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 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 and 47 are rejected as being indefinite. These claims recite:
The composite material comprises at least 20 wt% glass and 2-25 wt % of clay
Claim 1 requires a composite material comprising at least 20 wt% glass and 2 wt% to 25 wt% of clay. It remains 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.
Additionally claim 1 recites, “wherein in addition to the glass and clay, the composite comprises a refractory material in an amount up to 75 wt% and reinforcing fibers in an amount up to 10 wt %”
“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 clay and refractory in claim 1.
Claim 38 is rejected as indefinite because it requires the reinforcing fibers are chopped glass fibers and it is unclear if this is a portion of the glass of “at least 20 wt% glass” in claim 1. This is not clarified in view of the published specification of the present application discussing the reinforcing fibers [0024].
Claims 3-4, 7, 9-10, and 36-46 are rejected as being indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of this examination the term, “refractory” is given the standard definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary in light of a skilled artisan, “difficult to fuse, corrode, or draw out especially : capable of enduring high temperature”
Claims 1 and 47 recite, , “wherein in addition to the glass and clay, the composite comprises a refractory material in an amount up to 75 wt% and reinforcing fibers in an amount up to 10 wt %” thus no refractory material or reinforcing fibers are actually required to meet the claimed ranges of the composite material.
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, 45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brichard (NO 126129) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 47, 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)
In contact with the liquid bath(Page 1; second to last paragraph) a coating on the floor (pages 3 paragraphs 5-9)
Thus in contact with the liquid contents of the furnace at least along the bottom of the furnace
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 45, Brichard discloses an atomizing agent of sodium silicate (Page 4; ¶8)
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, 3, 7, 9-10, 36-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220388886) and Rezende (US 20240246866).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9-10, 38-39, and 47, 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].
In an analogous art of coatings for high temperatures Rezende discloses a composite of 1-5% clay of bentonite [0012] which is a phyllosilicate, 5-40% inorganic fibers [0011] where the inorganic fibers are glass [0005], [0040] and not infinite in length thus chopped, thus overlapping the composition of claims 1 and 47 given the broadest reasonable interpretation. A refractory of silica particles [0004], [0035]
It would be obvious to modify the cast sacrificial layer of Rashley with the glass-clay-refractory taught by Rezende as motivated to provide insulation and prevent refractory erosion.
Regarding claim 40, Rezende discloses the composite comprising insulative particles of silica nanoparticles [0004]-[0006] thus colloidal silica of 2% at its lowest and indicates the colloidal silica, equivalent to the insulative particles of nanosized silica, provide the insulating compound with a porosity ranging from nano to mesopore when cured. This pore size distribution enables the insulating compound to reflect a range of wavelengths of radiation, such as ultraviolet to infrared length radiation. The wide range of reflectivity lowers the temperature of the composition of matter including the insulating compound under extreme heat conditions. [0037]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the insulative particle amount as motivated achieve the desired heat conditions, absent any unexpected results.
Regarding claims 41-42, Rashley discloses each wall is at least partially constructed from a plurality of panels, or outer walls, that are coupled together, each panel providing a portion of a liquid cooled support base and the inner composite layer of the wall as depicted in Fig 3B-D
Regarding claims 43-44, Rashley discloses the panels having partitions to establish a flow path of a cooling channel shown best in Fig 3B [0045]-[0047] of Rashley discloses protrusions (72) configured to carry the cast sacrificial layer, or composite layer, [0051]
Regarding claims 45-46, Rezende does not disclose sodium silicate, magnesia or zirconia in the composite.
Claim(s) 1, 38 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220388886) and further in view of Chen (CN 107500508) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claims 1, 38, and 47, 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, Chen recognizes the same issue and desires of the glass melter of an insulating temperature-keeping material layer
The composite material of 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 glass fiber is considered chopped because it is not continuous to infinity in length.
