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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US Pub. 2019/0295734) (cited by Applicant) in view of Woskov et al. (US Pub. 2011/0155720) (new cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Cohn et al. discloses an electromagnetic heating for vitrification having a method for melting down glass, comprising: forming a glass melt (139) using microwave radiation (125) as at least part of an energy supply (via electromagnetic source 120), wherein the forming step comprises: irradiating the microwave radiation (125) at a transmission between a batch (cold cap 134) and a primary melt (139); and coupling the microwave radiation (125) into an upper region directly below batch (134) covering so that more than 90% of energy from the microwave is absorbed within a layer and a temperature of the glass melt is increased (Fig. 1; Par. 21-24, 27-28 and 32-33). Cohn et al. does not disclose the step of continuously forming the glass melt using microwave radiation; and the layer having a thickness of 4 mm. Woskov et al. discloses the step of continuously forming the glass melt using microwave radiation (via gyrotron 18) (Fig. 1; Par. 8, 6 and 18 18; claim 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize/modify in Cohn, et al., the step of continuously forming the glass melt using microwave radiation, as taught by Woskov et al., for the purpose of suitable to the user application to operate the furnace/melter in a batch or continuous mode, for instance, producing continuous glass melt. With respect to “the layer having a thickness of 4 mm”, Cohn et al. discloses the layer having a thickness can be from 1 cm to 15 cm (Par. 27 and 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layer having a thickness of 4 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that the layer having a thickness of 4 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the layer having a thickness more than 4 mm because the microwave radiation is absorbed within a layer having a thickness of more than 4 mm and make a temperature of the melt increased more.
Regarding claim 2, Cohn et al. discloses the step of supplying a batch charge to the glass melt (139) to form a coherent batch covering (cold cap 134) lying on the glass melt (139) (Fig. 1; Par. 23 and 33).
Regarding claim 3, Cohn et al. discloses the batch covering (cold cap 134) covers the glass melt (139) superficially such that a surface of the glass melt (139) is covered completely in a region where the microwave radiation (125) is radiated (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Cohn et al. discloses the batch covering (cold cap 134) has a part that covers the glass melt (139) and extends on a surface of the glass melt (139) beyond a region where the microwave radiation (125) is radiated (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Cohn et al. discloses the step of irradiating the microwave radiation (125) comprises irradiating from a direction of a top furnace (110) by microwave-emitting source (120) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Cohn et al. discloses the microwave radiation (125) comprises at least 10% of energy/all of the energy supplied to transform the batch into the glass melt (139) (Fig. 1; Par. 26).
Regarding claim 8, Cohn et al. discloses heating the glass melt (139) with an ohmic electrical heating (via electrode 160) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Cohn et al. discloses the step of heating the glass melt with the ohmic electrical heating (electrodes 160) comprises using electrical energy that has an at least neutral CO2 balance (Fig. 1). (Note: Cohn et al. discloses the used of ohmic electrical heating 160 and does not mention or discloses the CO2, therefore, it has an at least neutral CO2 balance).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Cohn et al. discloses the step of irradiating the microwave radiation (125) comprises coupling in the microwave radiation (125) in a region of a melting tank in which no top furnace firing by burners is performed (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Cohn et al. discloses the step of irradiating the microwave radiation comprises generating the microwave radiation by device selected from a group consisting of a magnetron, a semiconductor-based generator of microwave radiation, and combinations thereof (an electromagnetic radiation source 120; Fig. 1; Par. 26).
Regarding claims 12-13, Cohn et al. discloses the step of irradiating the microwave radiation comprises generating the microwave radiation with a frequency of higher than 500 MHz and lower than 6 GHz; and wherein the frequency is lower than or equal to 915 MHz (Par. 26).
Regarding claim 16, Cohn et al. discloses the microwave-emitting source (120) is disposed at a top furnace of the melting assembly (100) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Cohn et al. discloses an ohmic electrical heater (electrodes 160) positioned and configured to heat the glass melt (139) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Cohn et al. discloses the microwave-emitting source (120) is selected from a group consisting of a magnetron, a semiconductor-based generator of microwave radiation, a microwave generator generating the microwave radiation with a frequency of higher than 500 MHz and lower than 6 GHz, a microwave generator generating the microwave radiation with a frequency of higher than 500 MHz and lower than 3 GHz, a microwave generator generating the microwave radiation with a frequency of higher than 500 MHz and lower than 2.45 GHz, and a microwave generator generating the microwave radiation with a frequency of higher than 500 MHz and lower than or equal to 915 MHz (Fig. 1; Par. 26).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US Pub. 2019/0295734) in view of Woskov et al. (US Pub. 2011/0155720) and further view of Leister et al. US Pub. 2011/0034316) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Cohn/Woskov disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the step of generating a throughput of molten glass (149) (via outlet 170) (Fig. 1) except the step of generating a throughput of the molten glass is more than 0.5 t/d. Leister et al. discloses the step of generating a throughput of the molten glass is more than 0.5 t/d (Par. 91). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Cohn/Woskov, generating a throughput of the molten glass is more than 0.5 t/d, as taught by Leister et al., for the purpose of suitable to the user application to have the throughput that is typical to the dimension of the tank.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US Pub. 2019/0295734) in view of Woskov et al. (US Pub. 2011/0155720) and further view of An et al. US Pub. 2019/0152824) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 21-22, Cohn/Woskov disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except a refining unit that receives the molten bath from the melting assembly. An et al. discloses a refining unit (127) that receives the molten batch from the melting assembly (105) Fig. 1; Par. 47-48). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Cohn//Woskov, a refining unit that receives the molten bath from the melting assembly, as taught by An et al., for the purpose of processing the glass melt
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/7/2025
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761