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 of group I in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected systems and products, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 29, 2026.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “scalping the crushed waste glass from production of other glass products to produce a primary stream” and then “separating the primary stream on a separator, wherein the separator separates the primary stream based on size to provide a coarse stream” which renders the claim indefinite because it appears both of these steps are essentially separating the crushed glass product from the crusher and the specification only describes a single separating step done by a separator (PP. 39-40; describing the separator as receiving the crushed glass from the crusher and then using an upstream deck 11a that outputs a coarse stream, a downstream deck 11c that outputs a fine stream, and an intermediate deck 11b to recover materials that may be sent back to the crusher). It is unclear how the scalping step and separating steps are separate and if they are separate steps, then how the scalping step is performed given the disclosure only mentions scalping in the background section without discussing how it is achieved (PP. 3 and 15-16, and it is noted that there is no discussion of scalping in the specification beyond these portions of the brief description). For the purpose of examination, these phrases will be interpreted as the crushed waste glass is subjected to a separating step in which a coarse stream is output from the separator. The claim also recites sizes are “about” a value, e.g., about 0.5% or about 5 to 800 microns, and that the mixed stream is “substantially” heterogeneous which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for something to be “about” or “substantially” a value or property. For the purpose of examination, these phrases will be interpreted as any value or property close to these. Further, the claim recites the milling steps produce “fines” or “ultra-fines” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if these are fine or ultra-fine relative to the other milled or crushed particles or if fine and ultra-fine are supposed to be particles of a certain size. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as fine and ultra-fine relative to the other streams in the system. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “[t]he process of claim 1, further comprising a step of: separating the primary stream on the separator” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 already recites a step of separating the primary stream on the separator. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as the step of separating the primary stream on the separator includes the steps recited in claim 2.
Regarding claims 3-6, each of these claims recite something is “about” a value which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required to be “about” a value, e.g., exactly that value or within 50% of it. For the purpose of examination, these elements will be interpreted as anything within 100% of the value.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the fine mesh screen of the downstream deck has a mesh size of about 90 to about 150 mesh, or higher” which renders the claim indefinite because it recites a narrow range followed by a broader range, i.e., higher than the recited range. It is unclear if the mesh size needs to be within 90-150 or if it can be any value higher than 150. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the mesh size is higher than 90 mesh.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “providing an ultra-fine glass powder pozzolan product having a leptokurtic particle size curve as the glass powder pozzolan product stream” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required for a particle to be “ultra-fine,” i.e., ultra-fine relative to the other particles in the system or within a size range that is ultra fine, and it is also unclear what is required for a leptokurtic particle size curve, i.e., what percentage of particles can be at the extremes while still being a leptokurtic curve. For the purpose of examination, these phrases will be interpreted as providing a glass powder pozzolan product.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the crushed waste glass comprises clear or white bottle glass, and is substantially free of colored glass” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required for the crushed waste to be “substantially” free of colored glass, i.e., completely free of colored glass or the colored glass is less than 50% of the crushed glass. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the colored glass is less than 50% of the crushed glass.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3008311 A1 to Szabo in view of CAS-300 Type GS Glass Pozzolans -Technical Data (hereinafter “Vito Minerals”).
Szabo teaches a process for preparing a glass powder pozzolan product (Abstract; it is noted that the glass powder product may be used as a pozzolan), the process comprising steps of:
providing a crushed waste glass, wherein the step of providing the crushed waste glass comprises providing a waste glass input feed 1, and crushing 2 the waste glass input feed to provide the crushed waste glass (Fig. 1; P. 39, Lns. 11-14);
scalping the crushed waste glass from production of other glass products to produce a primary stream; separating the primary stream on a separator, wherein the separator separates the primary stream based on size to provide a coarse stream, the coarse stream comprising a pulverized glass within a predetermined first particle size range of about 5 to about 800 microns (Figs. 1-3; P. 39, Lns. 20-23, P. 41, Lns. 12-29 and P. 49, Lns. 19-29; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above these claims are interpreted as the crushed glass is separated into a coarse stream, the fine stream output from the separator 7 has a size of 80 to 210 microns, and it is noted in Szabo the fine stream is larger than the first stream, i.e., the fine stream is the coarse stream);
milling at least a portion of the coarse stream to generate a fine stream, the fine stream comprising glass within a predetermined second particle size range of about 2 to about 200 microns (P. 44, Lns. 19-21, P. 49, Lns. 19-29 and P. 52, Lns. 7-8; the fine stream is milled first before it is combined with the first stream to be sent to the second mill with the fine stream being 80 to 210 microns which anticipates the range because it substantially overlaps with the range of 2-200 and the disclosure places no criticality on the range, and it is noted in Szabo the fine stream is larger than the first stream, i.e., the fine stream is the coarse stream);
adding the fine stream to the coarse stream (Figs. 1-2; P. 29, Ln. 24 through P. 30, Ln. 2 and P. 42, Ln. 20 through P. 43, Ln. 2);
milling at least a portion of the coarse stream and at least a portion of the fine stream to provide the glass powder pozzolan product, wherein the coarse stream and the fine stream are provided as a substantially heterogeneous mixture (Figs. 1-2; P. 29, Ln. 24 through P. 30, Ln. 14 and P. 42, Ln. 20 through P. 43, Ln. 8; the mixer provides a mix of the coarse and fine streams to the mill that is heterogeneous with a 60:40 mix);
wherein the step of milling to provide the fine stream comprises milling in a first ball mill with a charge porosity configured for production of fines (P. 44, Lns. 19-21, P. 49, Lns. 19-29 and P. 52, Lns. 7-8; the fine stream is milled by a mill configured to produce fine particles) and wherein the step of milling to provide the glass powder pozzolan product comprises milling in a second ball mill with a charge porosity configured for production of ultra-fines (Figs. 1-2; P. 30, Lns. 4-14 and P. 42, Ln. 20 through P. 43, Ln. 8; the second ball mill produces particles smaller than the fines, i.e., ultra-fines).
Szabo fails to explicitly teach providing a crushed waste glass with a loss on ignition (LOI) less than about 0.5% and moisture less than about 0.5%. Szabo is silent regarding both of these properties in the crushed glass.
Vito Minerals teaches crushed glass pozzolans having a loss of ignition at 0.5% or lower and a moisture content of less than 0.5% (Table on P. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the crushed glass product of Szabo to include a loss of ignition and moisture content under 0.5% as taught by Vito Minerals so that the output product has minimal impurities such as moisture while still retaining as much ignition as possible for future applications.
Regarding claim 2, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), further comprising a step of:
separating the primary stream on the separator, wherein the separator separates the primary stream based on size to provide the coarse stream, and the fine stream prior to the step of adding the fine stream to the coarse stream (Figs. 1-3; P. 39, Lns. 20-23 and P. 41, Lns. 12-29; the separator includes multiple levels 11a-c that separate the streams based on size between coarse, fine and reject streams).
Regarding claim 3, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the separator 7 is a multi-deck screener (Figs. 1-3; P. 41, Lns. 12-29) comprising one or more of: an upstream deck 11A with a coarse mesh screen outputting the primary stream, a downstream deck 11C with a fine mesh screen outputting the fine stream, and one or more intermediate decks 11B each with an intermediate mesh screen for outputting one or more reject streams (Figs. 1-3; P. 41, Lns. 12-29), wherein the fine mesh screen of the downstream deck has a mesh size of about 90 to about 150 mesh, or higher (Figs. 1-3; P. 41, Lns. 12-29; the screen in downstream deck 11c is 70 to 100 mesh); and wherein materials which pass through the coarse mesh screen but which do not pass through the fine mesh screen are output as a reject stream (Figs. 1-3; P. 41, Lns. 12-29).
Regarding claim 4, modified Szabo teaches the process according to claim 1, further comprising: sorting at least a portion of the glass powder product in an air classifier 4 to provide a glass powder pozzolan product stream within a predetermined particle size range being a D50 range from about 20 microns to about 1.2 microns (Fig. 1; P. 39, Lns. 15-19 and P. 40, Lns. 12-15; the first stream from the air classifier has a range of 45 to 50 microns, which is within the recited D50 range), and a reject glass powder product stream 6 comprising glass powder excluded from the glass powder pozzolan product stream (Fig. 1; P. 39, Lns. 15-19 and P. 40, Lns. 12-15), wherein the air classifier recovers ultra-fine glass powder pozzolan product based on a material mass to air mass ratio within the air classifier, thereby providing an ultra-fine glass powder pozzolan product having a leptokurtic particle size curve as the glass powder pozzolan product stream (Fig. 1; P. 39, Lns. 15-19 and P. 40, Lns. 7-15; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an air-classifier functions by using air to separate particles based on material mass to air mass within the classifier, and the air classifier recovers ultra-fine glass powder particles that would be concentrated within the desired size range in a leptokurtic curve, as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), further comprising: generating at least a portion of the crushed waste glass or the waste glass input feed from post-consumer waste glass (Fig. 3; P. 44, Lns. 1-15);
crushing the post-consumer waste glass, wherein: the crushed waste glass comprises glass from post-consumer waste glass which has been color-sorted; the crushed waste glass comprises clear or white bottle glass, and is substantially free of colored glass; the crushed waste glass comprises mixed colored glass with a mean of green/flint glass ranging from about 50% to about 85%; or any combination thereof (P. 57, Lns. 16-20; this limitation allows for the process to do any one of the preceding operations, and Szabo teaches sorting the post-consumer waste to be substantially free of colored glass);
treating the post-consumer waste glass in a high-temperature dryer 29 to destroy paper, light plastic, and organic contaminants, wherein the high-temperature dryer comprises a rotary kiln dryer 29 and/or a tumbler dryer (Fig. 3; P. 44, Lns. 1-15);
cooling the post-consumer waste glass on a fluidized bed cooler (P. 44, Lns. 1-15 and P. 57, Lns. 5-9); and
removing ferrous metal contaminants from the post-consumer waste glass (P. 44, Lns. 1-15 and P. 57, Lns. 10-13).
Regarding claim 6, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the coarse stream comprises a pulverized glass having a D50 of about 100 to about 150 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the fine stream is the coarse stream as the first stream finer than it, and the fine stream has a D50 of 80 to 210 microns, which is about the claimed range and it is noted that applicant places no criticality on the range), a D98 of about 120 to about 700 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the fine stream is the coarse stream as the first stream finer than it, and the fine stream has a D98 of 140 to 400 microns) and a D10 of about 20 to about 50 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the fine stream is the coarse stream as the first stream finer than it, and the fine stream has a D10 of 50 to 90 microns, which is about the claimed range as it overlaps and “about” is interpreted as being within 100% of the value, further it is noted that applicant places no criticality on the range); and wherein the fine stream comprises a pulverized glass having a D50 of about 20 to about 50 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the first stream is the fine stream as the first stream finer than the fine stream, and the first stream has a D50 of 30 to 65 microns, which is about the claimed range and it is noted that applicant places no criticality on the range), a D98 of about 80 to about 140 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the first stream is the fine stream as the first stream finer than the fine stream, and the first stream has a D98 of 120 to 170 microns, which is about the claimed range and it is noted that applicant places no criticality on the range) and a D10 of about 5 to about 15 micron (P. 49, Lns. 19-29; the first stream is the fine stream as the first stream finer than the fine stream, and the first stream has a D10 of 8 to 15 microns).
Regarding claim 7, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the glass powder pozzolan product comprises a brightness level at or exceeding 90 L on a standardized CIE color scale (65/10 observant) (P. 57, Lns. 16-20).
Regarding claim 8, modified Szabo teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the glass powder pozzolan product comprises a brightness level at or exceeding 95 L on a standardized CIE color scale (65/10 observant) (P. 57, Lns. 16-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0344285 A1 teaches a method for processing glass waste including sorting, crushing, drying, milling and screening the glass products to form a pozzolan (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725