It would be obvious to modify the cast sacrificial layer with the glass-clay-refractory taught by Chen as motivated to solve the same problem of reducing the brick refractory wear and reducing corruption of the melted glass due to erosion.
It would further 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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 107500508) and Rashley (US 20220388886) 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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rashley (US 20220388886) and Chen (CN 107500508) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9-10, 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
It would be obvious to modify the cast sacrificial layer with the glass-clay-refractory taught by Chen as motivated to solve the same problem of reducing the brick refractory wear and reducing corruption of the melted glass due to erosion.
Claim(s) 1 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froberg (US 4796276).
Regarding claims 1 and47, 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) 9-10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues claim 1 is not indefinite citing MPEP 2173(c ) simply because the claims may be read in theory to include compositions that are impossible in fact to formulate. It was observed that subject matter which cannot exist in fact can neither anticipate nor infringe a claim. In re Kroekel, 504 F.2d 1143, 183 USPQ 610 (CCPA 1974) In reading this case thoroughly the court determined that it is not indefinite to simply have components in a composition that add up to a weight percentage of over 100% the court ruled, As we observed in Moore, claims are not to be considered in a vacuum, "but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art." When considered in the light of the prior art and the specification, claims otherwise indefinite may be found reasonably definite. In the present situation the claims do not only recite ranges that add to over 100 wt% but the broadest claims further do not distinguish between components of refractory and clay nor total glass weight and fiber glass and there is no clear determination of the scope of the claims 1 and 47.
Applicant argues Chen discloses a coating that does not contact the molten material within the furnace. This argument is moot in view of the present rejection as necessitated by the amendments. Applicant argues the total glass taught by Chen in the composite is half that required by claim 1 (page 11 of the remarks filed 05/28/2026). Examiner maintains that It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of clay and glass relative to one another in the composite of Chen as motivated to produce the desirable insulating properties. The claimed composite is an insulating material comprising clay and glass. These are obvious insulating materials as indicated by the variety of prior art in the rejections and Examiner maintains it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of clay and glass relative to one another in the composite of Chen as motivated to produce the desirable insulating properties absent any unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claim.
Applicant has not argued any of the other prior art.
Conclusion
Citation of pertinent art:
Di (CN 119930323)
refractory material preparation, claims a novel efficient refractory insulating brick and preparation method thereof, comprising the following raw materials in parts by weight: 20 to 30 parts of fire-resistant clay, 45 to 65 parts of composite mineral filler, 8 to 15 parts of composite fiber, 1 to 5 parts of aluminum powder, the composite mineral filler comprises the following raw materials in parts by weight: diatomite 10 to 20 parts, perlite 10 to 15 parts, vermiculite 5 to 15 parts, alumina foam 10 to 15 parts, zirconia 5 to 10 parts, silicon carbide 1 to 5 parts, the composite fiber comprises the following raw materials in terms of parts by weight: 5-10 parts of ceramic fiber and 3-5 parts of glass fiber.
Applicant recited clays of Veegum and Volclay that are known for sale used as the clay compositions Technical data sheet
WO 2023161120 clay minerals the term “clay mineral” is understood to mean a phyllosilicate, such as, for example, kaolinite, illite, smectite, vermiculite, montmorillonite, chlorite, hectorite, saponite or a mixture thereof. a mixture containing clay and/or kaolin and/or bentonite in a range from 60% by weight to 100% by weight and optionally a glass frit in a range from 0% by weight to 40% by weight. amorphous, solidified SiO2 melt, which more preferably has oxides that lower the melting point, such as U2O, Na2O, K2O, B2O3, CaO, BaO, Bi2O3 and/or ZnO. The glaze can also comprise at least one opacifying agent, suitable opacifying agents being, for example, refractory oxides such as e.g. B. Al2O3, SnÜ2, ZrÜ2, AS2O3, AS2O5, CeO2, WO3, V2O3, and / or 2O5, which preferably do not melt and are therefore more preferably evenly distributed as particles
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Hindelang 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
Prosecution Insights