DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, species Ab, Bc, and Cb, to which claims 1-6, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 23-32 read on, in the reply filed on April 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the two groups are directed to a process and apparatus designed for carrying out the process and independent claims 1 and 33 are drawn to the same means for carrying out the process. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of the means is not a contribution over the prior art. Thus, the groups are lacking a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art and therefore, lack unity.
Note applicant withdrew claim 7 for the species “A” restriction. In species “A”, there appears to be two type of glass used for a regenerating material body, one of a porous nature, which includes phase separated glass, silicon dioxide-rich glass, and VYCOR®, and one that is amorphous. Since the amorphous species was selected, the remaining species are considered withdrawn, and these include claims 7-9.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed Jan. 19, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. It appears the wrong WO reference was supplied.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has implied phrases. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19, 23-32 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 at least one first regeneration material body and a second regeneration material body is contacted simultaneously or sequentially with the salt melt. Because a singular verb is used, it is unclear one or both of the regeneration material bodies are required. It is also unclear if the “simultaneously” and “sequentially” referring to the regeneration material bodies (i.e. are the first and second regeneration material bodies used simultaneously) or to the regeneration material body and the salt melt (i.e. the first regeneration material body is used while using the salt melt for glass hardening).
In a similar fashion to claim 1, claim 2 is unclear if the “simultaneously” and “sequentially” referring to the regeneration material bodies (i.e. are the first and second regeneration material bodies used simultaneously) or to the regeneration material body and the salt melt (i.e. the first regeneration material body is used while using the salt melt for glass hardening).
Claim 16 recites a raw material mixture including, apart from potassium oxide, additionally at least one further other oxide. It is unclear if the raw material mixture comprises potassium oxide or not. It is also unclear if the raw material comprises one oxide or more than one oxide.
Claim 17 recites condition “a” and condition “b”. It is unclear what the difference between the two conditions are.
In a similar fashion to claim 1, claim 30 is unclear if the “simultaneously” and “sequentially” referring to the regeneration material bodies (i.e. are the first, second and third regeneration material bodies used simultaneously) or to the regeneration material body and the salt melt (i.e. the first regeneration material body is used while using the salt melt for glass hardening).
Claims 3-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 19, 23-29, and 31-32 are also indefinite, by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11,13, and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gomez-Mower et al. (2022/0081357). Regarding claim 1, Gomez-Mower discloses a method of regenerating a salt melt for glass hardening comprising contacting a first regeneration material body composed of a first regeneration material and a second regeneration material body composed of a second regeneration material with a salt melt ([0065], [0068]). More specifically, Gomez-Mower teaches the first regeneration body, i.e. aggregates ([0080]) can comprise of silicic acid and the second regeneration material body can comprise of a phosphate salt ([0077]], [0078], [0086]). Gomez-Mower further teaches the contacting can be performed in between batches (sequentially) or during (simultaneously) the ion-exchange process ([0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Gomez-Mower teaches a plurality of first regeneration material bodies, i.e. aggregates ([0080]) are in contact with the salt melt simultaneously ([0101]).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Gomez-Mower teaches the regeneration material bodies can have the same shapes, i.e. spheres ([0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Gomez-Mower teaches the first regeneration material body can be an aggregate of silicic acid ([0080]), and the second regeneration material body can be grains containing a phosphate salt ([0077]-[0078], [0086]-[0087]), which is clearly of a different shape and size than that the first regeneration material body.
Regarding claim 11, the regeneration material can take up calcium from the salt melt ([0061]).
Regarding claim 13, the regeneration material can take up lithium from the salt melt ([0063]).
Regarding claim 24, the first regeneration material can comprise of silicic acid ([0080]), which is designed to take up calcium from the salt melt ([0061]), and the second regeneration material can comprise of a phosphate salt ([0086]), which is designed to take up lithium ions from the salt melt ([0063]).
Regarding claims 25-26, the first regeneration material body is disposed in a first vessel made of stainless steel ([0076]) and is in contact with the salt melt, wherein the vessel has at least one opening through which the molten salt of the salt melt can flow while preventing the first regeneration material body from escaping ([0074], [0076]).
Regarding claim 27, the regeneration material body are agitated in the salt melt through the use of an impeller ([0096]).
Regarding claim 28, a portion of the salt melt is guided continually or at intervals through a channel in which the regeneration material body is present (figure 4B, [0094], [0096]).
Regarding claim 29, the salt melt comprises potassium nitrate ([0070]).
Regarding claim 30, Gomez-Mower teaches the potassium salt can be a combination of different regeneration materials, such as trisodium phosphate, potassium pyrophosphate, and sodium triphosphate ([0086]). Thus, a combination of three different regeneration materials is suggested to be in contact with the salt melt, either simultaneously or sequentially.
Regarding claim 31, Gomez-Mower teaches contacting glass articles with the salt melt, while is melt is regenerated continually or at time intervals ([0057], [0064]).
Regarding claim 32, the regeneration material body and the glass articles are contacted with the salt melt simultaneously ([0064]).
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Mower et al. (2022/0081357) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leger et al. (DE 1771232 machine translation provided). Gomez-Mower teaches silicic acid including silicates as a regeneration material ([0061]), but doesn’t suggest glass or amorphous silica as a regeneration material. Leger teaches a method for regenerating a salt melt for strengthening glass articles, the method comprising contacting the salt melt with a regeneration material. Like Gomez-Mower, Leger also teaches silicates as a regeneration material, as well as a variety of other regeneration materials including natural mineral, glass, and vitreous aluminosilicates, which is considered an amorphous silica. Leger suggests these materials provides for more readily capturing of ions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried other regeneration materials such as glass or vitreous aluminosilicate, as Leger teaches a reasonable expectation of success with such materials for regenerating a salt melt.
Claims 6, 10, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Mower et al. (2022/0081357) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (2021/0403377). Gomez-Mower teaches conventional regeneration materials, such as phosphate salts, but doesn’t suggest glass. Fu teaches the conventional regeneration materials, such as phosphate salts can result in potential corrosion of or adhesion to the glass articles being treated, thereby causing defects, and sludge formation that makes cleaning the bath tank difficult ([0004]). Fu teaches to use a more efficient regeneration material, such as glass ([0006]). Fu specifies using amorphous silica glass articles, such as a potassium-containing silicate glass, made from a melt of raw materials including potassium oxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and boric oxide, among other oxides ([0006]). Fu also teaches potassium oxide in the glass articles promotes the exchange of poisoning ions out of the molten salt bath and into the glass articles, with higher concentrations of potassium oxide producing faster regeneration rates, and suggests 10 mol% to 50 mol% of K2O in the glass article. Fu further provide several examples of the glass article used as a regeneration material, wherein the K2O content is between 20 wt% and 40 wt%, such as 40 wt% in examples 6-10 and 31 wt% in example 4 (table 1). Fu teaches using such glass as regeneration material avoids the corrosion issues observed when using phosphate slats to regenerate the salt melt ([0032]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used amorphous glass, such as potassium containing silicates having a potassium oxide content of about 40 wt%, as the regeneration material in the process of Gomez-Mower, as such regeneration material prevents defects in the glass article being treated and provides for easier cleaning of the bath tank, as taught by Fu.
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
Prosecution Insights