DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara (JP 2013245141). Makihara teaches a method for producing glass articles, the method comprising positioning an optical fiber preform, which is considered a coated article within an enclosure, wherein the enclosure comprises a central plane extending through a top end of the enclosure and a bottom end of the enclosure and bisecting the enclosure along a width of the enclosure, an inlet (near 17) at the bottom end of the enclosure having an inlet width Winlet, an enclosure wall extending from the inlet to the top end of the enclosure, the enclosure wall comprising a chamber region (11) and a transition region (below 11) between the inlet and the chamber region, wherein a width of the chamber region, Wchamber, is substantially constant through the chamber region, the width of the enclosure in the transition region decreases from Wchamber to Winlet (figures 1-2 1st paragraph in description on page 2). Makihara further teaches an entry port (opening in lid 12) at the top end of the enclosure configured to receive a part carrier configured to move the glass article through the chamber region (figures 1-2). Makihara also teaches an outlet (18) between the entry port and the chamber region of the enclosure wall (figures 1-2, 2nd passage of description on page 2), wherein the central plane can be oriented to passes through the inlet and the entry port of the enclosure. As can been seen in figures 1-2, the outlet extends along an outlet axis that is oriented at a non-zero angle with respect to the central plane. Makihara further teaches a part carrier comprising a gripping member (“gripping mechanism” third passage on page 2) that is position through the entry port and the part carrier is configured to move a glass article through the chamber region of the enclosure (figures 1-2, “moved from above to below” in second passage of description on page 2). Makihara doesn’t specify the diameter of the inlet relative to the diameter of the chamber. However, it would appear from figures 1-2 the diameter of the inlet end (bottom of enclosure) is smaller than the width of the chamber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have envisioned a relative ratio of Winlet to Wchamber of 1:2 to 1:5, as Makihara appears to suggest such a relative diameter of the inlet to the chamber in the range of 1:2 to 1:5 in figures 1-2. Additionally, Makihara teaches the method further comprises supplying a flow of fluid to the enclosure through the inlet, removing a flow of fluid from the enclosure through the outlet (4th passage in description on page 2), and moving the coated article along a path through the enclosure, wherein the path is substantially parallel to the central plane (figures 1-2, “moved from above to below” in second passage of description on page 2).
Regarding claim 3, Makihara teaches rotating the coated article around an axis central to the article and substantially parallel to the central plane (4th paragraph on page 2).
Regarding claim 18, the outlet axis is normal with respect to the central plane (see figures 1-2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara (JP 2013245141) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kyoto et al. (4,655,808). As mentioned, Makihara teaches the coated article is an optical fiber preform and the enclosure is used for sintering the preform (last two lines on page 3), but doesn’t specify vapors evaporating from the preform. Kyoto teaches optical fiber preforms are porous soot preforms that generally contains an additive for adjusting refractive index, such as GeO2, and the additive volatizes from the preform at high temperature during sintering (col. 1 lines 41-48). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected vapors to evaporate from the preform of Makihara during sintering, as Kyoto teaches it is well known for an optical fiber preform to comprise of additives for adjusting refractive index, wherein the additives are thermally volatile. Naturally, any vapors evaporated would be extracted from the enclosure through the outlet, as Makihara teaches gas in the core tube is discharged through the outlet 18.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara (JP 2013245141) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deliso et al. (WO 00/39039). Makihara teaches a gas discharge unit 18 (3rd paragraph on page 2), but doesn’t specify apply a vacuum or a pressure within the enclosure. Deliso teaches an enclosure for sintering an optical fiber preform and teaches sintering in a vacuum atmosphere having a pressure that is less than an ambient air pressure, by applying a vacuum pump to an outlet of the enclosure. Deliso teaches applying a reduced pressure allows the preform to be sintered at lower temperatures (page 9). 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 vacuum and apply a vacuum atmosphere for the sintering process of Makihara, as it helps to reduce the temperature necessary for sintering, as taught by Deliso.
