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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error, the first occurrence of “the transmission channel” in line 8 should be “a transmission channel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 positively recites a conduit structure and at least one of a first cooling system or a second cooling system. In the wherein statement in lines 4-5, the claim recites “the conduit structure axially penetrates through a throat in a throat brick structure”, this phrase is interpreted as intended use and therefore, a throat, throat brick, and positioning of a first cooling system or a second cooling system relative to the throat and throat brick are interpreted as not required in claim 1.
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 (BRI) 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.
In claims 1-3 and 7-18, the Examiner is applying BRI to the first cooling system and the second cooling system.
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 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 2-3 of the claim, Applicant claims “a first cooling system or a second cooling system”, but in lines 10-12 claims the first cooling system is disposed on an inner wall of the throat and is not in direct contact with the conduit structure; and the second cooling system is arranged inside the throat brick”. It is unclear to the Examiner with the term “and” whether a first cooling system and a second cooling system or required. The Examiner interprets, in line 11, the term “and” should be “or” and only one cooling system is required. Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-20 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite. With the interpretation of only one cooling system required, the Examiner interprets
Claim 4 claims structure directed towards the first cooling system. The Examiner interprets Claim 4 requires only the first cooling system, and interprets Claim 5 requires only the second cooling system.
Additionally, in the preamble of claim 1, Applicant claims intended use of conveying furnace-molten glass to a rear end, it is unclear to the Examiner what “rear end” Applicant is referencing.
Regarding claim 2, as stated in the claim interpretation section above, the limitation of “the conduit structure axially penetrates through a throat in a throat brick” is interpreted as intended use. However, claim 2 claims limitations directed towards the intended use of the apparatus. It is unclear to the Examiner, since the limitations are tied to the intended use of the apparatus (i.e. throat brick), if the structure claimed, such as a dual-core temperature measurement grid and a central control unit is required, since the throat brick was not required in claim 1. Please clarify claim 2. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is also indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant claims positioning of the cooling coil or a multi-layer cold air pipe relative to the throat brick, which is not positively recited in claim 1 and has been interpreted as limitations directed towards intended use of the apparatus. It is unclear to the Examiner if the positioning of the cooling coil or multi-layer cold air pipe in the throat brick is required.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims positioning of the cooling plate or a cooling pipe relative to the throat brick, which is not positively recited in claim 1 and has been interpreted as limitations directed towards intended use of the apparatus. It is unclear to the Examiner if the positioning of the cooling plate or a cooling pipe in the throat brick is required.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims an axial length H of the conduit relative to an axial length of the throat, and claims positioning of a fluid inlet end of the conduit relative to the throat. Since it has been interpreted by the Examiner that the throat is an intended use limitation and not required in claim 1, the claim lacks clarity. Please clarify claim 9. Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 and is also indefinite for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner interprets lines 1-3 as the preamble, and lines 4-11 as the body of the claim. Applicant claims in the preamble, using the device of conveying furnace-molten glass to a rear end of claim 1. Since the device of claim 1 is recited in the preamble and not positively recited in the body of the claim with the active steps, it is unclear to the Examiner if the device of claim 1 is required in the method claim. Additionally, in the preamble of claim 18, Applicant claims a method for conveying furnace-molten glass to a rear end, it is unclear to the Examiner what rear end Applicant is referencing. Please clarify if “a rear end” references a rear end of a furnace, and if a furnace is required in the method. Claims 19-20 depend from claim 18 and are also indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN111056731A – hereinafter Yin) in view of Singer et al. (US 7,007,532 – hereinafter Singer) or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN111056731A – hereinafter Yin) in view of Singer et al. (US 7,007,532 – hereinafter Singer) and Shimaura et al. (WO2007/020773).
For the Yin reference the Examiner is referencing pages of the English translation provided by the Applicant
Regarding claim 1, Yin (Figs. 1-3 and pg. 6) discloses a device for conveying molten glass comprising: a conduit structure (“throat body 20”) and a cooling system (“cooling assembly 30”)(corresponding to a first cooling system or a second cooling system). Yin (Figs. 1-3) discloses the conduit structure axially penetrates through a throat (corresponding to opening in a rear wall brick 200 of a furnace) in a throat brick (“throat brick body 10”) to form a transmission channel for a glass fluid from a furnace. Yin (pg. 6) discloses the conduit structure (i.e. throat body 20) is preferably platinum.
