DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10-15 are indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claims 10 and 13 recite the limitation "the determination method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 14 recite local smaller/larger batch thicknesses are established. It is unclear how this further limit the method, as a topographical map naturally provides for this data.
Claims 12 and 15 recite an optimal batch blanket topography. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “optimal” are. It is unclear how one skilled in the art is to ascertain what an optimal batch blanket topography involves. It is unclear how the an optical blanket topography can be determined by the method.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlesworth (GB 2 244 137) in view of Canfield et al. (4,194,077). Charlesworth discloses a method for capturing and evaluating data on a batch blanket on a glass melt in a cold-top melting tank for the melting of glass (1st paragraph on p.3). Charlesworth teaches a traditional method comprises providing at least one sensor for capturing data on the batch blanket, repeatedly capturing and storing data of the batch blanket during operation of the melting tank with the at least one sensor, assigning the data to a position of the sensor (note the 9 positions in fig. 6), and processing the captured data (pages 9-10, figures 6-8). Charlesworth further teaches capturing data at 9 different positions (fig. 6). Although more positions are not exemplified, absent any criticality to the number of positions, it would have been obvious to one of or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have captured data at more than 9 positions, such as 10 or more, to provide a more accurate picture of the distribution of the batch blanket on the molten glass. Furthermore, it would appear Charlesworth teaches compiling the data to provide a three-dimensional view of the depth of batch blanket at various positions in the melting tank, which is essentially a topographic map of the batch blanket (see figures 6-8 and tables on pages 9-10).
Charlesworth teaches providing the sensor at the end of a boom, but not a boom of a charger at which batch is applied to the glass melt. Charlesworth also fails to specify a contactless sensor. Canfield similarly teaches a method for capturing and evaluating data on a batch blanket on a glass melt in a cold-top melting tank comprising providing at least one sensor for contactless capture of the data on the batch blanket at least at an end of a boom of a charger at which batch is applied to the glass melt (col. 1 lines 5-15, 37-43, fig. 1), and repeatedly capturing data of the batch blanket during operating of the melting tank with the sensor (col. 1 lines 40-49). Canfield further teaches providing the contactless sensor at the end of a charger at which batch is applied to the glass melt allows for measuring the data at the spot where batch material is supplied and provide real time feedback for adjusting the charger or furnace (col. 1, lines 44-53) to maintain a constant batch thickness (col. 1 lines 54-56). Charlesworth teaches the traditional method for reading batch thickness requires an operator to approach the batch and manipulate a boom with a sensor at the end thereof (fig. 7), and emphasizes a method that permits continuous monitoring of the batch thickness without requiring an operator to approach the area above the batch is necessary (bottom paragraph on p. 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternative provided the sensor at the end of a boom of a charger, wherein the sensor provides contactless capturing of data on the batch blanket, in the method of Charlesworth, as it would provide for continuous monitoring of the batch, provide real time feedback to the controller, and provide contactless measurement, as taught by Canfield.
Regarding claim 2, Canfield further teaches the sensor can be used for capturing point data, wherein the sensor is an ultrasound sensor (col. 3 lines 17-30).
Regarding claim 5, Canfield teaches the data are captured during a batch charging procedure (col. 2 lines 22-30, col. 3 lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 6, Canfield further teaches capturing and processing data on a glass level (col. 2 lines 53-61, col. 3 lines 15-16). Canfield teaches monitoring this data to ensure a constant level of molten glass is supplied to forming devices for forming glass fibers (col. 2 lines43-49). Charlesworth also teaches maintaining a constant level of molten glass for suppling to forming devices for forming glass fibers (top paragraph on page 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to have provided for the additional measurement of glass level in the process of Charlesworth, so as to ensure a constant glass level for the manufacturing of glass fibers.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Canfield further teaches controlling batch charging to produce glass from the data (abstract), wherein the data would naturally provide for locally smaller or larger batch thickness information (col. 1 lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 12, Charlesworth and Canfield teach establishing an optimal batch blanket topography, i.e. constant thickness (abstract, col. 1 lines 22-24, respectively).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlesworth (GB 2 244 137) in view of Canfield et al. (4,194,077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bousquet et al. (WO 2024/217987). Regarding claim 3, like Charlesworth and Canfield, Bousquet teaches a method for capturing and evaluating data on a batch blanket on a glass melt in a cold-top melting tank for the melting of glass. Bousquet teaches a need for providing for sensors that can capture data for a wide areas of the batch blanket to account for heterogeneities within the batch ([0017]-[0018]). Bousquet suggests using an infrared camera ([0090]) as a sensor for capturing area data for a temperature map and processing the data to provide a map of the thickness of the batch blanket, which is interpreted as a topographical map ([0040], [0088]-[0099]). Bousquet teaches the data would provide a more accurate picture of the spatial distribution of the thickness and heterogenous coverage of the batch blanket over time ([0018], [0023]), thereby effecting a more efficient use of power supplied to the melting tank ([0016]). 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 sensor for capturing an area of the batch blanket, such as an infrared camera in the method of Charlesworth and Canfield, as it would provide for a view of the heterogeneous coverage of the batch blanket and more efficiency energy consumption in the melting process.
Regarding claim 4, Canfield teaches the ultrasonic sensor provides for real time feedback on a batch thickness at the point where batch material is added so as to adjust the batch material being supplied to a part of the batch blanket (col. 1 lines 40-49, col. 4 lines 7-13). Bousquet teaches batch blankets sometimes suffers from hot spots or volcanos that forms holes in the batch blanket due to instability of the piled up batch materials or sliding movements of the batch materials over time ([0017]-[0019]). Bousquet teaches the infrared cameras provides for a view of the heterogenous coverage of the whole batch over time, thereby accounting for hot spots or volcanos that appears over time, and adjusting the power accordingly ([0077]). In essence, point data provided for by the ultrasonic sensor of Canfield can adjust batch material being supplied to a local spot instantly, and area data provided for by the infrared cameras of Bousquet can account for heterogeneities in the whole of the batch blanket that may appear over time. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed both a sensor for providing point data and a sensor for providing area data for compiling the topographic map of Charlesworth, as they would both collectively provide localized and wide area data and real time feedback to give a more comprehensive view of the batch blanket, allowing for localized adjustment of the supply of batch materials and overall power adjustment to the melting tank, as taught by Canfield and Bousquet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlesworth (GB 2 244 137) in view of Canfield et al. (4,194,077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher, Jr. et al., (2012/0216568). Canfield doesn’t specify cooling of the sensor. Fisher, Jr. teaches employing a sensor for monitoring the inside of a glass melting furnace ([0005]-[0006], [0012], [0017]). Fisher, Jr. also teaches a thermally controlled sensor jacket (housing) for the sensor to protect it from the high temperatures of the furnace, wherein the housing is water or air cooled ([0020], [0042]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly employed a cooled housing for the sensor of Canfield, so as to provide protection of the sensor from the high temperatures of melting furnaces.
Claims 8-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlesworth (GB 2 244 137) in view of Canfield et al. (4,194,077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cohn et al. (2019/02958734). Regarding claim 8, Charlesworth teaches heating using electrodes placed in the glass melt (fig. 4), but doesn’t mention microwave heating. Cohn teaches using microwave heating to enhance or accelerate the rate of processing batch materials into a glass melt in an electric furnace ([0003], [0004], [0018]-[0019]). Cohn further teaches microwave heating provides heating of the batch material without increasing the desired bulk average temperature of the glass melt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the addition of microwave heating to enhance or accelerate the incorporation of the batch materials into the glass melt in the process of Charlesworth, without raising the bulk average temperature of the glass melt, as taught by Cohn.
Regarding claim 9, Cohn teaches directing the microwave heater to a selected portion of the batch material ([0006], [0023]-[0024], [0033]-[0034]) for localized and direct heating of the selected portions. Although attachment of the microwave heater to the end of the boom of the charger is not specified, just as Canfield teaches providing the contactless sensor at the end of a charger at which batch is applied to the glass melt to provide point data at the localized spot of the batch blanket, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried mounting the microwave heater at the end of the boom of the charger at which batch is applied to the glass melt so as to provide localized heating to the selected portion of the batch.
Regarding claim 13, Cohn teaches controlling the microwave heater to produce glass ([0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Canfield further teaches controlling batch charging to produce glass from the data (abstract), wherein the data would naturally provide for locally smaller or larger batch thickness information (col. 1 lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 15, Charlesworth and Canfield teach establishing an optimal batch blanket topography, i.e. constant thickness (abstract, col. 1 lines 22-24, respectively).
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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
