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
Claims 11-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Applicant argues traverses the restriction based on the grounds the restriction is inappropriate. Applicant argues Examiner has not established groups I, II, and II would yield a burdensome search. Applicant points out overlapping classifications that would need to be searched. In response, groups I and II don’t require a base panel and the base panel of claim 21 could be used in any type of structure regardless of the preamble requiring a burdensome search. Applicant fails to recognize the 5 classifications that do not overlap based on the claims. Examiner indicates additional classifications would need to be searched and despite some overlapping subject matter the different combination of claim limitations throughout the restricted inventions requires different examination and further searching additional classifications. As established in the restriction there are four separate inventions that would need to be examined differently within a variety of classifications thus yielding a search burden on the Examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 requires a composite material comprising at least 20 wt% glass and 2 wt% to 25 wt% of clay. It is unclear how these ranges can coexist. “at least 20 wt%” this includes up to 100 wt% glass thus it is unclear how 2 wt% to 25 wt% of clay is also included.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
Claims 2 and 6 are further rejected as being indefinite. A “refractory” as known in the glass art is generally a material difficult to corrode or capable of handling a high temperature.
As evidenced by Prior art US 3150225 indicates a refractory known in the glass art may be clay (Col 1; lines 18-21).
It is unclear how to differentiate a clay and a refractory in claims 2 and 6.
Different suitable refractories are listed in [0017] of the specification of the present application. These refractories also include some clays. Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification the refractory of claim 2 is interpreted as interchangeable with a clay.
Claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear how the composite material can have those weight ranges which yield over 100 wt%. In light of the specification the reinforcing fibers themselves are preferably glass thus it is unclear if the glass reinforcing fibers are intended to be a percentage of the claimed “glass material” or different. It is completely unclear how to examine claim 6 and what the meets and bounds of claim 6 are.
Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite at least for depending from claim 6.
All of the above creates confusion as to the scope of the claims.
In order to set forth the closest rejection of the present claims it is noted that the furnace liner comprises glass and a clay.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brichard (NO 126129) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Brichard discloses a glass melting apparatus comprising:
A furnace thus, housing defining an interior chamber and including at least one wall, the wall comprising an inner coating that faces the interior chamber Fig 2-6 and
The coating on the refractory body having such a coating composition may be confined to the surface of the body facing the interior of the tank (Page 4; ¶2)
Said coating is comprised of a composite material,
a refractory block of the clay type which contains approx. 35% alumina … and suggested silica
thus comprising at least 20 wt% glass of alumina and the remainder clay.
The overlapping ranges are considered to anticipate claim 1, Alternatively it would be prima facie obvious to optimize the ranges within those disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Brichard discloses a refractory and clay block as indicated in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 107500508) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a glass melting apparatus (Fig 1) comprising:
A furnace thus, housing defining an interior chamber and including at least one wall, of the roof that faces the interior chamber and a coating on the wall comprised of a composite material,
Preferably, the clay fire sludge, the glass fiber, the water glass, and the glue are in percentage by weight: 85% of clay, 10% of glass fiber, 3% of water glass, and 2% of glue.
3% soda lime glass, 10% glass fiber thus 13 % glass and 85% clay.
The overlapping ranges are considered to anticipate claim 1, Alternatively it would be prima facie obvious to optimize the ranges within those disclosed by the prior art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of clay and glass relative to one another as motivated to produce the desirable insulating properties.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses a refractory and clay block as indicated in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the composite material further comprises up to 10 wt% of reinforcing fibers as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses glass, glass fiber, and clay It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of clay and glass or glass in fiber form relative to one another as motivated to produce the desirable insulating properties.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 107500508) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fernando (US 20140147615).
Regarding claims 3-4, Chen discloses a glass melting apparatus with an insulation comprising clay but does not specify the type of clay.
In an analogous art of providing a fibrous insulation [0029] comprising clay Fernando discloses phyllosilicate clays including clays of saponite, or smectite, kaolinite [0054].
Where Chen is silent as to the specific clays it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to look to the available insulation art to find a clay suitable for a glass fibrous insulation.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froberg (US 4796276).
Regarding claims 1-2, Froberg discloses a glass melting apparatus (Fig 1) comprising;
A housing, see furnace housing (Fig 1) defining an interior chamber defined by walls (Fig 1) comprising an interior composite layer (Col 4; lines 58-68) 3.
The interior composite layer of Froberg comprises a refractory of 75 % (regarding claim 2 of the present application)- see claim 5 of Froberg.
The composite material of Froberg has 75% clay and 25% glass - see claim 5 of Froberg.
The goal of Froberg is to mix a refractory with a glass to handle the operating temperature of the furnace to prevent wear of the furnace (Col 5; lines 8-29). It would be obvious to optimize the clay and glass amounts of the liner to prevent wear of the glass melting apparatus given the broadest reasonable interpretations of claims 1-2.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220388886) and further in view of Froberg (US 4796276).
Regarding claim 8-10, Rashley discloses a submerged combustion glass melting apparatus (10) comprising:
a housing defining an interior chamber and including at least one wall (Fig 1-1B),
with submerged burners (14) into the housing
the walls comprise a plurality of panels (12) to provide cooling [0035]-[0038]
the wall comprising an inner composite layer (74) that faces the interior chamber (abstract) holding glass (16) as depicted in Fig 3C [0055]-[0056]. Rashley discloses the cast sacrificial layer composed of cullet and binder [0063] where the cast sacrificial layer is of a composition that is the same or similar to the molten material so that when erosion of the cast sacrificial layer occurs, the eroded material will be melted into the surrounding molten material in the melting furnace and will not contribute to refractory stone in a final product [0034].
and the liquid cooling is outside the cast sacrificial layer (74), Fig 3C
In an analogous art of coatings for high temperatures, Froberg recognizes the same issue and desires to coat the interior of the glass melter with a material that closely matches that of the melted glass (Col 2; lines 61-68).
The composite material of Froberg has 75% clay and 25% glass - see claim 5 of Froberg.
The goal of Froberg is to mix a refractory with a glass to handle the operating temperature of the furnace to prevent wear of the furnace (Col 5; lines 8-29) while matching the glass within the refractory with the properties of the glass to be melted similar to the problem to be solved by Rashley.
It would be obvious to modify the cast sacrificial layer with the glass-clay-refractory taught by Froberg as motivated to solve the same problem of reducing the brick refractory wear and reducing corruption of the melted glass due to erosion.
Additionally it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the clay and glass amounts glass-clay-refractory as motivated to match the molten glass within the melting apparatus given the broadest reasonable interpretations of claims 1-2 and 8-9.
Conclusion
Citation of pertinent art:
US 4491951 lining to furnace with glass compatible to glass to be melted and refractory inert
Fiberfrax ® lining for furnaces with AZS Mullite and additional alumina silica materials to yield chemical composition table, uses fiber glass (fiber glass table)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741