Yin fails to disclose the conduit has a bellows shape including at least one of a first bellow or a second bellows structure. However, Singer ([0003]-[0006]) teaches metal sheet-type constructions for forming thin-walled tubular system for transportation of molten glass and teaches these thin-walled sheet metal structures forming the tubular system for molten glass transportation have low dimensional rigidity, and to compensate for the rigidity, the material thickness is increased or stiffening measures, such as forming bends, edges, corrugations or folds. Singer (Fig. 2 and [0021]-[0023]) teaches details of the corrugation contours (corresponding to the bellows shape including at least one of a first bellows or a second bellows structure). Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Singer, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the conduit of Yin could have improved rigidity by substituting the platinum conduit structure of Yin with a platinum conduit structure having corrugation contours which correspond to a bellows shape having at least one of a first bellows or second bellows structure, as claimed.
As stated in the claim interpretation section above, a throat in a throat brick is not positively recited in the body of the claim, and is interpreted as intended use of the conduit. Therefore, a throat, throat brick, and positioning of a first cooling system or a second cooling system are interpreted as not required in claim 1. Additionally, It would be obvious to a person having ordinary kill in the art, the cooling system as either a first cooling system or a second cooling system that is capable of being disposed on an inner wall of the throat and is not in direct contact with the conduit structure or the second cooling system could be arranged inside the throat brick.
Alternatively, if the Examiner gives additional weight to a throat in a throat brick and positioning of the cooling system of Yin. Yin fails to disclose a first cooling system disposed on an inner wall of the throat and is not in direct contact with the conduit structure or a second cooling system is arranged inside the throat brick. However, Shimaura (Fig. 2 and [0037]-[0039] and [0056]) teaches a cooling pipe 24 disposed within the refractory brick 15a and a barrier layer 20 to cool annular body 20a formed of a metal material, such as platinum or platinum-rhodium alloy. Both Yin and Shimaura teach cooling a platinum body (i.e. conduit) for transferring molten glass and cooling systems around the conduit. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings of Shimaura of a cooling pipe disposed within refractory brick 15a and a barrier layer, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the cooling system of Yin, as a first cooling system disposed on an inner wall of refractory brick, such as the throat brick of Yin, and a barrier layer, such that the cooling system is disposed on the inner wall of the throat and is not in direct contact with the conduit structure, or as a second cooling system arranged inside the throat brick.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Yin (Figures) discloses the conduit structure (i.e. throat body 20) is greater than an axial length of the throat (corresponding to length of wall brick 200 having opening with conduit (i.e. throat body 20)), and a fluid inlet end of the conduit structure protrudes from one end of the throat corresponding to the conduit structure. Accordingly, the modified device of Yin provides for the limitations claimed in claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified apparatus of Yin provides for a conduit structure that axially penetrates through a throat, that corresponds to opening in a rear wall brick 200 of a furnace. Yin discloses glass liquid (i.e. molten glass) introduced into the conduit (“throat body 20”) and discloses a glass liquid outlet 500. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Yin in claim 1 used for conveying molten glass to a rear end of a furnace. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified apparatus of Yin provides for disposing the first cooling system on the inner wall of the throat without contact the conduit structure, and/or disposing the second cooling system inside the throat brick, and therefore, the method of Yin with the modified apparatus of Yin comprises the claimed step of disposing and axially penetrating the conduit structure through the throat in the throat brick to form a transmission channel for the glass fluid (i.e. molten glass), the transmission channel configured to convey the glass fluid. Additionally, as discussed in claim 1 above, Yin (Figures and pg. 6) discloses a cooling system (“cooling assembly 30”). Yin (pg. 9) discloses the cooling system includes a water-cooling sleeve 32, the liquid medium is selected from water, and the cooling effect can be adjusted according to the water flow. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Yin with the modified apparatus of yin comprising introducing a cooling medium (i.e. water) into at least one of the first cooling system or the second cooling system to form a cooling flow path. Accordingly, it would be obvious to apply the modified apparatus of Yin in claim 1 to a method for conveying furnace-molten glass with the claimed steps of disposing, axially penetrating, and introducing, as claimed in claim 18.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN111056731A – hereinafter Yin) in view of Singer et al. (US 7,007,532 – hereinafter Singer) or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN111056731A – hereinafter Yin) in view of Singer et al. (US 7,007,532 – hereinafter Singer) and Shimaura et al. (WO2007/020773) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of DeAngelis et al. (US 2024/0300841 – hereinafter DeAngelis).
Regarding claim 15, Yin fails to disclose an end surface of a fluid outlet end of the conduit structure is provided with an external connection surface, and the external connection surface is configured to be connected to other conduits. However, DeAngelis (Figs. 3 and 4, [0080]-[0083], and claims) teaches an exit tube, which is similar to the conduit structure of Yin, at an exit end of a melting furnace to connect the melting vessel to a fining vessel 34. DeAngelis teaches the distal end of the exit tube is fitted with sealing flange 114 and glass seal 74 (corresponding to an external connection surface) configured to be connected to a conduit with a flange 80a (corresponding to an external connection surface). Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by DeAngelis, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, an end surface of a fluid outlet end of the conduit structure of Yin provided with an external connection surface, and the external connection surface configured to be connected to a conduit to provide for molten glass in a subsequent apparatus/step, such as a fining vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter – Examiner Comments - Claims
There are no prior art rejections for claims 2-5 and 7-8, but allowability is unable to be determined due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues for claims 2-3 and for claim 1, from which claims 4-5 and 7-8 depend.
For claims 2-3, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the apparatus of claim 1 comprising a throat and throat brick combined with the throat brick includes a dual-core temperature measurement grid and the claimed central control unit. Claim 3 depends from claim 2.
For claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Yin (pg. 6) further discloses the number of cooling modules as plural and may be uniformly distributed along the axial direction of the throat body. Also discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified apparatus of Yin provides for the first cooling system disposed in the throat brick. Yin (Figures and pgs. 7 and 9) also discloses the cooling assembly including water and air cooling jackets in a ring shape, but fails to disclose the first cooling system as a cooling coil or multi-layer cold air pipe and forms a flow path on two sides of an outer wall of the conduit structure.
For claim 5, Yin (Figures and pgs. 7 and 9) illustrates water and air cooling jackets in a ring shape, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified apparatus of Yin provides for the first cooling system disposed in the throat brick. The prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the cooling plate or cooling pipe is embedded as a removeable component of the throat brick and forms a flow bath in the throat brick on two sides of an outer wall of the conduit structure.
For claims 7-8, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a first bellows structure with each first trough width C1 and an outer diameter of the at least one conduit satisfy the claimed relationships in claim 7 or a second bellow structures with each second trough width C2 and an outer diameter of the at least one metal conduit satisfy the claimed relationships in claim 8.
For claims 10-14 and 16, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the apparatus of claim 9 comprising a throat and throat brick combined with wherein a length of a protruding portion of the conduit structure protruding from the throat, the axial length H of the conduit structure and an outer diameter D of the at least one conduit satisfy the claimed relationship, as claimed in claim 10. Claims 11-14 and 16 share dependency with claim 10.
There are no prior art rejections for method claims 19 and 20. However, claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for clarity issues in claim 18.
For claim 19, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 18 including the device for conveying furnace-molten glass claim 1, further comprising obtaining a real-time temperature distribution of the throat brick combined with determining a cooling medium flow rate through a flow rate determination model based on a target temperature interval, the real-time temperature distribution, and a temperature adjustment duration; wherein the flow rate determination model is a machine learning model; and adjusting a cooling medium flow rate output by a cooling pump motor controlling a frequency converter based on the cooling medium flow rate through the flow rate determination model.
For claim 20, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 19 further comprising obtaining a theoretical resistance value and an actual resistance value of a sensor core in a protective baffle; determining whether a warning needs to be triggered based on the theoretical resistance value and the actual resistance value; and in response to determining that the warning needs to be triggered, issuing a warning prompt, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (CN116143382A) (Figures and claims) discloses a non-contact infrared temperature measuring instrument for monitoring an upper discharge pipe and lower discharge pipe and controlling temperature, but fails to disclose a dual-core temperature measurement grid, controlling a cooling system and a central control unit.
Williams (US 2,754,346) (Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 45-53) teaches a cooling coil around a conduit, but fails discloses being disposed in a brick and forming a flow path on two sides of an outer wall of the conduit structure.
Xu (CN113880401A) (pg. 5) teaches a cooling device 5 comprises a cooling controller 51 that uses PID control operation to control a cooling actuator according to a program.
Yu (CN115893813A) (Figures and pg. 3) teaches a throat device within a holding brick 02 comprising a cooling water pipe, but fails to disclose it forms a flow path on two sides of an outer wall of the conduit structure.
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
