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 § 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, 15, and 20 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, 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].
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 would be obvious to a skilled artisan to blow mold a glass container.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi discloses manufacturing foamed glass and suggests
As the foaming agent, an inorganic foaming agent composed of a carbonate such as Na2CO 3 , NaHCO3 , BaCO3 , MgCO3 , and Li2 CO3 can be used. In addition, a reducing agent such as carbon or an organic foaming agent such as a cellulose foaming agent can be used. [0008]
Kobayashi suggests using at least one of the above carbonates as a foaming agent and adding a reducing agent. In an analogous art of foaming glass Tuomas suggests a foaming agent with and oxidizing agent and a carbide reducing agent of SiC. Where Kobayashi suggests a carbon reducing agent in the foaming agent mixture it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the relevant art of foaming glass as motivated to find suitable reducing agents for foaming glass. As the carbonate particles, and glass of Kobayashi and reducing agent of Tuomas.
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].
In the combined teachings of Kobayashi and Tuomas; Tuomas suggests SiC foaming particles have particle sizes that range from 0.1 to 10 microns [0042] thus overlapping the originally claimed range of 10-120 microns however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the SiC particles in the modified method of Kobayashi as motivated to prevent the foaming agent from floating near the surface.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kobayashi does not teach a mixture of separate SiC particles and separate carrier particles because a mixture is a combination of two or more substances combined but not chemically bonded. Applicant goes on to specifically argue that Kobayashi’s teachings of granulated, coated foaming agent particles and cannot be considered a carrier particle.
The Merriam Webster definition of a mixture in its broadest sense comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
252
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 indicates a particulate mixture comprising SiC particles and carrier particles. Examiner relies on Kobayashi’ method of manufacturing foamed which uses a foaming agent as indicated in [0008]
As the foaming agent, an inorganic foaming agent composed of a carbonate such as Na2CO 3 , NaHCO3 , BaCO3 , MgCO3 , and Li2 CO3 can be used. In addition, a reducing agent such as carbon or an organic foaming agent such as a cellulose foaming agent can be used. [0008] and coated with glass particles as depicted in Fig. 2.
Kobayashi suggests using at least one of the above carbonates as a foaming agent and adding a reducing agent. In an analogous art of foaming glass Tuomas suggests a foaming agent with and oxidizing agent and a carbide reducing agent of SiC. Where Kobayashi suggests a carbon reducing agent in the foaming agent mixture it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the relevant art of foaming glass as motivated to find suitable reducing agents for foaming glass. As the carbonate particles, and glass of Kobayashi and reducing agent of Tuomas. Combining the Silicon carbide with the foaming agent mixture of Kobayashi is obvious. Examiner still considers the glass particles (11) foaming agent (10) and SiC made obvious by Tuomas a mixture.
Applicant remarks that the foaming agent of Tuomas is in the batch feedstock and thus there is no reason to introduce an additional foaming agent in Tuomas.
Here Applicant is arguing the references separately, or piecemeal analysis, and failing to look at the rejection and teachings as a whole. Kobayashi teaches the claimed process including the foaming agent and suggests a reducing agent in the foaming agent mixture. Tuomas suggests SiC as a suitable reducing agent in a foaming agent to produce foamed glass thus it would still be obvious to modify the method of Kobayashi with the SiC in the foaming mixture because Tuomas teaches the SiC as a suitable reducing agent. The combination of the foaming agent material of Kobayashi with the SiC will cause oxidation reactions and release bubbles.
Prior art, Koo, is not relied on for disclosing SiC thus Applicant’s arguments are not relevant. This is again piecemeal analysis, where Kobayashi is the prior art being modified in view of the teachings of Koo.
Conclusion
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