality of casting structures; the limitation is considered a recitation of intended
use, See Claim Interpretation. The casting structures could be any high temperature resistant
material of any shape that fits into the caster, such as an alumina ball, silicon carbide whisker, or
silicon nitride threads.
the feeding system configured to feed the first and second pluralities of casting structures
sequentially one plurality at a time through the casting passage; this was taught by Ghosh in
Claim 13, where diameter structure 12 (Col 3 lines 14-16, Fig. 1) has a varying diameter
structure can support objects sequentially from top to bottom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Hoque (USPGPUB 20200078894A1) discloses a melting apparatus feeding molten glass into a caster with the ability to cool the molten glass, a temperature gradient from top to bottom in the caster and process viscosity values.
Dannoux et. al. (USPGPUB 20210130218, herein Dannoux218) discloses a melting apparatus feeding molten glass into a caster with the ability to cool the molten glass, a temperature gradient from top to bottom in the caster and process viscosity values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights