DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Rejections over Kobayashi in view of Bioul and CN103588266A
Claims 1-2 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021) and CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015).
As to claims 1-2, Kobayashi teaches a glass-melting process comprising introducing a vitrifiable solid charge comprising at least one carbonate (3:5) into a furnace (3:1-5). Kobayashi teaches heating and melting the charge in the furnace to produce molten glass (3:9) while inherently producing gaseous carbon dioxide by carbonate dissociation. The heat for heating the charge is provided by a combustion of a non-carbon-based fuel (3:15, hydrogen) with an oxidant (3:16, oxygen enriched air). Kobayashi discharges the molten glass from the furnace (Fig. 1, item 18) and discharges gaseous effluent (flue gas) through flue ports and a flue stack (Fig. 2; 4:49-55), inherently containing the gaseous carbon dioxide, from the furnace.
Kobayashi is silent to (b) heating the charge by electric heating or by a combination of combustion of a non-carbon-based fuel with oxidant in combination with electric heating, or (e) utilizing the gaseous effluent discharged from the furnace to produce, by carbonation with the carbon dioxide present in the gaseous effluent in a gas-solid carbonation reactor, at least one additive in the form of an alkali-metal or alkaline-earth-metal carbonate, wherein at least a part of said additive produced in step (e) is incorporated in the vitrifiable solid charge which is introduced into the furnace.
Regarding (b), Bioul teaches heating a charge with electrical heating means ([0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bioul electrical heating into Kobayashi because this is the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art of Kobayashi and Bioul included two different heating devices or elements, although not necessarily in a single reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of both heating elements in a single prior art reference. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined both known/conventional methods for heating glass, with each element performing the same heating function as they did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result of combining two heating methods (faster heating) would be predictable.
Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bioul electrical heating into Kobayashi motivated by providing faster heating of the material. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing two heating methods would heat faster than a single heating method, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining two heating methods.
Regarding (e), CN103588226A teaches using carbon dioxide containing flue gas (Abstract) in a carbonizing tower to produce sodium carbonate (an alkali-metal carbonate), also known as soda ash. The CN103588226A carbonizing tower is interpreted to be a gas-solid carbonation reactor. Since (i) Kobayashi inherently teaches generating a carbon dioxide containing flue gas and CN103588226A utilizes carbon dioxide containing flue gas, and (ii) CN103588226A teaches forming soda ash that is widely used in the fields of manufacturing glass (CN103588226A, Technical Background) and Kobayashi specifically teaches including soda ash in a glass manufacturing process (3:5), one would have recognized that the CN103588226A process could be used with the Kobayashi flue gas to generate the soda ash required by the Kobayashi process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the CN103588226A process into Kobayashi since Kobayashi teaches/suggests using soda ash and generating flue gas, and CN103588226A provides soda ash from furnace flue gas within the scope of the Kobayashi teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar generation/utilization of flue gas and generation/utilization of soda ash.
As to claim 10, the Kobayashi furnace is a continuous furnace. As to claims 11-13, Kobayashi uses soda ash (sodium carbonate) and CN103588226A produces soda ash, and the Kobayashi glass is inherently soda-lime glass (3:5).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021) and CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015), and further in view of Medina-Martos (Journal of CO2 Utilization, Vol. 60 (June 2022), 13 pages). Kobayashi, Bioul, and CN103588226A teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4-6, Kobayashi, Bioul, and CN103588226A are silent to the claimed hydroxide, carbonator, and carbonator temperature.
Medina-Martos teaches sending flue gas at 800 C (bottom of page 2) to the inlet of a reactor (batch or fluidized bed carbonator) to perform a carbon capture process by combining with sodium hydroxide to produce sodium carbonate (page 3, formulae 6 and 7). Since the carbonation would be carried out at the temperature of the flue gas, claim 6 is met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Medina-Martos reactor and carbon capture temperature into the modified Kobayashi process because CN104588226A already teaches/suggests utilizing flue gas in a carbonating tower, and Medina-Martos teaches that a similar carbon capture process can be performed with sodium hydroxide at 800 C, within the scope of the CN104588226 teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 7, Kobayashi and CN104588226A are silent to cooling the flue gas to the claimed temperature range.
