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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 09/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-15 withdrawn/canceled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected composition/product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/03/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “heterogeneous chromatic composition” and “different chromatic composition”. The instant specification nominally states these terms as well as “variable chromatic composition”. “Chromatic composition” is given broadest reasonable interpretation until Applicant explicitly cites a definition for chromatic composition. The Examiner believes the limitation is given sufficient patentable weight in view of the Lehman reference of the 103 rejection.
Claim 1 recites “noticeably different color” wherein [0074-82] of the instant PGPUB elaborates on color differences. Though the instant specification describes in terms of wavelengths, there are no wavelength measuring structure in the claim. As such, the limitation is given manual measuring means and examined using operator capabilities to accomplish the instantly claimed method. The limitation is definite because of additional “with different visible light absorption pattern” which would be readily understood by the skilled artisan/operator.
Claim 1 recites “predominantly transparent” wherein [0025] of the instant PGPUB sets a percentage of “incident visible light”. Visible light is a wavelength spectrum range. [0038] of the instant PGPUB clarifies that the raw material is non-colorless (ie. Colored). Accordingly, colored raw material absorbs light in the corresponding wavelength. To enable this limitation, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as transparent within a portion of the visible spectrum.
Claim 4 recites “hardly transparent colored”. [0044] of the instant PGPUB clarifies that hardly transparent means less than 75% of incident visible light passes. To enable this limitation, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation as absorbing within a portion of the visible spectrum. There is significant overlap between the “predominantly transparent colored glass” and “hardly transparent colored glass” given patentable weight under broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “mass-produced” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mass-produced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “mass-produced” is equivalent to large quantities. It is advised to amend to “plurality”.
Claim 1 recites “the chromatic and/or aesthetic manufacturing defects” which lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is not clear the how these manufacturing defects are defined. Instant [0093] has a description for “an aesthetic flaw” but is not incorporated into the claim language. From the Examiner’s search through the instant specification, there is no definition for a “chromatic defect”. The limitations needs to be addressed. It is advised to remove the chromatic defect and amend the argued limitation to aesthetic flaw with a definition.
Claim 2 recites “the mixture of pieces of recovered glass” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests “the post-consumer glass with the heterogeneous chromatic composition”.
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 2 recites the broad recitation “at least 90%”, and the claim also recites “at least… 95%” 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 3 recites “the different batches of raw material” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggest “each batch of raw material”.
Claim 3 recites “the pieces of recovered glass” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the mixture of chromatically heterogeneous pieces of post-consumer glass” lacks antecedent basis.
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 4 recites the broad recitation “at least 10%”, and the claim also recites “at least… 15%” 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 5 recites “the hardly transparent glass”; claim 5 currently depends from claim 1. Firstly, “the hardly transparent glass” lacks antecedent basis; the Examiner suggests changing dependency to claim 4. Second, to give patentable weight, the “hardly transparent colored glass” needs to be a definitive embodiment, not optional. Accordingly, the “and/or” limitation should definitely be “and” in claim 4.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites “the second percentage” and “the third percentage” which currently lack antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the mixture of pieces of recovered glass” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and recites “the pieces of colored glass” which currently lack antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the molds” which lack antecedent basis. Though claim 1 sets precedent for “an automatic compression and/or blow molding process” implying the existence of a mold, there is no definite recitation of “a mold” that is required by the parent claim.
Claim 8 recites “to generate flaws visible to the naked eye”, wherein its parent claim 1 recites “ignoring the chromatic and/or aesthetic manufacturing defects”. The Examiner believes these should be the same limitation, otherwise the “dimensional defects” of claim 1 is included in the visible flaw limitation. Clarification is required. However, “to generate flaws visible to the naked eye” is generally indefinite regarding the eyes and mental step of the operator/artisan. There is support in the instant specification regarding aesthetic flaw such as bubbles having a definite size according to instant [0093].
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US-20040078110-A1) and further in view of Brouwer (US-20150147497-A1), Rough (US-2979865-A), Baldwin (US-5354984-A), and Menke (US-20070095017-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lehman teaches a method of manufacturing mass-produced container with desired shape [0121], the method comprising obtaining a batch of raw material for glass manufacture and melting the batch of raw material [0090] wherein multiple batches of post-consumer glass [0061] with heterogeneous chromatic composition (clear/amber/green) is different in successive batches (Fig. 2/6-16) and results in batches of melted raw material with different chromatic compositions [0030, 36, 39, 92, 96] (Glass color/transmission properties in the above cited batch formulation figures) wherein 70-80% transmission clear glass is utilized for the batch [0099, 112, 157].
Lehman teaches that the batch of raw material produces glass product having noticeably different color [0024-30] and transmission properties [0039], reading on color intensity of the visible light absorption pattern. Though the language Lehman uses is different from that of the instant claims, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Lehman teaches of using 35-75% by weight of post-consumer glass for their batch [0021-25, 100]. Lehman does not expressly teach of at least 80% by weight of post-consumer glass with the heterogeneous chromatic composition. In related manufacturing of glass container art, Brouwer teaches of using 100 wt% of post-consumer glass [0018-19] with a heterogeneous chromatic composition [0020] to make containers of desired shape by an automatic compression and/or blow molding process [0028]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the Lehman batches to use at least 80 wt% post-consumer glass of a heterogeneous chromatic composition into containers via a blow molding process as means to utilize waste glass [0019]. Additionally, Brouwer teaches of noticeably different green colors of the molten raw material [0021].
Lehman teaches that containers are manufactured from the raw materials that were melted [0121]. Lehman teaches that the computer modeled batches were melted in a laboratory setting to produce glass patties of different colors with different visible light absorption patterns from the other batches [0135, 138, 148, 157]. Lehman does not expressly teach that these batches are successively melted. In related cullet melting and glass container manufacturing art, Rough teaches of melting raw material for glass manufacture (Col. 2 Line 26-36) in successive/continuous batches to result in noticeably different colors (Col. 4 Line 41-45) to produce color controlled glass containers (Col. 4 Line 30-40). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Lehman’s process to successively melt the raw material in batches using the color-controlled and individual feeders taught by Rough (Col. 4 Line 41-45) to increase the rate and capacity of the production of the glass containers (Col. 4 Line 7-20).
Lehman is aware of quality issues in the manufacturing process [0015] but does not expressly elaborate on the specifics of container manufacturing process or teach a detecting and rejecting step relating to dimensional defects in the shape and/or geometry of the container. In related glass container manufacturing art (Col. 1 Line 9-17), Baldwin teaches of detecting and rejecting means that determine dimensional tolerances of the produced container (Col. 1 Line 65-Col. 2 Line 10; Col. 3 Line 6-20). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a detecting and rejecting step of the manufactured containers within predefined dimensional tolerances that ignore the chromatic manufacturing defects such as the means taught by Baldwin as a logical addition to ensure quality of the manufactured containers. Because Baldwin uses 2-dimensional pixel analysis (Col. 2 Line 59-Col. 3 Line 20), Baldwin’s detecting and rejecting step ignores chromatic manufacturing defects.
Lehman focuses on the raw material composition for the manufacture of the glass containers, wherein modified Lehman only has the non-rejected containers according to Baldwin. Lehman does not expressly teach the filling of the containers and labelling. In related manufacturing art, Menke teaches of glass containers with defined dimensional characteristics [0027] to fill the containers with product and label [0019-20]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that after manufacturing the containers to fill and label the non-rejected containers as the next logical step in using the manufactured container. Though Menke does not expressly state “identical”, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the assembly production line taught by Menke would use identical product and identical labels for optimized efficiency.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 1 recites “automatically” limitations. While the prior art used in the rejection above suggests automated means, the prior art does not expressly use the word “automatically”. Should the Applicant disagree with the provided prior art, the Examiner reminds Applicant of MPEP 2144.04(III) wherein automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Brouwer teaches of using 100 wt% of post-consumer glass [0018-19] of raw material.
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, Lehman teaches color additives are optional [0063]. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) Omission of an Element and its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired or required. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the element or step the function attributed thereto is not desired or required.
Regarding claim 4, depending from claim 1, Lehman teaches of using green, amber, and flint (colorless) glass [0061] comprising at least a first percentage of colorless glass, a second percentage of colored glass and a third percentage of colored glass is used [0039]. See claim interpretation regarding the “predominantly transparent colored” and “hardly transparent colored glass” limitation. Lehman teaches many charts of the three percentages used. Lehman is modified with Brouwer to not use any virgin glass [0018-19]. Lehman is also modified with Rough to vary the different batches successively (Col. 4 Line 30-45). Regarding the variations of the percentages, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US-20040078110-A1), Brouwer (US-20150147497-A1), Rough (US-2979865-A), Baldwin (US-5354984-A), and Menke (US-20070095017-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN-111777328-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 5, depending from claim 4, Lehman teaches of green, amber, and flint (colorless) glass [0061]. The flint glass is referred to as clear wherein an example sample transmission data is provided in Fig. 3 of approximately 70% transmission in the visible light spectrum (glass 8). Lehman teaches that a resulting composition of their working examples results in clear glass with more than 75% transmission of visible light [0157]. In related using post-consumer glass for manufacturing glass container art, Xu teaches of crushing colorless and transparent glass to make raw material to be melted into the glass container (Line 229-233, 247-254). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Lehman’s method to use post-consumer glass comprising colorless and transparent glass as the flint glass as a known environmentally friendly option in the industry. Though Xu does not expressly state their raw material is more than 75% of visible light pass therethrough, Xu does clarify the starting glass is colorless and transparent (Line 229): where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding the hardly transparent glass that is less than 75% of visible light pass therethrough, Lehman teaches that the green glass in Fig. 3 reads on the predominantly transparent colored glass limitation.
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 5, Lehman teaches of many working examples wherein the second percentage and the third percentage represent at least 20% of the total weight (Fig. 2/6-16). Lehman is modified with Brouwer to not use any virgin glass [0018-19]. Regarding the variations of the percentages, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 7, depending from claim 5, Lehman teaches the amber glass is reddish-brown [0062] wherein the transmission data in Fig. 3 indicate difference shades. Similarly, Fig. 3 of Lehman show additional green shades; Brouwer teaches of noticeably different green colors of the molten raw material [0021]. Lehman is also modified with Rough to vary the different batches (variable proportions) successively (Col. 4 Line 30-45).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehman (US-20040078110-A1), Brouwer (US-20150147497-A1), Rough (US-2979865-A), Baldwin (US-5354984-A), and Menke (US-20070095017-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarpaneva (US-4367086-A).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 1, Lehman teaches of fining the raw material to minimize gas bubbles [0087]. Lehman does not expressly teach the raw material contains bubble precursor particles and/or modify the temperature of the molten material and/or the molds to generate flaws visible to the naked eye in the manufactured containers. In related manufacturing of glass object art, Sarpaneva teaches (in prior art) of adding sodium carbonate to the raw material to generate flaws visible to the naked eye (Col. 1 Line 10-20) and teaches their own method that controls the temperature of the molten material and of the molds to generate flaws visible to the naked eye in the manufactured container (Col. 1 Line 58-67). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use known methods to generate flaws visible to the naked eye such as adding bubble precursor particles and/or select the temperature of the molten material and the molds to manufacture decorative glass objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP-0482972-A1 teaches manufacturing multicolored glass containers
JP-2002053323-A, JP-2002346505-A teach using transparent post-consumer glass as raw material
US-20060101856-A is a Lehman reference that teaches of analysing cullet by optical properties prior to being used in a batch glass formulation
US-8436268-B1, US-10710918-B1 can be used as a substitute primary reference
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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 Hindenlang can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741