Claims 1, 3, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided). Ito teaches a method for transporting a coated article, such as a glass bottle, the method comprising positioning a coated article within an enclosure 6 (lines 22-24 on p. 2), wherein the enclosure comprises a central plane extending through a top end of the enclosure and a bottom end of the enclosure and bisecting the enclosure along a width of the enclosure, an inlet (near 9, lines11-14 on p. 4) at the bottom end of the enclosure having an inlet width Winlet, an enclosure wall (6) extending from the inlet to the top end of the enclosure, the enclosure wall comprising a chamber region (near 8) and a transition region (between 8 and 9) between the inlet and the chamber region, wherein a width of the chamber region, Wchamber, is substantially constant through the chamber region, the width of the enclosure in the transition region decreases from Wchamber to Winlet (figure 1, lines 17-18 on p. 3). Ito further teaches an entry port (below 2) at the top end of the enclosure configured to receive a part carrier configured to move the glass article through the chamber region (figure 1, lines 9-11, 14-17, 20-21 on p.3). Ito also teaches an outlet (16) between the entry port and the chamber region of the enclosure wall (figure 1, lines 17-18 on p. 3, lines 5-9 on p. 4), wherein the central plane can be oriented to passes through the inlet and the entry port of the enclosure. As can been seen in figure 1, the outlet extends along an outlet axis that is oriented at a non-zero angle with respect to the central plane. Ito further teaches a part carrier comprising a gripping member (3) that is position through the entry port and the part carrier is configured to move a glass article through the chamber region of the enclosure (figure 1, lines 10-11, 15-21 on p.3). Ito doesn’t specify the diameter of the inlet relative to the diameter of the chamber. However, it would appear from figure 1 the diameter of the inlet end (bottom of enclosure) is smaller than the width of the chamber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have envisioned a relative ratio of Winlet to Wchamber of 1:2 to 1:5, as Ito appears to suggest such a relative diameter of the inlet to the chamber in the range of 1:2 to 1:5 in figure 1. Additionally, Ito teaches the method further comprises supplying a flow of fluid to the enclosure through the inlet, removing a flow of fluid from the enclosure through the outlet (lines 23-24, 29 on p. 3, lines 5—on p. 4), and moving the coated article along a path through the enclosure, wherein the path is substantially parallel to the central plane (figure 1, lines 9-11, 14-17, 20-21 on p.3).
Regarding claim 3, Ito teaches rotating the coated article around an axis central to the article and substantially parallel to the central plane (see rotating arrow in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the enclosure appear to have a reflection symmetry with respect to the central plane, as can be seen in figure 1.
Regarding claim 18, the outlet axis (extending from 16 to 17) is normal with respect to the central plane, as can be seen in figure 1.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowes et al. (WO 93/11079). Regarding claims 2 and 11, Ito doesn’t disclose vapors from the coating. In a similar field of endeavor, Bowes teaches coating glass bottles with a polymer is common for increasing the strength of the glass bottle (p. 1 lines 3-14). The method of Bowes comprises applying a coating material comprising methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) volatile thinning solvent (p. 11 lines 19-26) and curing the coating with an inert atmosphere (col. 12 lines 20-25). Bowes teaches supplying nitrogen gas to provide the inert atmosphere to the curing zone (p. 12 lines 28-39). Bowes further teaches the inert gas can also entrain vapors evaporated from the coated article for extraction through an outlet (p. 4 lines 21-31, 36-38, p. 5 lines 6-10). Bowes also teaches entrained vapors are directed from an outlet, through a manifold and a vacuum source, and to a solvent recovery system that separates the vapors from the rest of the fluid that is removed from the outlet (p. 5 lines 36-39, p. 6 lines 1-6, p. 15 lines 4-24). Bowes this provides for a cost saving through the re-use of solvent and prevent solvent emissions. Accordingly, it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively adapted the process of Ito to provide a polymer coating for a glass bottle, the process further comprising a solvent recovery system, in order to provide for increase strength to the glass bottles and reduce cost and emissions, as taught by Bowes.
Claims 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Remington, Jr. et al. (2014/0001075). Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches method comprises coating a glass bottle, but fails to suggest a rotation rate of the glass bottle. Like Ito, Remington, Jr. teaches a method for coating a glass bottle, the method comprising spin coating a coating composition onto the surface of a glass bottle, wherein the bottle is rotated at speeds of 1000 rpm or 1200 rpm ([0048], [0063]). Remington, Jr. teaches well known coating techniques includes spraying and spin coating ([0032]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively provided for spin coating with a rotation rate of 1000rpm or 1200rpm in the method of Ito, as Remington, Jr. teaches it is a well-known alternative method for coating a glass bottle in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 13, Remington, Jr. also teaches various coatings can be provided to glass bottles to afford different attributes, such as strengthening, damage protection, and reduced light reflectivity ([0002]-[0003]). Remington, Jr. specifies anti-reflective properties can be provided for by applying a UV curable organofunctional silane as a coating on the glass bottle ([0005]). As such, Remington, Jr. teaches the further step of curing the coating after application on the glass bottle by exposing the coating to UV light ([0033]). Regarding claim 12, Remington, Jr. teaches the curing can occur while the glass is at a temperature of about 100°C ([0033]), which suggests an enclosure temperature of about 100°C. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively adapted the process of Ito to provide a UV curable organofunctional silane coating for a glass bottle, the process further comprising the step of curing the coating at a temperature of about 100°C, in order to provide for anti-reflective property to the glass bottle, as Remington, Jr. demonstrates a need for it.
Claims 5-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zϋrbig (4,529,627) with evidence provide for by Amano et al. (KR 19990030052). Ito teaches applying a protective coating on the glass bottle to prevent breakage (lines 26-28), but doesn’t offer specifics such as the atmosphere within the enclosure. In a similar field of endeavor, Zϋrbig also teaches providing a protective coating on a glass bottle to prevent damage (col. 1 lines 18-22). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Zϋrbig teaches such a protective coating includes titanium oxide (col. 1 lines 31-38), and applying such a coating in an enclosure having a pressure within that is less than ambient air pressure (col. 2 lines 15-23), wherein the flow of fluid within the enclosure is removed by applying a vacuum at an outlet (col. 2 lines 58-60). Regarding claims 7-8, Zϋrbig further teaches providing a flow of fluid through the enclosure, for coating the glass bottle, that is substantially laminar (col. 2 lines 39-42, 52-60), wherein the fluid supplied is at room temperature, which is considered to be in the range of 20-25°C (col. 1 lines 32-33), and is dry, which suggests a relative humidity of less than 60% (col. 2 lines 29-31). Zϋrbig teaches taking such measures provides for more uniform thickness coatings on the glass bottles (col. 1 lines 64-68), while eliminating condensation of the reaction gas (col. 2 lines 24-26) and allowing for the removal of excess reactant and reaction products (col. 2 lines 35-39). Accordingly, for these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a similar arrangement of a reduced pressure environment provided for by a vacuum, and that has laminar flow, at room temperature, and low humidity, in an enclosure as that of Zϋrbig, so as to provide a uniform coating of titanium oxide to glass bottle for protection, as taught by Zϋrbig.
