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 .
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.
Claim 1 is directed to “a method for producing mineral material” comprising:
Step 1: supplying a main tank with a vitrifiable mixture of materials comprising
-recycling materials comprising
-organic matter
Step 2 melting the vitrifiable material
Step 3: introducing a solid oxidizing agent into the melt
The mineral material suitable for use as raw material in a glass melting method produced by said method has the composition in claim 1.
Claim 22 is indefinite because it recites the method of claim 1 and a step of fiberizing a melt of the mineral material of claim 1, but Claim 1 is directed to “a method for producing mineral material” thus claim 22 is a use of the mineral material produced by claim 1 not a step of producing the mineral material.
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) 1-15, 17, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (US 20070122332) and Nishimura (US 4252551) and Didier (US 20110266488).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 19, and 22, Jacques discloses a method for producing mineral material [0001], any glass may be suitable for use as raw material in a new batch for melting [0002],
Supplying a main tank (1) with a vitrifiable mixture of materials in the main tank (1) using submerged combustion burners (2) to obtain a melt (4)
Introducing a solid oxidizing agent of sulfate or coal below the melt [0023], [0062].
Jacques discloses using recycled materials in a mixture of batch vitrifiable materials [0002].
Jacques discloses every active step of the claimed method of producing material suitable to melt.
Jacques fails to clearly recite the precise composition of the recycled materials and thus it is unclear if they comprise organic matter.
In analogous art of Nishimura of glass melting and production it is made obvious that it is economical to utilize waste glass with other raw materials (Col 1; 10-14). Nishimura further indicates reuse of waste glass bottles and fiber is common and contain organic matter (Col 1; line 25-Col 2; line 56).
Jacques discloses a melting method suitable for making mineral fibers [0003]. It is known from at least Didier et al. that a glass mineral fiber (title, [0035]) (abstract, [0025]) with a composition overlapping that of present claim 1 is known [0030].
PNG
media_image1.png
274
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious .
Therefore it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use the melting method of Jacques to produce a material with a composition as taught by Didier.
Regarding claims 2-3, the chemical composition of the mineral material the vitrifiable mixture suggested by Didier yields a raw material of 0-15% iron oxide thus the vitrifiable mixture of materials overlapping less than 2% weight of total iron oxide or 2-10% weight iron oxide. A skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the amount of iron oxide in the vitrifiable mixture to obtain a desired amount of iron oxide in the mineral material suitable for use as raw material
Regarding claims 4 and 9, recycling materials are chosen from mineral wool waste [0001], Jacques and Nishimura suggest cullet [0002] and (Col 1; 10-14) respectively. Any recycled glass is considered waste glass.
Regarding claim 5, Jacques discloses solid oxidant is a sulfate (at least Jacques [0062] claims 1 and 3)
Regarding claims 6, Jacques discloses an auxiliary tank (7) with submerged burner. Jacques discloses introducing solid material such as sulfate below the surface of the glass melt [0062].
MPEP 2144.04 states In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the solid oxidant of sulfate or carbon downstream the main tank in the refining tank (7) with the expected result that they would interact with the melt as predicted [0011], [0062].
Regarding claim 7, Jacques discloses a submerged burner in the auxiliary tank thus an agitator, evidenced by [0009], [0028]
Regarding claims 8 and 10-11 and 13-14, as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above Didier discloses said mineral material has overlapping ranges and considered essentially free of carbon and may be used to make mineral wool. No carbon is depicted in the composition below:
PNG
media_image1.png
274
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the properties of a composition and the composition itself are not mutually exclusive. MPEP 2112.02 Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 17, Jacques discloses sodium sulfate [0020]-[0021], [0062].
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacques (US 20070122332) and Nishimura (US 4252551) and Didier (US 20110266488) as applied above and further in view of Jacques (US 20080256981) and referred to as Jacques ‘981 herein after
Regarding claims 16 and 18 Jacques disclose the adding an alkali or alkaline sulfate (abstract, [0003]-[0004], [0062].
In an analogous art of melting waste fibers through submerged combustion Jacques ‘981 discloses using the addition of oxidants of sodium nitrate or manganese oxide [0004]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the oxidizing agents taught by Jacques ‘981 in a submerged combustion melter instead of the sodium sulfate.
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted)
Claim(s) 1, 20-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210094861) and Nishimura (US 4252551)
Regarding claims 1, 20-21, Wang discloses a method for producing a mineral material considered suitable as a raw material in glass melting- any glass material product or batch is considered suitable as raw material for glass melting given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Wang discloses supplying a main tank (Fig 1-2) with a vitrifiable mixture of material (14) to yield a desired finished composition [0024]
Wang discloses the feed material (14) may include recycled glass material (cullet) up to 80%, thus overlapping with the claimed range of at least 50% [0026].
Wang discloses the vitrifiable feed comprising silica, sodium oxide, and calcium oxide in the correct proportions to provide the desired soda lime silica glass produced [0026] It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to include silica calcium oxide and or magnesium oxide in the feed material (14) along with the cullet to produce the desired soda lime silica glass such as the example in Wang table 1.
Wang discloses adding a solid oxidizing agent (26) of sodium sulfate, magnesium oxide, nitrates [0036]-[0037]. According to Table 1 Wang discloses a glass with a total carbon amount of less than 0.1.
Wang does not disclose the redox however indicates a skilled artisan will adjust the feed material (14) as motivated to achieve the desired redox value [0039] absent any unexpected results commensurate in scope with the precise claimed composition this is a known adjustable feature. Wang does not recite the composition of the cullet.
In analogous art of Nishimura of glass melting and production it is made obvious that it is economical to utilize waste glass with other raw materials (Col 1; 10-14). Nishimura further indicates reuse of waste glass bottles and fiber is common and contain organic matter (Col 1; line 25-Col 2; line 56).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210094861) and Nishimura (US 4252551) as applied above and further in view of Ellison (US 20180290920)
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses a method for producing a mineral material considered suitable as a raw material in glass melting- any glass material product or batch is considered suitable as raw material for glass melting given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Wang discloses supplying a main tank (Fig 1-2) with a vitrifiable mixture of material (14) to yield a desired finished composition [0024]
Wang discloses the feed material (14) may include recycled glass material (cullet) up to 80%, thus overlapping with the claimed range of at least 50% [0026].
Wang discloses the vitrifiable feed comprising silica, sodium oxide, and calcium oxide in the correct proportions to provide the desired soda lime silica glass produced [0026] It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to include silica calcium oxide and or magnesium oxide in the feed material (14) along with the cullet to produce the desired soda lime silica glass such as the soda lime silica known .
Wang discloses adding a solid oxidizing agent (26) of sodium sulfate, magnesium oxide, nitrates [0036]-[0037].
In analogous art of Nishimura of glass melting and production it is made obvious that it is economical to utilize waste glass with other raw materials (Col 1; 10-14). Nishimura further indicates reuse of waste glass bottles and fiber is common and contain organic matter (Col 1; line 25-Col 2; line 56).
In analogous art, Ellison discloses melting with oxidants to produce mineral fibers with little color [0025] using any known type of melting furnace [0027]-[0030], [0036] and a redox less than .6 [0019]-[0021].
Wang does not disclose the redox however indicates a skilled artisan will adjust the feed material (14) as motivated to achieve the desired redox value [0039] absent any unexpected results commensurate in scope with the precise claimed composition this is a known adjustable feature. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the raw material composition of Wang based on the cullet composition as motivated to produce the desired fiber composition of Ellison.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 1 is a method with SCM comprising recycling materials comprising organic matter to obtain a melt and introducing a solid oxidizing agent into the melt.
Applicant indicates that Jacques ‘332 method of adding a reducing agent relative to the oxygen consumed and thus Jacques ‘332 teaches operating a reducing environment (page 6 of Applicant’s remarks filed 06/12/2026).
In response to this argument, Examiner agrees that Jacques ‘332 teaches adding a reducing agent relative to a measurement of potential excess oxygen in the exhaust (abstract, [0010] of Jacques ‘332) however Jacques ‘332 does not disclose the melt being in a constant reducing environment, nor this being desirable. Jacques ‘332 is actually attempting to manage the environment to avoid excessive oxidizing or reducing environment and ensure all the fuel and oxygen is combusted. Jacques ‘332 [0062] indicates the burners (2) introducing solid sulfate materials, thus a solid oxidizing agent into the melt giving claim 1 the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Although not argued by Applicant: looking at Jacques ‘332 and the disclosure of using recycled materials and known glass for recycling having organic matter thereon, a skilled artisan would look at the organic matter similar to additional fuel and be motivated to further modify the amount of oxidizing agent or fuel to completely combust the both the fuel and oxidants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160207817 [0081]-[0082] solid oxidants in submerged combustion burner
US 20210094861 [0005], Claim 3 SCM with additive particles sulfate
US 20020162358 [0115] solid sulfate added to melt
US 2018
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
Prosecution Insights