Medina-Martos teaches sending flue gas at a predetermined temperature range of 800 C (bottom of page 2) to the inlet of a reactor (carbonator) to perform a carbon capture process by combining with sodium hydroxide to produce sodium carbonate (page 3, formulae 6 and 7). Some cooling within the Kobayashi flue or between the Kobayashi flue and the Medina-Martos reactor to the 800 C temperature would have been inherent or obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Medina-Martos reactor and carbon capture temperature into the modified Kobayashi process because CN104588226A already teaches/suggests utilizing flue gas in a carbonating tower, and Medina-Martos teaches that a similar carbon capture process can be performed with sodium hydroxide at 800 C, within the scope of the CN104588226 teaching/suggestion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021), CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015), and Medina-Martos (Journal of CO2 Utilization, Vol. 60 (June 2022), 13 pages), and further in view of Heinzova (Utilisation of the waste heat…, MATAR Conference, 2013). Kobayashi, Bioul, CN103588226A, and Medina-Martos teach the subject matter of claim 4 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 8, Kobayashi is silent to the gaseous effluent cooled in a heat exchanger and the extracted thermal energy is used to heat an oxidant for combustion.
Heinzova teaches utilizing the waste heat from furnace flue gas for preheating the combustion air (page 37, last paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Heinzova heat exchanger and flue gas waste heat into the modified Kobayashi process motivated by reducing the fuel consumption in the furnace, which has economical significance, as taught by Heinzova (page 37, last paragraph).
Claims 14, 15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021) and CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015).
As to claims 14, Kobayashi teaches a glass-melting process comprising introducing a vitrifiable solid charge comprising at least one carbonate (3:5) into a furnace (3:1-5). Kobayashi teaches heating and melting the charge in the furnace to produce molten glass (3:9) while inherently producing gaseous carbon dioxide by carbonate dissociation. The heat for heating the charge is provided by a combustion of a non-carbon-based fuel (3:15, hydrogen) with an oxidant (3:16, oxygen enriched air). Kobayashi discharges the molten glass from the furnace (Fig. 1, item 18) and discharges gaseous effluent (flue gas) through flue ports and a flue stack (Fig. 2; 4:49-55), inherently containing the gaseous carbon dioxide, from the furnace.
Kobayashi is silent to (b) heating the charge by electric heating, or (e) utilizing the gaseous effluent discharged from the furnace to produce, by carbonation with the carbon dioxide present in the gaseous effluent in a gas-solid carbonation reactor, at least one additive in the form of an alkali-metal or alkaline-earth-metal carbonate, wherein at least a part of said additive produced in step (e) is incorporated in the vitrifiable solid charge which is introduced into the furnace.
Regarding (b), Bioul teaches heating a charge with electrical heating means ([0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bioul electrical heating into Kobayashi because this is the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art of Kobayashi and Bioul included two different heating devices or elements, although not necessarily in a single reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of both heating elements in a single prior art reference. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined both known/conventional methods for heating glass, with each element performing the same heating function as they did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result of combining two heating methods (faster heating) would be predictable.
Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bioul electrical heating into Kobayashi motivated by providing faster heating of the material. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing two heating methods would heat faster than a single heating method, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining two heating methods.
Regarding (e), CN103588226A teaches using carbon dioxide containing flue gas (Abstract) in a carbonizing tower to produce sodium carbonate (an alkali-metal carbonate), also known as soda ash. The CN103588226A carbonizing tower is interpreted to be a gas-solid carbonation reactor. Since (i) Kobayashi inherently teaches generating a carbon dioxide containing flue gas and CN103588226A utilizes carbon dioxide containing flue gas, and (ii) CN103588226A teaches forming soda ash that is widely used in the fields of manufacturing glass (CN103588226A, Technical Background) and Kobayashi specifically teaches including soda ash in a glass manufacturing process (3:5), one would have recognized that the CN103588226A process could be used with the Kobayashi flue gas to generate the soda ash required by the Kobayashi process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the CN103588226A process into Kobayashi since Kobayashi teaches/suggests using soda ash and generating flue gas, and CN103588226A provides soda ash from furnace flue gas within the scope of the Kobayashi teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar generation/utilization of flue gas and generation/utilization of soda ash.
As to claim 15, in the combination of the CN103588226A gas-solid carbonation reactor with the Kobayashi flue gas/gaseous effluent, this claim is met. As to claims 20-22, Kobayashi uses soda ash (sodium carbonate) and CN103588226A produces soda ash, and the Kobayashi glass is inherently soda-lime glass (3:5).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021) and CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015), and further in view of Medina-Martos (Journal of CO2 Utilization, Vol. 60 (June 2022), 13 pages). Kobayashi, Bioul, and CN103588226A teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 15-17, Kobayashi, Bioul, and CN103588226A are silent to the claimed hydroxide, carbonator, and carbonator temperature.
Medina-Martos teaches sending flue gas at 800 C (bottom of page 2) to the inlet of a reactor (batch or fluidized bed carbonator) to perform a carbon capture process by combining with sodium hydroxide to produce sodium carbonate (page 3, formulae 6 and 7). Since the carbonation would be carried out at the temperature of the flue gas, claim 6 is met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Medina-Martos reactor and carbon capture temperature into the modified Kobayashi process because CN104588226A already teaches/suggests utilizing flue gas in a carbonating tower, and Medina-Martos teaches that a similar carbon capture process can be performed with sodium hydroxide at 800 C, within the scope of the CN104588226 teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 18, Kobayashi and CN104588226A are silent to cooling the flue gas to the claimed temperature range.
Medina-Martos teaches sending flue gas at a predetermined temperature range of 800 C (bottom of page 2) to the inlet of a reactor (carbonator) to perform a carbon capture process by combining with sodium hydroxide to produce sodium carbonate (page 3, formulae 6 and 7). Some cooling within the Kobayashi flue or between the Kobayashi flue and the Medina-Martos reactor to the 800 C temperature would have been inherent or obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Medina-Martos reactor and carbon capture temperature into the modified Kobayashi process because CN104588226A already teaches/suggests utilizing flue gas in a carbonating tower, and Medina-Martos teaches that a similar carbon capture process can be performed with sodium hydroxide at 800 C, within the scope of the CN104588226 teaching/suggestion.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6,253,578) in view of Bioul (US 20240425402, priority to December 3, 2021), CN103588226A (CN103588226A, published December 2, 2015), and Medina-Martos (Journal of CO2 Utilization, Vol. 60 (June 2022), 13 pages), and further in view of Heinzova (Utilisation of the waste heat…, MATAR Conference, 2013). Kobayashi, Bioul, CN103588226A, and Medina-Martos teach the subject matter of claim 4 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 19, Kobayashi is silent to the gaseous effluent cooled in a heat exchanger.
Heinzova teaches utilizing the waste heat from furnace flue gas for preheating the combustion air (page 37, last paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Heinzova heat exchanger and flue gas waste heat into the modified Kobayashi process motivated by reducing the fuel consumption in the furnace, which has economical significance, as taught by Heinzova (page 37, last paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered. The arguments are on the grounds that Bioul (discussed on page 6 of the arguments) and Olfi ‘963 (discussed on page 8 of the arguments) teach a gas-liquid reactor. This argument is persuasive with respect to Olfi ‘963, but not with respect to Bioul.
Reconsideration of the rejection shows that CN103588226A, rather than Bioul, was relied upon for a carbonizing tower to produce sodium carbonate (an alkali-metal carbonate). Bioul was relied upon for heating, rather than a carbonizing tower. Even if the argument over Bioul was meant to be made over CN103588226A, the CN103588226A carbonizing tower is interpreted to be a gas-solid carbonation reactor. Applicant is invited to clarify why CN103588226A does not meet a gas-solid carbonation reactor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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 J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742