DETAILED ACTION
The claims 18-32 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 18, 20, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seward et al (High-temperature glass melt property database for process modeling).
Regarding claim 18, Seward et al teaches various types of glasses and the properties thereof. Seward et al teaches that a container glass has a carbon dioxide solubility of values of 0. 13 x 1016, 0.18 x 1016, 0.28 x 1016, and 0.43 x 1016 molecules/gram of glass (see page 62). These values can be converted to concentrations of carbon in terms of ppm, and thus Seward teaches container glasses containing 0.026, 0.036, 0.056, and 0.09 ppm carbon atoms. The carbon content in these container glasses is thus taken to fall below the limit of the instant claim. Seward et al further teaches that the water content of said container glasses is 232 wt-ppm; this value is converted to 32 mmol water per liter glass volume, and this amount thus falls within the range of the instant claim limitation. Seward et al does not specify the maximal contact angle at an interface between the glass and PtRh as measured according to DIN 51730:2007-09. However, because the Seward et al glass has an equivalent carbon concentration and equivalent water content, the glass would inherently also have an equivalent contact angle property, as this property is compositionally dependent.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, the contact angle of the glass would be 122° or more, and claim 18 is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 20, there is no teaching in Seward et al as to an bubbles with sizes of 100 µm or grater and with CO2 contents of greater than 10 vol%, and as such the Seward et al glasses are taken to be free of such bubbles.
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned container glass taught by Seward et al comprise 32 mmol/L.
Regarding claim 27, the Seward et al glasses have CO2 solubilities in glass melts at 1100 °C of less than the instantly claimed maximum measured at molecules/gram, and as the density of these glasses is around 2.5 g/cm3, the CO2 solubility would also be less than the maximum value when expressed per cm3.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 21-23, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seward et al (High-temperature glass melt property database for process modeling) in view of Stiebert et al (DE 19515608 C1).
Regarding claim 19, the claim differs from Seward et al as discussed above because Seward et al does not teach that a chloride or fluoride refining agent is included in the glass. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al in order to include such a refining agent. Stiebert et al teaches a borosilicate glass that is used for container glasses, and teaches that a refining agent NaCl or KCl is included in an amount of less than 1 wt% (see page 6, Tables). The Stiebert et al teaching would indicate to one of ordinary skill that these known refining agents and amounts thereof can advantageously be used in container glasses of the type taught by Seward et al, and thus one would have had motivation to include these compounds in the Seward et al glass batches for the usual batch refinement purposes. The further limitation of claim 19 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the 102dPas temperature and the hemisphere temperature of the glass would be compositionally dependent. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al. In doing so, one would have been further motivation to use the compositional teachings in Stiebert et al for the container glasses called for by Seward et al. This is because Stiebert et al provides a greater level of detail as to appropriate compositions for these types of glasses. Stiebert et al teaches glasses wherein each compositional range limitation of two of the options of instant claim 25 (discussed in further detail below) is met. The glasses taught by Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al thus have equivalent carbon and water contents to those of the instant claims, and are otherwise compositionally equivalent in terms of their component oxide contents. The equivalent prior art glasses would therefore necessarily have equivalent 102dPas and hemisphere temperatures. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
The limitations of claims 21-22 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claims are obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 23, the Stiebert et al glasses are free of SnO2, As2O3, and Sb2O3 (see page 6, Tables).
Regarding claim 25, each Stiebert et al exemplary embodiment meets all compositional range limitations of the first two options of the claim, as shown by the upper to tables of said claim (see page 6 of Stiebert et al).
Regarding claim 26, the equivalent glasses taught by Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al would necessarily have an equivalent CaO concentration in an eluate prepared and measured according to the method of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, Stiebert et al teaches that the inventive glasses is pharmaceutical container or flat glass (see claim 6). This renders obvious glass products in the form of sheets and tubes.
Claims 29-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seward et al (High-temperature glass melt property database for process modeling) in view of Stiebert et al (DE 19515608 C1) and Jeanvoine et al (US 7624595 B2).
Regarding claim 29, Seward et al and Stiebert et al teaches a method of forming a glass by melting a batch in a melting furnace (tank), wherein no carbonate is included in the batch per Stiebert et al, wherein the glass has a water content of 32 mmol/L per Seward et al, wherein after heating the batch a refining is carried out using a refining agent according to Stiebert et al, and wherein subsequently the melted glass is withdrawn. Claim 29 differs from Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al because heating with a hydrogen burner is not taught. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Seward et al in further view of Jeanvoine et al in order to use such a heating source for the melting process. Jeanvoine et al teaches a process of producing glasses used in container applications (see column 1, lines 15-25), and teaches heating by way of submerged gas burners. Jeanvoine et al teaches that the combustion gas may be hydrogen (see column 4, lines 15-20). Jeanvoine et al teaches that selecting hydrogen as the burner gas is advantageous because it is a good means of ensuring effective heat transfer of energy from the burners to the molten glass, resulting in a clean process without the emission of nitrogen oxides, NOX, or of greenhouse gases. This would be seen as a beneficial improvement by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus one would have had motivation to use this burner type taught by Jeanvoine et al to melt the batches in the process taught by Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Jeanvoine et al is drawn to a process of producing similarly composed glasses used in the same container applications as those of Seward et al and Stieber et al. Each limitation of claim 29 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 30, the Stiebert et al glasses are free of SnO2, As2O3, and Sb2O3 (see page 6, Tables).
Regarding claim 32, Stiebert et al teaches the NaCl and/or KCl refining agent is present in amounts of less than 2 wt%.
Regarding claim 33, as discussed above, the 102dPas temperature of the glass and melt would be compositionally dependent and would thus necessarily be equivalent in the glasses taught by Seward et al in view of Stiebert et al and Jeanvoine et al as compared to those of the instant claims. As such, the further limitation of claim 33 is necessarily present in the prior art glass, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 34, as discussed above, Seward et al teaches glasses having less than 310 ppm carbon. Stiebert et al teaches that the inventive glasses is pharmaceutical container or flat glass (see claim 6). This renders obvious glass products in the form of sheets and tubes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 29, and wherein refining is carried out at a temperature that is at least 1.2 times the boiling temperature of the refining agent used.
Conclusion
13. Claims 18-30 and 32-34 are rejected. Claim 31 is objected to.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW28 July 2026
Prosecution Insights