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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 11/25/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. As set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Claim Interpretation
The claims are drawn to a vitrifiable feed material. The melting of the feed material and how the feed material is melted is considered intended use.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “SO3” in claims 1 and 8 is used by the claim to mean “sulphate,” while the accepted meaning is “sulphite.” The term sulphate is being redefined as SO3
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 alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kitayama (EP 1281686) referred to as Kitayama ‘686 herein after.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 8, Kitayama ‘686 discloses a glass composition that is vitrifiable and is 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.
Kitayama ‘686 discloses a vitrifiable glass comprising a base glass portion that includes a silica contributor, sodium oxide contributor and calcium oxide contributor capable of yielding in a melt [0021].
Kitayama ‘686 discloses SO3 0.15-.35 % by weight [0021]. Thus overlapping the claimed range.
Kitayama ‘686 discloses MnO .007-.06 % by weight [0021] thus overlapping the claimed range
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Kitayama ‘686 discloses an alumina contributor as seen in the existence of alumina in the glass [0021].
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kitayama ‘686 discloses flint glass to be used as a contributor to the glass [0034].
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kitayama ‘686 discloses flint glass to be used as a contributor to the glass. Kitayama does not recite the amount of flint as a contributor for the glass. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as much glass flint in the glass composition disclosed in [0021] as motivated to increase recycling efficiency [0021] while having the glass composition recited in [0021].
Regarding claim 5, Kitayama ‘686 discloses a sulfate source in the glass is sodium sulfate [0033] and thus the sulfate includes sodium sulfate given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 7, Kitayama ‘686 discloses a sulfate source in the glass is sodium sulfate [0033] is an oxidizing agent given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Kitayama ‘686 discloses a sulfate source in the glass is sodium sulfate [0033] is an oxidizing agent given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kitayama (US 20030144126) as applied above and further in view of Lambricht (US20190119146).
Regarding claim 1, Kitayama discloses a glass composition that is vitrifiable and is 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.
Kitayama discloses a vitrifiable glass comprising a base glass portion that includes a silica contributor, sodium oxide contributor and calcium oxide contributor capable of yielding in a melt [0051].
Kitayama discloses SO3 0.225-0.287 precent by weight [0051]/Table 1. Thus overlapping the claimed range.
Kitayama discloses Se present as seen in [0051] however Kitayama does not indicate the amount of Se as claimed.
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 based on the amount of iron as motivated to obtain color stability [0035].
Regarding claim 2, Kitayama discloses an alumina contributor as seen in the existence of alumina in the glass [0051].
Regarding claim 3, Kitayama discloses flint glass to be used as a contributor to the glass feed [0036]. flint Given the broadest reasonable interpretation the glass of [0051] is suggested to use flint for manufacture.
Regarding claim 4, Kitayama discloses flint glass to be used as a contributor to the glass. Kitayama does not recite the amount of flint as a contributor for the glass. 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 have the glass composition as recited in [0051].
Regarding claim 5, Kitayama discloses a sulfate source in the glass is sodium sulfate [0049]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant did argue a previous rejection of Kitayama over Lambricht. In the present claim interpretation, “a vitrifiable feed” is any material capable of being converted into glass or a glassy substance or melt. The glass compositions referred to in the rejections above are capable of being melted and thus satisfy the claim limitation of a vitrifiable feed.
The glass disclosed by prior art Kitayama and Kitayama ‘686 is capable of being melted in a submerged combustion melter and capable of forming an agitated melt. As indicated in MPEP 2111.02.
Conclusion
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