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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, the limitation “has passes” (line 16) contains a grammatical error and should be recited as “has passed”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
With respect to claim 1, following limitations of step b render the claim indefinite: “using silicon dioxide (SiO2), and sodium oxide (Na2O) as a main component”, as it is unclear if just Na2O or both SiO2 and Na2O are “main components”; furthermore, the term “main” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “main (component)” 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. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations to be met by a teaching of a water treatment again comprising silicon dioxide (SiO2) and sodium oxide (Na2O).
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitations “as occasion demands” render the claim indefinite, as the claim does not define the circumstances under which one kind or plural kinds of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), or boron oxide (B2O3) would be added. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider aluminum oxide (Al2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), or boron oxide (B2O3) as optional components of the water treatment agent.
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitations “a position that is a little below an upper edge of a cavity” renders the claim indefinite, as “a little below” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a little below” 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. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the limitations to be met by a teaching of adding the materials into the metal mold.
With continued reference to claim 1, the limitations (“the cooling water”) (lines 14, 21, 24) render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this cooling water refers to the water in step a or to a different cooling water(s) (which seems more likely based on application of water in steps a, c, e, and f). Clarification is respectfully requested.
Within steps c, e, and f, the limitations “cooling the material up to around” specific temperatures renders the claim indefinite, as “up to around” could mean any temperature up to the recited temperature, and furthermore because the material is being cooled, therefore at the very least, the limitations should read “cooling the material down to around”. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding step g, it is unclear what is meant by “naturally drying” and “naturally cooling”; also “the massive water treatment agent” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis in the claim language and contains the relative term “massive”. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider these limitations as being met a teaching of the material being “cooled”, and “naturally drying” will be interpreted as the material is dried.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001340893 (machine translation provided and relied upon) in view of WO 2019/234355 (machine translation provided and relied upon), Apel et al. (U.S. Patent # 7074730), Pei et al. (U.S. Patent # 3809599), Trom et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0002215), and Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0353886), hereinafter “JP (‘893)”, “WO (‘355)”, “Apel”, “Pei”, “Trom”, and “Choi”.
With respect to claim 1, JP (‘893) teaches a method of producing a water treatment agent, (Abstract; Claim 1), the method (see Page 5, bottom 6 paragraphs) comprising:
b. mixing raw materials in the following proportions: less than 50 mol%, or 1-30 mol% silicon oxide (SiO2), 5 to 60 mol% alkali metal oxide (sodium preferred: see Page 4: paragraph 7: Na2O) as a main component as consistent with the 122(b) rejection set forth above) (see labeled Paragraph [0010] on Page 2), alumina (“aluminum oxide (Al2O3)”), magnesia (“magnesium oxide (MgO)”) as an optional component, and boron oxide (B2O3) as an optional component (considered to meet the limitations “as occasion demands” according to the 112(b) rejection set forth above) (Page 4, Paragraphs 2, 7, 9, and 10), heating and melting the mixed raw materials to a temperature between 1200 °C and 1350 °C (overlapping “1200 °C and 1300 °C”) within a crucible for 1-2 hours (“storing them in a mold”) (Page 5, Paragraph 10), and wherein the raw materials as described above are added into the crucible or tank kiln (“mold”) as described on Page 5, Paragraph 10, wherein the crucible or tank kiln have an inherent upper edge, meeting the limitations “injecting the materials, the materials are injected to a position which is a little below an upper edge of a cavity in the mold” as consistent with the 112(b) rejection of these limitations set forth above);
JP (‘893) and the claims differ in that JP (‘893) does not teach the exact same proportions for the heating temperature as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in temperature taught by JP (‘893) overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in JP (‘893), particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve
upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Additionally, it has been held that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature(s) are critical. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of values (MPEP 2144.05.II.A.).
JP (‘893) does not specifically teach a) continuously cooling a metal mold with a flowing water by arranging the metal mold in the flowing water except an upper portion of the metal mold.
