DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
Claim 22 is directed towards a fining package for a glass composition, the fining package comprising a sulfate or a sulfide in an amount from about 0.001 to about 0.1 mol% of the glass composition, wherein the glass composition comprises: SiO2 in an amount of 70 to 76 wt% of the glass composition; B2O3 in an amount of 9 to 13.5 wt% of the glass composition; Al2O3 in an amount of 4 to 8 wt% of the glass composition; TiO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; Fe2O3 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; BaO in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; CaO in an amount of 0 to 3 wt% of the glass composition; Na2O in an amount of 5 to 8.5 wt% of the glass composition; K2O in an amount of 0.5 to 3 wt% of the glass composition; MgO in an amount of 0 to 1 wt% of the glass composition; Cl in an amount of 0 to 0.03 wt% of the glass composition; F in an amount of 0 to 0.02 wt% of the glass composition; CeO2 in an amount of 0.08 to 0.5 wt.% of the glass composition; SnO2 in an amount of 0.02 to 0.23 wt.% of the glass composition; and ZrO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.08 wt.% of the glass composition.
The closest prior art is Dejneka et al. (US20120252652, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka). Per instant claim 15, Dejneka does not disclose or make obvious the fining package of claim 1, wherein the glass composition comprises: SiO2 in an amount of 70 to 76 wt% of the glass composition; B2O3 in an amount of 9 to 13.5 wt% of the glass composition; Al2O3 in an amount of 4 to 8 wt% of the glass composition; TiO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; Fe2O3 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; BaO in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; CaO in an amount of 0 to 3 wt% of the glass composition; Na2O in an amount of 5 to 8.5 wt% of the glass composition; K2O in an amount of 0.5 to 3 wt% of the glass composition; MgO in an amount of 0 to 1 wt% of the glass composition; Cl in an amount of 0 to 0.03 wt% of the glass composition; F in an amount of 0 to 0.02 wt% of the glass composition; CeO2 in an amount of 0.08 to 0.5 wt% of the glass composition; SnO2 in an amount of 0.02 to 0.23 wt% of the glass composition; and ZrO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.08 wt% of the glass composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US20120252652, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka).
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka discloses a fining package for a glass composition (see Dejneka at [0063], disclosing a fining package) comprising: a sulfate or a sulfide in an amount from about 0.001 to about 0.1 mol% of the glass composition (see Dejneka at claim 12, disclosing up to 4 mol% of the at least one oxidizer fining agent, which overlaps with the claimed range. See also Dejneka at claim 10, disclosing the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises sodium sulfate ... or combinations thereof) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses the fining package comprises the sulfate and is sulfide-free (Dejneka does not disclose a sulfide. Dejneka discloses a sulfate fining agent as show in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 3, Dejneka discloses the sulfate comprises at least one of an alkali sulfate and an alkaline earth sulfate (See also Dejneka at claim 10, disclosing the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises sodium sulfate. Examiner notes sodium sulfate is an alkali sulfate).
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka discloses the fining package further comprises a multivalent compound in an amount from about 0.001 to about 1 mol% of the glass composition (see Dejneka at [0018], disclosing the fining agent, in one embodiment, comprises up to 0.5 mol % SnO2, up to 0.5 mol % CeO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka discloses the multivalent compound comprises Sn or Ce (see Dejneka at [0018], disclosing the fining agent, in one embodiment, comprises up to 0.5 mol % SnO2, up to 0.5 mol % CeO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka discloses the multivalent compound comprises CeO2, SnO2, or Fe2O3 (see Dejneka at [0018], disclosing the fining agent, in one embodiment, comprises up to 0.5 mol % SnO2, up to 0.5 mol % CeO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka discloses further comprising a nitrate in the amount of about 0.01% to about 0.1 mol% of the glass composition (see Dejneka at claim 12, disclosing up to 4 mol% of the at least one oxidizer fining agent, which overlaps with the claimed range. See also Dejneka at claim 10, disclosing the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises ... aluminum nitrate.).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka discloses the fining package is free of a reducing agent for reducing sulfate to sulfide (Dejneka does not disclose a reducing agent.).
Regarding claim 11, Dejneka discloses the glass composition comprises a borosilicate glass composition (see Dejneka at [0026], disclosing a borosilicate).
Regarding claim 12, Dejneka discloses the glass composition comprises an aluminosilicate glass composition (see Dejneka at [0026], disclosing an aluminosilicate).
Regarding claim 13, while Dejneka discloses the glasses described herein are ... containers (see Dejneka at [0042]), Dejneka does not explicitly disclose the glass composition is used to form glass tubing or pharmaceutical packaging. However, Examiner notes the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)).
Regarding claim 14, Dejneka discloses the fining package is free of at least one of Cl, F, Sn, Ce, and As (see Dejneka at [0014], disclosing the fining agent is also substantially free of arsenic).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka in view of Gattermann et al. (US20110302962A1, hereinafter referred to as Gattermann).
Regarding claim 8, Dejneka does not disclose the sulfate comprises a heavy alkaline earth sulfate.
Gattermann is directed towards a sulfate refining agent … [for] refining of the glass batch melt (see Gattermann at the Abstract). Gattermann discloses barium … sulfate [is an] exemplary refining agent (see Gattermann at [0090]). Examiner notes barium sulfate is a heavy alkaline earth sulfate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Dejneka to use barium sulfate as a refining agent with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing an exemplary refining agent as taught by Gattermann.
Regarding claim 9, Dejneka discloses further comprising a redox modifier (See Dejneka at claim 10, disclosing the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises ... aluminum nitrate. A nitrate is a redox modifier as shown by the instant specification at [0017] from the instant PGPub).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka in view of Dick et al. (DE102009021116A1 with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Dick).
Regarding claim 16, Dejneka does not disclose the glass composition comprises: SiO2 in an amount of 75 to 85 wt% of the glass composition; B2O3 in an amount of 9.5 to 14.5 wt% of the glass composition; Al2O3 in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt% of the glass composition; TiO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; Fe2O3 in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; BaO in an amount of 0 to 0.1 wt% of the glass composition; Na2O in an amount of 2 to 8 wt% of the glass composition; K2O in an amount of 0 to 3 wt% of the glass composition; CaO and MgO in a total amount of 0 to 1.0 wt% of the glass composition; Cl in an amount of 0 to 0.10 wt% of the glass composition; and SnO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.2 wt% of the glass composition.
Dick is directed towards a glass batch with the addition of at least one refining agent (see Dick at the Abstract). Dick discloses a sulfate refining agent (see Dick at the third to last paragraph of page 2 of the machine translation). Dick discloses the glass comprises up to 75 wt.% SiO2 (see Dick at the first paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), B2O3 is contained … at least 5% by weight and in particular at least 10% by weight (see Dick at the first paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Al2O3 in a minimum amount of 2% by weight … the maximum amount is 9 wt.% (see Dick at the second paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Dick discloses it is possible to add … SnO2 … Fe2O3 … TiO2 (see Dick at the fourth to last paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation) which Examiner corresponds to SnO2, Fe2O3 and TiO2 being an optional component which may be 0%, Dick discloses BaO is preferably in an amount of 0 to 4wt.% (see Dick at the fourth paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation) Na2O … 5-8 wt.% (see Dick at the third paragraph from page 5 of the machine translation), K2O … in particulate 0-6 wt.% (see Dick at the third paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), CaO is preferred in an amount of 0 to 3 wt.% (See Dick at the fourth paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), MgO is preferably in an amount of 0 to 2 wt.% (see Dick at the fourth paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Dick does not disclose Cl which correspond to 0% Cl.
Examiner notes the component ranges of Dick overlap with the claimed range, and Dick is also directed towards a glass with a sulfate refining agent as noted in the preceding paragraph. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date when practicing the invention of Dejneka to use the sulfate refining agent on the glass of Dick with a reasonable expectation of successfully refining the glass.
Regarding claim 17, Dejneka does not disclose the glass composition comprises: SiO2 in an amount of 74 to 80 wt% of the glass composition; Al2O3 in an amount of 4 to 8 wt% of the glass composition; CaO in an amount of 0 to 0.5 wt% of the glass composition; Na2O in an amount of 8 to 14 wt% of the glass composition; MgO in an amount of 3 to 7 wt% of the glass composition; and SnO2 in an amount of 0 to 0.23 wt% of the glass composition.
Dick is directed towards a glass batch with the addition of at least one refining agent (see Dick at the Abstract). Dick discloses a sulfate refining agent (see Dick at the third to last paragraph of page 2 of the machine translation). Dick discloses the glass comprises up to 75 wt.% SiO2 (see Dick at the first paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Al2O3 in a minimum amount of 2% by weight … the maximum amount is 9 wt.% (see Dick at the second paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), CaO is preferred in an amount of 0 to 3 wt.% (See Dick at the fourth paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Na2O … 5-8 wt.% (see Dick at the third paragraph from page 5 of the machine translation), MgO is preferably in an amount of 0 to 2 wt.% (see Dick at the fourth paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation), Dick discloses it is possible to add … SnO2 (see Dick at the fourth to last paragraph of page 5 from the machine translation) which Examiner corresponds to SnO2 being an optional component which may be 0%.
Examiner notes the component ranges of Dick overlap with the claimed range, and Dick is also directed towards a glass with a sulfate refining agent as noted in the preceding paragraph. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date when practicing the invention of Dejneka to use the sulfate refining agent on the glass of Dick with a reasonable expectation of successfully refining the glass.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 11-12 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,431,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘502 patent claims a fining package for a glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 6, claiming an oxidizer fining agent) comprising: a sulfate or a sulfide (see the ‘502 patent at claim 9, claiming the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises sodium sulfate) in an amount from about 0.001 to about 0.1 mol% of the glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 7, claiming 4 mol % of at least one oxidizer fining agent, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, the ‘502 patent claims the fining package comprises the sulfate and is sulfide-free (see the ‘502 patent at claim 9, claiming 4 mol % of at least one oxidizer fining agent, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, the ‘502 patent claims the sulfate comprises at least one of an alkali sulfate and an alkaline earth sulfate (see the ‘502 patent at claim 9, claiming the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises sodium sulfate, which is an alkali sulfate).
Regarding claim 4, the ‘502 patent claims the fining package further comprises a multivalent compound in an amount from about 0.001 to about 1 mol% of the glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 1, claiming 0-1 mol% CeO2, which is a multivalent compound).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘502 patent claims the multivalent compound comprises Sn or Ce (see the ‘502 patent at claim 1, claiming 0-1 mol% CeO2).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘502 patent claims the multivalent compound comprises CeO2, SnO2, or Fe2O3 (see the ‘502 patent at claim 1, claiming 0-1 mol% CeO2).
Regarding claim 7, the ‘502 patent claims further comprising a nitrate (see the ‘502 patent at claim 22, claiming the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises … aluminum nitrate … or combinations thereof) in the amount of about 0.01% to about 0.1 mol% of the glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 7, claiming 4 mol % of at least one oxidizer fining agent, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘502 patent claims the glass composition comprises a borosilicate glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 1, claiming 60-72 mol % SiO2; … 0-3 mol % B2O3, which Examiner notes is a borosilicate).
Regarding claim 12, the ‘502 patent claims the glass composition comprises an aluminosilicate glass composition (see the ‘502 patent at claim 1, claiming 60-72 mol % SiO2; 6-14 mol% Al2O3, which Examiner notes is an aluminosilicate).
Regarding claim 14, the ‘502 patent claims the fining package is free of at least one of Cl, F, Sn, Ce, and As (See the ‘502 patent at claim 9, claiming the at least one oxidizer fining agent comprises sodium sulfate, which Examiner notes is free of Cl, F, Sn, Ce, and As).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 112(b) rejection of claim 1, see pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 06/25/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive because the specification at [0076] defines reducing agents. The 112(b) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments at pages 8-14 of the Remarks filed 06/25/2026 concerning the 103 rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At page 8, Applicant argues the claimed range is critical to the claimed subject matter and produces unexpected results, however, Examiner notes claim 1 claims the range using the qualifier “about”. Paragraph [0118] of the instant PGPub defines “about” as modifying, for example, the quantity of an ingredient in a composition, concentrations, volumes, process temperature, process time, yields, flow rates, pressures, viscosities, and like values, and ranges thereof, or a dimension of a component, and like values, and ranges thereof, employed in describing the aspects of the disclosure, refers to variation in the numerical quantity that can occur, for example: through typical measuring and handling procedures used for preparing materials, compositions, composites, concentrates, component parts, articles of manufacture, or use formulations; through inadvertent error in these procedures; through differences in the manufacture, source, or purity of starting materials or ingredients used to carry out the methods; and like considerations. The term “about” also encompasses amounts that differ due to aging of a composition or formulation with a particular initial concentration or mixture, and amounts that differ due to mixing or processing a composition or formulation with a particular initial concentration or mixture. As such, it is unclear that any range qualified by the term “about” can be considered critical.
Additionally, at page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that sulfates and/or sulfides are critical to reduce or eliminate the amount of halides or multivalent fining agents like Sn. Examiner notes that this argument does not actually demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range, and merely argues that sulfate and/or sulfides can be used as fining agents in the place of halides or multivalent fining agents like Sn. Such a substitution is not unexpected, as the prior art applied above recognizes the substitute may be made, nor does such a substitution provide any unexpected results within the claimed range. As such, this argument is not convincing.
Additionally, per MPEP 716.02(d), "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In the instant case, while Applicant argues there are beneficial results for using sulfates and/or sulfides as fining agents, there does not appear to be any evidence that there are unexpected results within the claimed range, and an absence of unexpected results outside of the claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II)). As such, the arguments concerning unexpected results are not convincing.
At page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that a sulfate or sulfide fining agent within the claimed range provides unexpected equivalent or better performance as compared to conventional fining packages. Examiner notes this is not convincing for the reasons stated above, specifically that this does not appear to demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range; this argument merely alleges that the claimed range of sulfides and/or sulfates is capable of use as a fining package which may provide equivalent or allegedly superior fining properties. Applicant compares example D9 which is 0.05 mol% Na2SO4 to example D12, which is 0.04 mol% Cl, 0.79 mol% F, 0.06 mol% Ce, and 0.05 mol% Sn. Per fig. 5, while D9 does have more bubbles towards the top while D12 has bubbles more evenly distributed throughout the matrix, this result does not appear to be unexpected, and does not demonstrate the criticality of the entire claimed range of about 0.001 to about 0.1 mol%. This is merely evidence that 0.05 mol% Na2SO4 is capable of use as a fining agent. At page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the D9 result is unexpected, however, per the rejection of claim 1, Dejneka teaches that up to 4 mol% of sodium sulfate can be used as a fining agent. As such, the use of sodium sulfate as a fining agent at 0.05% would be expected. The claimed range does not appear to provide unexpected results over the entire claimed range with the loss of this benefit outside the claimed range; D9 is merely evidence that the claimed range is functional as a fining package as previously disclosed by Dejneka.
At page 11, Applicant argues that D13 and D16 are further evidence of the criticality of the claimed range by virtue of the unexpected results of Fig. 7 because D13 has double the sodium sulfate as D9, while D16 has the same fining package as D12, and Fig. 7 shows D13 has superior clarity to D9. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes it appears obvious that using more fining agent causes greater fining effect. The evidence appears to teach against the criticality of the claimed range, as this appears to show a linear relationship between using more sulfate/sulfite as a fining agent, and achieving more clarity. Dejneka teaches sodium sulfate as a fining agent over a range more broad than that instantly claimed, and the evidence does not appear to support the conclusion that fining benefits drop off dramatically outside of the claimed range. As such, the arguments that the claimed range are critical are not convincing. Similar arguments throughout the Remarks are unconvincing for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis.
At page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Dejneka teaches away from the inclusion of sulfate fining agents because [0004] of Dejneka states that sulfate fining agents have also been used in soft glasses. However, they contribute to sulfur emissions and actually exacerbate seed formation in aluminosilicate glasses. Examiner notes [0004] of Dejneka is merely the background section of the publication, and is a general statement of the art, not a teaching to the invention of Dejneka. Dejneka at [0006] explicitly discloses including at least one oxidizer fining agent, and at claims 11-12 explicitly discloses sodium sulfate as the oxidizer fining agent. As such, Applicant’s arguments that Dejneka teaches away from sodium sulfate as a fining agent are not convincing; Dejneka explicitly teaches the use of sodium sulfate as a fining agent.
Applicant's arguments concerning the non-statutory double patenting rejection on page 14 of the Remarks filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons stated above, mutatis mutandis.
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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights