DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Figure 1 and 2 are objected to because the legend is not in English. Fig. 3 is objected to as having text, in the title and legend, that is not legible.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The section headings in the specification are missing.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites preparing a mixture of raw materials of glass, and then proceeds to recite a list of components in the wherein clauses. It is unclear if these components are the raw materials of glass used for preparing the mixture, as there is no nexus between the components and the raw materials. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, it will be presumed the components are the raw materials.
Claim 1 recites in lines 4-5, and secondary glassmaking raw materials. It is unclear what is done with the secondary raw materials. Is it mixed with the water, sand, and sodium carbonate mixture?
Claims 1 and 18 recite “within a time of less than 10 minutes”. It is unclear from what referenced point is the 10 minutes measured. Claim 1 recites only one step of preparing a mixture of raw material, and list several raw materials in the wherein clauses. Thus, it is unclear what step is performed such that within 10 minutes calcium oxide is added or calcium carbonate is added.
Claim 1 recites calcium oxide is added in a proportion of 1-20 wt% of the mixture. Which mixture is being referenced, the mixture of water, sand, and sodium carbonate? Or the mixture of water, sand, sodium carbonate, and secondary raw materials? Or water, sand, sodium carbonate, secondary raw materials, and calcium oxide?
Claim 2 recites the grains with a thickness of between 20 and 60 % of a length and width. It is unclear what length and what width is being referenced. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, it will be presumed the length and width is in reference to the grain. Additionally, it is unclear what the metes and bound of the range 20-60% of the length and width. If the length and width are different, then it is unclear if the range is 20-60% of the length, or 20-60% of the width, or the widest range provided for between the two. Due to the indefiniteness of the limitation “20-60 % of a length and width”, this limitation cannot be examined at this time. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the limitation of a thickness being less than 3mm will be relied upon.
Claims 15 and 18 recite “the mixture”. Which mixture is being referenced, the mixture of water, sand, and sodium carbonate? Or the mixture of water, sand, sodium carbonate, and secondary raw materials? Or water, sand, sodium carbonate, secondary raw materials, and calcium oxide?
Claim 16 recites a wherein clause for an oxidant supplied to a burner. The limiting effect of this limitation is unclear, as a wherein clause is used to further limit a positively recited structure or method step. Since there is no mention of any structure or step other than preparing a raw material mixture by mixing, it is unclear how reciting oxygen as an oxidant further limits the preparation of the mixture.
Claim 20 recites more than 95% by mass does not pass through a sieve of 1 mm. It is unclear what material this limitation is further limiting. Is it the sand, sodium carbonate, calcium oxide, or the whole mixture?
Claims 3-14, 17 and 19 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles et al. (2020/0156980). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Charles discloses a method for manufacturing glass comprising preparing a mixture of raw materials of glass comprising water, sand, sodium carbonate, secondary glassmaking raw materials, and calcium oxide ([0098]), wherein the mass proportions of water, sand and calcium carbonate are mixed in mass proportions of between 0 and 5%, 40 an 65%, and more than 0 and no more than 25% respectively ([0042]). Charles also teaches adding calcium oxide in a mass proportion of between 1 and 20% of the mixture ([0040]) and demonstrates examples wherein the calcium oxide was added 5 minutes after mixing the other raw materials (t=t0+5 minutes ([0049]-[0056]). Charles also teaches an example using quicklime C having a particle size of caliber 4/8 mm, which comprises a predominance of the particle size in the range of 4 mm to 8 mm ([0055]), and an example using quicklime D having a particle size with D50 at 1.2mm. Charles explains quicklime D (with D50 at 1.2mm) produced a lot of batch dust ([0059]), while quicklime C (caliber 4/8 mm) had low heating and little dust (fig. 2 [0057], [0059]). This would suggest to one skilled in the art who is concerned with dust generation, would lean towards calcium oxide particles having larger particle size. Charles teaches a concern with providing for a mixture with a low generation of dust ([0015]), and recognizes that smaller particles generates large amount of dust, which leads to increased corrosion of the furnace, loss of material, and accumulation downstream ([0012]-[0014]). Charles also teaches maximizing the amount of calcium oxide particles with a size greater than 0.1 mm to avoid batch dusts ([0066]), which suggests screening out all dust particles before use. While Charles doesn’t specify calcium oxide with a granulometry of more than 97% do not pass through a 0.125 mm sieve and more than 96% do not pass through a 0.5 mm sieve, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried calcium oxide particles having such granulometry, in light of the teachings and findings in the examples of Charles. More specifically, it is taught that dusts generation must be reduced, that smaller particles generates large amount of dust, particles, calcium oxide particles having a size above 0.1mm should be maximized, and particles with particle size of caliber 4/8 mm does not generate much dust. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have minimized or even eliminate fines in the calcium oxide so that greater than 97% do not pass through a 0.125 mm sieve. Furthermore, in order to provide particles having caliber 4/8 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the removal of small particles for the calcium oxide to have a granulometry of at least 96% do not pass through a 0.5 mm sieve and more than 95% by mass does not pass through a sieve of 1 mm (claim 20).
Regarding claim 3, the mixture of water, sand, calcium oxide and sodium carbonate has a moisture level of no more than 5% ([0022]).
Regarding claim 4, the sodium carbonate has a granulometry with less than 5% passing through a sieve of 0.075 mm, less than 15% passing through a sieve of 0.150 mm, and less than 5% not passing through a sieve of 0.600 mm ([0021]).
Regarding claim 5, the calcium oxide comprises by mass 0.16 ppm of Fe2O3, which is less than 1000 ppm ([0068]).
Regarding claim 6, an initial temperature of the raw materials is at least 30°C ([0025]).
Regarding claims 7-8, as discussed above in claim 1, it is suggested to remove all the dust when maximizing the amount of particles having a size greater than 0.1mm, which suggests the calcium oxide has a granulometry such that more than 98% does not pass through a sieve of 0.08 mm or a sieve of 0.125mm.
Regarding claim 9, Charles suggests the calcium oxide has a d50 granulometry of between 1 and 4 mm ([0028], [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, the sand is dry ([0031]).
Regarding claim 11, the water is present in the sand ([0032]).
Regarding claim 12, the calcium oxide is devoid of any intentional addition of aluminum oxide ([0033]), and cullet is added to the mixture of glass raw materials, in a mass proportion of between 5 and 40% of the mixture ([0034]).
Regarding claim 13, the mixture of glass raw materials is prepared in the solid state ([0035]).
Regarding claim 14, the mixture of glass raw materials is prepared at a temperature of between ambient temperature and ambient temperature plus 20°C, and the mixture of glass raw materials is prepared without addition of thermal energy ([0035]-[0036], claim 17).
Regarding claim 15, the mixture of glass raw materials is loaded into an electric furnace ([0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Charles further teaches melting the mixture of glass raw materials by heating with a burner, wherein an oxidant supplied to the burner is oxygen ([0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 17, the water, sand, sodium carbonate and calcium oxide are present in mass proportions of between 0 and 5%, 40 and 65%, 1 and 25%, and 1 and 20%, respectively ([0042]).
Regarding claims 18-19, Charles teaches example comprising limestone, which is calcium carbonate. Charles recognizes certain benefits with limestone, such as reduced cost ([0013]), small temperature increase with use of limestone ([0056]) and low generation of dust ([0059], [0063]). As limestone is a recognized and common source for CaO in the glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have explored using limestone in conjunction with quicklime (CaO), as it would provide for benefits, such as reducing generation of dust. Furthermore, just as the CaO is added within 10 minutes in a mass proportion of between 1 and 20% of the mixture (as discussed in claim 1), it would have been obvious to have added the calcium carbonate simultaneously with the calcium oxide with a similar content, as both are the source for CaO in the glass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 at 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741