WO (‘355) teaches a furnace with metal walls which are continuously cooled via circulation of a coolant including a water jacket (considered to be consistent with “arranging the metal mold in the flowing water except an upper portion of the metal mold”) while in operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the crucible of JP (‘893) with the furnace with metal walls which are continuously cooled via circulation of a coolant including a water jacket of WO (‘355) because JP (‘893) teaches that the heating and melting can take place in a furnace (see Page 5, 5th and 6th paragraph from the bottom), and because WO (‘355) teaches that the furnace with metal walls which are continuously cooled reduces premature wear on refractory ceramics, and further that circulation of water reduces corrosion on the metal of the burner (see WO (‘355): Page 2, second and fourth paragraphs).
JP (’293) does not specifically teach the limitations of step c.
Apel teaches cooling a mold of molten glass to a range of temperature from 600 to 980 °C (considered to render obvious the limitations “temperature up to around 800 °C”, to obtain a glass sample. It would have been obvious to cool the glass in a mold as taught by Apel, in order to obtain a desired shape of solidified material (Column 5, lines 37-67). Regarding spraying of water, Pei teaches spraying water (“water like a shower” at least in part from above the mold) on a mold containing glass in order to cool the glass to temperatures of less than 1000 °C (see Column 8, line 60 through Column 9, line 21), consistent with the claimed implied range of “around 800 °C”. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to consult the art of cooling glass in a mold in order to determine appropriate means of cooling.
Although Apel and Peri do not teach spray times, the Examiner submits that spraying time of water (with has to be below a temperature of 100 °C to be in sprayable liquid form) onto molten glass for quenching is result effective variable based on the starting temperature of the molten glass and amount/flow rate of the water. As such, obtaining the specific recited temperatures over certain time periods would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that step c) also does not preclude longer spray times.
Additionally, it is noted that there is no evidence indicating such times of pouring water to obtain certain temperatures are critical. 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding steps d through g, JP (‘893) teaches that the melt can be cooled via dropping molten glass into water, or (inherently) during the formation of predetermined shapes (that are no longer molten and therefor at least partially cooled) (see Page 5, bottom 4 paragraphs), wherein water makes contact with the molten glass from all sides as it cools from melting temperature to the temperature of the water (at most 100 °C), which is recognized as an equivalent to “pouring cooling water from above and below” to cool the molten glass from molten temperature (1200-1300°C) to through the recited 500°C and through or to 100°C (maximum temperature of the water of JP (‘893)): see Trom: Paragraph [0063]).
Although Trom does not teach spray times for quenching, the Examiner submits that spraying time of water (with has to be below a temperature of 100 °C) onto molten glass for quenching is result effective variable based on the starting temperature of the molten glass and amount/flow rate of the water. As such, obtaining the specific recited temperatures over certain time periods would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that steps e and f also does not preclude longer spray/pouring times.
Additionally, it is noted that there is no evidence indicating such times of pouring water to obtain certain temperatures are critical. 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the limitation “net”, Choi teaches a U-shaped net comprising glass, through which cooling water is sprayed at the glass (see Paragraph [0030]; claim 1; Fig. 2), which would be an obvious addition to the cooling features of JP (‘893) in view of Trom, as this would provide a drain line for water and a dryer to complete the cooling and drying of the glass (considered to be consistent with “naturally drying and naturally cooling” to obtain the water treatment agent) (see Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding the limitations “cracks each having a depth between 1.0 mm and 1.5 mm are formed in the water treatment agent from upper and lower surfaces”, this is considered to be an intended result of carrying out the method of claim 1. As JP (‘293) in view of WO (‘355), Apel, Pei, Trom, and Choi render obvious steps a through g, the water treatment agent obtained by this reference combination is considered to comprises the recited cracks.
With respect to the preamble limitations “which can inhibit and remove a silica scale”, it is submitted that JP (‘893) in view of WO (‘355), Apel, Pei, Trom, and Choi renders obvious all of the components of the water treatment agent as prepared by the process of claim 1; therefore, the water treatment agent obtained from the above combination of references is capable of acting to inhibit and remove a silica scale, which in in any event is considered to be merely an intended use of the water treatment agent prepared by the method of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
12 December 2025