Regarding claims 14-16, Ito shows in figure 1 an enclosure that is sized to closely fit with the size of the glass bottle being coated, wherein the enclosure significantly narrows down at the bottom toward the inlet, to provide the desire flow pattern around the glass bottle. Ito further teaches the bottles are beverage bottles for cola, which typically are about 65mm in diameter. This is made evident by Amano, who teaches an enclosure in a glass manufacturing line, the enclosure comprising an inlet and outlet for flowing a fluid within the chamber of the enclosure (page 1, figure 1), the enclosure having a general shape and size conforming to the glass article, and suggests a glass article with a diameter of 65mm (example 1 in Table 1 on page 6). However, Ito doesn’t specify any dimensions for the enclosure. Like Ito, Zϋrbig also teaches an enclosure having dimensions that closely fits with the bottle to be coated (fig. 2). Zϋrbig further teaches enclosure, including the inlets and outlets, should have dimensions as required for the volume rate of flow for the article treated and to provide for laminar flow of the coating material on all surfaces of the glass bottle within the enclosure (col. 2 lines 43-57, col. 3 lines 63-66). Zϋrbig also suggests openings can be provided with varying shapes and dimensions along a travel direction of the glass bottle (col. 4 lines 1-5). While, specifics such as a width of the enclosure that transitions from Winlet to Wchamber over a distance of from 200mm to 900mm, or a Winlet that is from 4mm to 45mm, or a Wchamber that is from 20mm to 90mm are not specified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention sized the enclosure to have a close fit to the glass bottles being coated, i.e. about 60mm and to optimized the dimensions of the transition region and Winlet in order provide for laminar flow of the coating materials, as they are recognized result effective variables for achieving laminar flow, as taught by Zϋrbig.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galanti (4,120,682). Ito teaches supplying the coating material via air flow (lines 28-29 on p. 3), but doesn’t specify filtering the air. In a similar field of endeavor, Galanti also teaches coating of a glass bottles wherein coating material is supplied to a chamber via air flow (col. 2 lines 12-20). Galanti further teaches the air used should be filtered so as to provide for purified air, which naturally would not contaminate the coating material (col. 4 lines 67-68, col. 5 lines 1-10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for filtered air in the coating process of Ito, so as to provide for purified air that won’t contaminate the coating processing. Although HEPA filters are not specified, it is obvious to use such filters as they are generally well known in the industry as efficient air filters.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bayne et al. (2016/0251260). Ito teaches method comprises coating a glass bottle, but doesn’t suggest supplying fluid at a temperature of greater than or equal to 300°C. Like Ito, Bayne teaches a method for coating a glass bottle, and suggests providing low friction coatings to glass bottles, as glass bottles are often subjected to glass to glass contact during handling, which makes it susceptible to damage ([0006], [0072]-[0073]). Bayne teaches the anti-friction coating comprises a coupling agent and a silane ([0074]), wherein the coating is cured at a temperature of at least 300°C in an oven to form the polymer layer comprising a polymide ([0111], [0139]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have alternatively adapted the process of Ito to provide an anti-friction coating for a glass bottle, the process further comprising the step of curing the coating at a temperature of at least 300°C, in order to prevent damage to the glass bottles during handling, as taught by Bayne. Naturally, in adapting this coating in the enclosure of Ito, the fluid supplied to the enclosure should be also at a temperature of at least 300°C.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 53059738 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zϋrbig (4,529,627) and Shiba et al. (JP 03-291382 machine translation provided). Ito teaches applying a protective coating on the glass bottle to prevent breakage (lines 26-28), but fails to teach an S-shaped curved enclosure wall in the transition region. In a similar field of endeavor, Zϋrbig also teaches providing a protective coating on a glass bottle to prevent damage (col. 1 lines 18-22). Zϋrbig teaches applying the protective coating in a reduced pressure enclosure (col. 2 lines 15-23), wherein the flow of fluid within the enclosure is removed by applying a vacuum at an outlet (col. 2 lines 58-60). Zϋrbig further teaches providing a flow of fluid through the enclosure, for coating the glass bottle, that is substantially laminar (col. 2 lines 39-42, 52-60). Zϋrbig teaches taking such measures provides for more uniform thickness coatings on the glass bottles (col. 1 lines 64-68) and allows for the removal of excess reactant and reaction products (col. 2 lines 35-39). Shiba also teaches coating a substrate by spraying. Shiba teaches providing the flow of fluid for coating from an inlet that transitions into a chamber, and suggests flowing the fluid in the form of a smooth laminar flow so as to enter the chamber without generating vortexes, thereby providing for a uniform coating on the substrate (abstract). As can be seen in figure 2, Shiba shows a wall comprising a S-shaped curve with an inflection point within the transition region to the chamber. Accordingly, for these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a similar arrangement of a S-shaped enclosure wall around the transition region of enclosure of Ito, so as to provide laminar flow of the coating fluid, thereby allowing for uniform coating of the glass bottle, as taught by Zϋrbig and Shiba.
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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights