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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112 previous rejections are withdrawn in view of the present amendments
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation of a raw material mixture of two or more oxides, and the claim also recites recitation of a raw material mixture of two or more oxides in different fractions which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger (DE 1771232) and Smith (US 2901366).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 18, Leger discloses a method for modifying glass (title)comprising:
Providing a regeneration material (pages 3-4 of the machine translation) where the regeneration material is provided in a salt bath of potassium nitrate for ion exchange strengthening (such as indicated in Example 3)
Leger discloses the regeneration material can be effective in a bath that is rich in those ions that the regeneration material is to be loaded and can be used to intercept ions migrating from the exchanged glass and regeneration of the ions to be delivered, or more easily catches and releases more easily than the glass being tempered in the salt bath (page 3).
Leger does disclose ion exchange of a soda lime glass in a potassium nitrate in Example 6, Leger does not disclose the precise composition of the regenerative material however indicates it can be finely divided glass, or frit, [0073].
A skilled artisan knows chemical tempering via ion exchange in a salt bath involves the exchange of a larger ion for a smaller ion in the glass, which is equivalent to the poisoning ion in the bath (see page 5) therefore it would be desirable to have a regeneration material with potassium oxide.
In an analogous art of alkali silica glass Smith discloses a glass pulverate comprising 50-63 wt. % silica (Col 3; line 41), and 2-12 wt % alumina (Col 3; line43-45), 0-8% CaO, and other alkali oxides formed by melting and pulverizing batch ingredients to yield the desired composition (Col 2; line 35-Col 3; line 10) 20-26 potassium oxide and sodium oxide (Col 3; lines 60-70) potentially calcium oxide (Col 4; lines 5-30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the composition of the glass regeneration material of Leger with a composition to control the released ions from the ion exchange between the bath and regeneration material and particularly optimization of the alkalis in an alkali containing silicate glass to optimize the desired concentration of the salt bath over time is obvious to a skilled artisan and a skilled artisan would be motivated to use a known glass composition taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 5, the potassium is an ion being regenerated in the melt thus it would clearly be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of potassium in the regeneration material as motivated to properly replace poisoning ion concentration in the salt bath.
Regarding claim 10, contacting the regenerating material with the salt bath as taught by Leger is continuously or time spaced given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 11 and 13, finely divided glass is considered a form of granules or frit is contacted with the salt melt (2).
Regarding claim 7, Leger discloses an overlapping amount of CaO, alternatively it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the amount of calcium oxide in the raw mixture to obtain the composition of potassium silicate glass taught by Leger
Regarding claim 10, Leger discloses putting the finely divided glass in the molten salt, given the broadest reasonable interpretation putting any pieces of glass in the molten salt that regenerates the salt is considered progressively or at time-spaced intervals because no amount of time has been claimed nor has removal of the regeneration material nor has what constitutes as progressively in contact.
Regarding claim 22, Leger discloses the regeneration material in a melt where stirring or agitation aids in prevention of the regenerate from sinking to the bottom
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger (DE 1771232) and Smith as applied above and further in view of Dafin (US 20200172434)
Regarding claims 12-21, Leger discloses finely divided glass as a regeneration material in a molten salt for strengthening glass as discussed above.
Leger discloses “finely divided glass” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use finely divided plate glass, glass fibers, any fragments of the desired composition formed from known glass techniques of drawing fibers, rolling plate glass and crushed of a suitable size of “finely divided glass” taught by Leger with high expectation of the divided pieces still regenerating the bath.
Dafin discloses a known method and system of regenerating a salt bath for strengthening glass using a container with opening equivalent to a basket, cage, sieve (Dafin Fig 2, of stainless steel [0042])
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger (DE 1771232) and Smith as applied above and further in view of Christian (FR 7931695)
Regarding claims 23-24, It is known to continuously pump out used molten salt and purify it and flow it back into the original bath to increase production efficiency. A regenerator as taught by Leger would be obvious to help purify the contaminated salt before adding it back into the bath to increase usable salt recovered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Leger discusses the regeneration material is a potassium enriched clay (remarks page 10). Leger discloses a finely divided glass
In response to this arguments, ion exchange strengthening is known to yield compressive stresses in glass, glass ceramic, in different crystalline or visco-elastic states, this does not make the claimed method novel. Applicant argues that Leger states clay as a regeneration material however provides no citation and Examiner cannot find the word “clay” in Leger Example 6 clay is suggested as one type of regeneration material in [0026] however this is one of many examples including glass silicates.
Furthermore the title of Leger indicates modifying glass. The overall claimed method is ion-exchange of a glass in a salt bath and a regeneration material which prolongs the use of the same salt bath which is more economical Leger indicates glass may be a regeneration material that replaces the bath ions while absorbing the ion that migrate out of the strengthening glass, preferably faster than they diffuse into the melt [0023]. Leger suggests crystalline pieced regeneration material that may be vitreous at the treatment temperature [0023]-[0026]. The only difference between the claimed invention and Leger is the disclosure of the composition of the regeneration material which is not actually an active step of the method. Silicate glass compositions such as taught by Smith are known and the ions in the regeneration material will exchange with the salt bath at a rate depending on time and temperature and concentration, optimization of the alkalis in an alkali containing silicate glass to optimize the desired concentration of the salt bath over time is obvious to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741