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Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventive concept comprises introducing a particulate mixture that comprises SiC particles and carrier particles to thereby increase seeds within is an inventive concept over the prior art recited in the restriction filed 09/11/2025. Applicant indicates all of the art cited does not aim to increase a concentration of seeds within the flow of molten glass in and/or within an outflow of conditioned molten glass from the forehearth.
This is not found persuasive because primarily, the claims do not precisely recite this inventive concept. They also do not recite what the seed content is “increased” relative to thus Examiner has noted the inventive concept is inserting the SiC particles and carrier particles into molten glass to increase/ or control seeds.
As to the location of the SiC insertion a skilled artisan knows that a finer, homogenizer, conditioner, mixer can be interchangeable terms in a glass melting process and can include reduction in hotspots, further mixing of unmelted batch, reducing or increasing bubble, increasing bubbles rise rate, cooling glass flow.
Applicant is narrowing the inventive concept beyond what is stated in the present claims.
Prior art US 20210094858 [0029] precisely states that a carrier gas and particulate SiC to control the bubble content (see also Fig 7) thus teaching the shared inventive concept. Prior art US 20210094858 teaches the same inventive concept in [0032].
KR20200131036 adding SiC to actually increase seeds in chamber 230, thus increasing bubble content and Applicant’s argument is thus moot to this prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/28/2025 and 12/09/2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically; the non-patent literature of the IDS filed 12/09/2025 and 08/28/2025 do not have a concise explanation of relevance in an English translation. These have been placed in the application file, but not all the information referred to therein has been considered.
Specification
The use of the term Rosber SA de CV (headquartered in Naucalpan de Juárez, Mexico), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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) 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2004026618) as cited in the machine translation provided herein and further in view of Tuomas (EP 3656747).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a method of forming foam glass articles in a continuous melting furnace [0003], the method comprising:
providing a glass-making furnace (Fig 1) that comprises a melting chamber (as depicted upstream in Fig 1, [0005]),
a mixing chamber (1a), comprising a fining chamber and a foaming chamber (1b) equivalent to the claimed forehearth,
the melting chamber and the fining chamber are separated by a throat wherein any portion the melting chamber and/or fining chamber adjacent the other is considered a “throat” given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
the forehearth is fluidly coupled to the fining chamber as depicted in at least (Fig 1 [0006]-[[0008]),
the melting chamber contains a molten glass bath (Fig 1)
a vitrifiable feed material is introduced into the melter necessarily to yield the molten glass,
the fining chamber (1a) contains a molten glass fining bath from the melter that receives glass from the molten glass bath in the melting chamber through the throat as described above.
introducing a particulate mixture from hopper (6) that comprises a foaming agent [0008] coated with soluble fine powders (11).
Kobayashi does not disclose the foaming agent of present claim 1.
In analogous art of manufacturing foam glass, Tuomas discloses a foaming agent of SiC [0040]-[0042] and a carrier particle of a glass powder mixed with the foaming agent [0059].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the foaming agent of Kobayashi with the foaming agent of Tuomas as motivated to produce foam glass.
Adding the foaming agent increases bubbles thus increases a concentration of seeds within the flow of molten glass anywhere between the introduction and release of the glass thus meeting the claim limitation of claim 1 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 2-3, Tuomas discloses carrier particles comprise glass powder [0059] considered cullet particles or frit given the broadest reasonable interpretation [0034].
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the carrier particles included in the particulate mixture comprise vitrifiable particles (Fig 2) are soluble particles (11) thus melt into a vitreous state when introduced into the flow of molten glass [0011]-[0012].
Regarding claims 5-6, Koabayashi discloses the carrier particles less than 500 microns [0012].
Tuomas suggests SiC foaming particles have particle sizes that range from 0.1 to 10 microns [0042] thus overlapping the claimed range of 10-120 microns and carrier particles in the particulate mixture have particle sizes 15-150 microns thus overlapping the claimed range of 50-300 microns.
MPEP 2144.05 states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists
It would further be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the foaming agent and carrier particles as motivated to adjust the foaming properties and not concentrated on the surface of the glass and are uniformly distributed throughout the glass as taught by Kobayashi [0013].
Regarding claims 7-9, Kobayashi discloses the foaming agent to carrier particles are 1:100
MPEP 2144.05 states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists
Regarding claims 10-11, The inflow of the foaming agent and outflow of the foamed glass is considered mere optimization to a skilled artisan thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the addition of the foaming agent and carrier particles as motivated to produce the amount of bubbles/seeds/blisters/cells in the final glass product absent any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi discloses the process for blow-molding [0002] thus it woud be obvious to a skilled artisan to blow mold a glass container.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2004026618) as cited in the machine translation provided herein and further in view of Tuomas (EP 3656747) as applied above and further in view of Wang (WO 2019177744).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kobayashi is silent to the glass composition and temperature in the fining bath.
Analogous art Wang discloses melting soda lime glass in a continuous furnace for making containers [0002] discloses foamy melted soda lime glass exiting the melter into a refiner at a temperature of 1350-1550 deg. Celsius. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use a typical soda-lime glass in the method of Kobayashi and expect the temperature to fall within the claimed ranges of claims 12 and 14.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses the carrier particles less than 500 microns [0012].
Tuomas suggests SiC foaming particles have particle sizes that range from 0.1 to 10 microns [0042] thus overlapping the claimed range of 10-120 microns and carrier particles in the particulate mixture have particle sizes 15-150 microns thus overlapping the claimed range of 50-300 microns.
MPEP 2144.05 states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists
It would further be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the foaming agent and carrier particles as motivated to adjust the foaming properties and not concentrated on the surface of the glass and are uniformly distributed throughout the glass as taught by Kobayashi [0013].
Kobayashi is silent to the glass composition and temperature in the fining bath.
Analogous art Wang discloses melting soda lime glass in a continuous furnace for making containers [0002] discloses foamy melted soda lime glass exiting the melter into a refiner at a temperature of 1350-1550 deg. Celsius. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use a typical soda-lime glass in the method of Kobayashi and expect the temperature to fall within the claimed ranges of claim 13.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo KR20200131036 as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses a method of forming glass articles, the method comprising:
providing a glass-making furnace (200) that comprises a melting chamber (210), a mixing chamber (220), equivalent to the claimed fining chamber, and a foaming chamber (230), equivalent to the claimed forehearth,
the melting chamber and the fining chamber being separated by a throat wherein any portion the melting chamber and/or fining chamber adjacent the other is considered a “throat” given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
the forehearth is fluidly coupled to the fining chamber as depicted in at least (Fig 3),
the melting chamber contains a molten glass bath (see disclosure description of Fig. 3 Page 1; paragraph 3 of translation )
a vitrifiable feed material is introduced via raw material hopper (100),
the fining chamber (220) contains a molten glass fining bath from the melter(210) that receives glass from the molten glass bath in the melting chamber through the throat as described above.
introducing a particulate mixture from hopper (300) that comprises a foaming agent of SiC particles and (page 3; last paragraph of translation) particles into the mixing chamber (220)
Koo does not use the term carrier particles however indicates foaming agent is known to be mixed with glass powder (page 1 last paragraph) thus it would be obvious to include glass particles with the foaming agent as motivated as a combination known in the art.
Adding the foaming agent increases bubbles thus increases a concentration of seeds within the flow of molten glass anywhere between the introduction and release of the glass thus meeting the claim limitation of claim 1 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6988378 Col 2 same process for making dense glass to be used for foamed glass and SiC can be added separately
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