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 Group II claim 15 in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 10, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2026.
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.
Claim 13, 22-23 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the glass cullet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, which recites, “calcium source is selected…..Na2CO3”, it is not clear how the calcium source can have NAOH or a mixture thereof. Clarification is requested. However, for the purpose of the examination, Examiner is interpreting it to be calcium source.
Regarding claim 23, 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 23 recites the broad recitation less than 6%, and the claim also recites 2-6% 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 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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12, 15, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2009/0120132).
Regarding claims 11, 15, 22 Bauer discloses process for making a glass product with reduced greenhouse gas emission, comprising: providing a raw material composition comprising at least one silicon dioxide or silicon dioxide-containing compound and at least one pre-reacted compound, wherein the pre-reacted compound comprises an atom of an alkaline earth metal chemically bonded to an oxygen atom, and a silicon atom chemically bonded to the oxygen atom; melting the raw material composition to produce a molten material; and forming the molten material into a glass product (abstract). The raw material composition comprises calcium silicate, silicon dioxide (claims 3-4). The silicon dioxide or silicon dioxide-containing compound is present in an amount from about 2% to about 50%, based on the total weight of the raw material composition (claim 3). The total content of the volcanic glass and calcium silicate present in raw material composition is from about 5% to about 65%, based on the total weight of the raw material composition (claim 7), with respect to amount of calcium silicate in the mixture, it would meet the limitation of 2.5-32.5 wt%, When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). The raw material composition further comprises glass cullet (claim 11). Conventional raw material compositions for forming a molten glass typically rely on the presence of substantial amounts of a carbonate-containing reactive agent such as soda ash (Na.sub.2CO.sub.3), dolomite (CaMg(CO.sub.3).sub.2), burnt dolomite and/or limestone (CaCO.sub.3) to assist in the glass forming process. Applicants have observed that the use of such substantial amounts of carbonate-containing reactive agents typically and glass composition comprises boron source (para 0014, table 1). The cullet (i.e., recycled glass) can optionally be included in the raw material composition. The cullet can include, for example, bottle cullet, plate cullet or a combination thereof (para 0021).
Regarding claims 8-9, with respect to the weight percentage limitation of calcium silicate, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization motivated by the desire to have desired high thermal stability and moisture absorption properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, with respect to 50wt% of glass cullet, When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Claim(s) 2, 13, 16, 19, 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2009/0120132) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Zguris et al. (WO 2004/011379).
Regarding claims 2, 16, 19, 23 Bauer fails to disclose the mixture is produced upon melting having the claimed composition in weight percentages.
Whereas, Zguris discloses glass composition comprising mixture of materials comprising SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% and other oxides less than 0 wt% (Table 1, page 3). Certain embodiments of the glass compositions include iron oxide in trace quantities since it is also normally introduced as an impurity in the SiO2, A12O3, CaO, and/or MgO batch materials. A typical content of iron in a glass composition is from about 0.05 wt % to about 0.1 wt % (page 12, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% as taught by Zguris in the glass composition of Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical and structural properties.
Regarding claim 13, Bauer fails to disclose the glass cullet satisfies composition as claimed in claim 13.
Whereas, Zguris discloses glass composition comprising mixture of materials comprising SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% and other oxides less than 0 wt% (Table 1, page 3). Certain embodiments of the glass compositions include iron oxide in trace quantities since it is also normally introduced as an impurity in the SiO2, A12O3, CaO, and/or MgO batch materials. A typical content of iron in a glass composition is from about 0.05 wt % to about 0.1 wt % (page 12, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% as glass cullet as taught by Zguris in the glass composition of Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical and structural properties.
Claim(s) 5-7, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2009/0120132) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Trivedi et al. (US 4830989).
Regarding claim 17, Bauer fails to disclose that the glass composition raw material comprises magnesium silicate.
Whereas, Trivedi discloses continuous, monofilamentous, alkali-resistant glass fiber especially useful in cementitious products is conveniently prepared from a glass-forming composition comprising a magnesium silicate such as talc and a calcium carbonate such as limestone (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include magnesium silicate as taught by Trivedi in the glass composition of Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved heat resistance.
Regarding claims 5-7, with respect to the weight percentage limitation of magnesium silicate, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization motivated by the desire to have desired heat resistance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 3-4, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2009/0120132) in view of Zguris et al. (WO 2004/011379) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Trivedi et al. (US 4830989).
Regarding claims 3-4, 20 Bauer fails to disclose that the glass composition raw material comprises magnesium silicate.
Whereas, Zguris discloses glass composition comprising mixture of materials comprising SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% and other oxides less than 0 wt% (Table 1, page 3). Certain embodiments of the glass compositions include iron oxide in trace quantities since it is also normally introduced as an impurity in the SiO2, A12O3, CaO, and/or MgO batch materials. A typical content of iron in a glass composition is from about 0.05 wt % to about 0.1 wt % (page 12, lines 9-13).
Whereas, Trivedi discloses continuous, monofilamentous, alkali-resistant glass fiber especially useful in cementitious products is conveniently prepared from a glass-forming composition comprising a magnesium silicate such as talc and a calcium carbonate such as limestone (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%, B2O3 in an amount of 4-9 wt%, Al2O3 in an amount of 1-5 wt%, K2O in an amount of 0-3 wt% as taught by Zguris in the glass composition of Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical and structural properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include magnesium silicate as taught by Trivedi in the glass composition of Bauer motivated by the desire to have improved heat resistance.
Regarding claim 21, Zguris discloses glass composition comprising mixture of materials comprising SiO2 in an amount of 54-70 wt%, Na2O in an amount of 9-20 wt%, CaO in an amount of 3-7 wt%, MgO in an amount of 1-5 wt%. The claim would have been obvious since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
