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 Interpretation
Applicant indicates that sulfate can be SO4 or SO3. Examiner now has this as part of the prosecution.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama (EP1118597) referred to as Kitayama ‘597 herein after and as evidenced by Kitayama (EP 1281686) referred to as Kitayama ‘686.
Regarding claims 1, 3, Kitayama ‘597 discloses a batch material for producing a flint glass, equivalent to the claimed vitrifiable material capable of being melted in a submerged combustion melter to form an agitated melt and thus this limitation is merely intended use of the feed material comprising;
A base glass portion of silica sand, limestone, soda ash [0035] these are known contributors to silica, sodium oxide, and calcium oxide to one of ordinary skill in the art. This batch is melted, thus considered an agitated glass melt as the batch mixes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Kitayama ‘597 discloses manganese oxide .015 to .17 wt % in the batch [0035] thus overlapping the claimed range of manganese oxide in claim 1 of the presently claimed application.
Kitayama ‘597 fails to recite the precise ranges of SO3 of claim 1. Kitayama ‘597 states that where cullet is employed blending proportions of the batch may be modified in accordance with the amount of SO3 and manganese oxide in the cullet.
It is known to include flint cullet as motivated to recycle glass as evidenced by Kitayama ‘686 [0034] and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of SO3 in the vitrifiable feed mixture.
Regarding claim 2, Kitayama ‘597 discloses the batch has an aluminum oxide contributor in the raw materials, or base glass portion [0036].
Regarding claim 4, Kitayama ‘686 discloses flint glass to be used as cullet for the batch. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as much glass flint in the glass composition disclosed in [0051] as motivated to recycle glass and while obtaining a desired composition of the glass product.
Regarding claim 5, Kitayama ‘597 discloses salt cake, or sodium sulfate in the batch, thus the sulfate compound includes sodium sulfate.
Regarding claim 6-8, and 11, Kitayama ‘597 discloses a batch material for producing a flint glass, equivalent to the claimed vitrifiable material capable of being melted in a submerged combustion melter to form an agitated melt and thus this limitation is merely intended use of the feed material comprising;
A base glass portion of silica sand, limestone, soda ash salt cake, thus sulphate oxidizing agent [0035] these are known contributors to silica, sodium oxide, and calcium oxide to one of ordinary skill in the art. This batch is melted, thus considered an agitated glass melt as the batch mixes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Kitayama ‘597 discloses manganese oxide .015 to .17 wt % in the batch [0035] thus overlapping the claimed range of manganese oxide in claim 1 of the presently claimed application.
Kitayama ‘597 fails to recite the precise ranges of SO3 of claim 8. Kitayama ‘597 states that where cullet is employed blending proportions of the batch may be modified in accordance with the amount of SO3 and manganese oxide in the cullet.
Regarding claim 10, Kitayama ‘597 discloses the batch has an aluminum oxide contributor in the raw materials, or base glass portion [0036].
Regarding claim 12, Kitayama ‘686 discloses flint glass to be used as cullet for the batch. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as much glass flint in the glass composition disclosed in [0051] as motivated to recycle glass and while obtaining a desired composition of the glass product.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama (EP1118597) referred to as Kitayama ‘597 herein after and as evidenced by Kitayama (EP 1281686) referred to as Kitayama ‘686 and further in view of Lambricht (US20190119146).
Regarding claim 1, Kitayama ‘597 discloses a batch material for producing a flint glass, equivalent to the claimed vitrifiable material capable of being melted in a submerged combustion melter to form an agitated melt and thus this limitation is merely intended use of the feed material comprising;
A base glass portion of silica sand, limestone, soda ash [0035] these are known contributors to silica, sodium oxide, and calcium oxide to one of ordinary skill in the art. This batch is melted, thus considered an agitated glass melt as the batch mixes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Kitayama ‘579 fails to recite the amount of Se in the glass batch. Kitayama ‘579 desires a colorless glass.
In an analogous art of glass [0002], Lambricht discloses soda-lime-silica glass. Lambricht discloses optimizing the amount of Se in the glass based on iron content [0035] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the Se added to the batch of Kitayama ‘579 based on the amount of iron as motivated to obtain color stability [0035]
It is known to include flint cullet as motivated to recycle glass as evidenced by Kitayama ‘686 [0034]
Regarding claim 2, Kitayama ‘597 discloses the batch has an aluminum oxide contributor in the raw materials, or base glass portion [0036].
Regarding claim 5, Kitayama ‘597 discloses salt cake, or sodium sulfate in the batch, thus the sulfate compound includes sodium sulfate.
Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama (EP1118597) referred to as Kitayama ‘597 herein after and further in view of Lambricht (US20190119146) as applied above and as evidenced by Kitayama (EP 1281686) referred to as Kitayama ‘686
Regarding claims 3-4, Kitayama ‘686 discloses flint glass to be used as cullet for the batch. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as much glass flint in the glass composition disclosed in [0051] as motivated to recycle glass and while obtaining a desired composition of the glass product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant indicates that sulfate can be SO4 or SO3. Examiner now has this as part of the prosecution.
Applicant has amended the independent claims 1 and 6 to recite, quartz sand, soda ash, and limestone as a portion of the vitrifiable materials. This overcomes the previous rejections as recited which relied upon a glass product composition, also considered a vitrifiable material.
Nothing about the claimed batch appears non-obvious. The named quartz sand, soda ash, limestone contributors are well-known in the glass art as is the use of recycled glass, or cullet, and optimization of color components in the batch to make up for thus cullet used. Reducing bubbles in submerged combustion is well-established to a skilled artisan in glass melting due to the vigorous agitation of the submerged burners in the melt and introduction of combustion materials. Applicant is reminded a claim does not become non-obvious because it has recognized another benefit from already obvious batch components with reason to optimize them.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 05/28/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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