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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 04/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending. Claims 1,4-6, 15 have been amended. Claim 16 has been added.
Applicant' s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, Pages 11-13, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12, 13, claims 9 and 11, claim 10, and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Sakurabayashi. The Examiner will address the applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 15, The Applicant argues that,
None of the cited references disclose the raw materials contain less than 25 wt% carbonate
compounds. Specifically, that Manning discloses of carbonate materials in soda-lime glass of
35%, not 25%.
The cited references fail to teach capturing CO2 from flue gas having a CO2
concentration of at least 35%. Specifically, Kapoor does not disclose or suggest flue gas having
a CO2 concentration of at least 35%. Further, Kapoor does associate such concentration levels
with the furnace design recited in Claim 1.
the claimed combination of features as note in the instant Specification [0018] produces
advantages that are not taught or suggested by the cited references, such as:
limiting the carbonate content of the raw materials
using a significant amount of cullet while employing a specific furnace design having oxy-
combustion heating in the fining tank results in flue gas having a high CO2 concentration,
which facilitates efficient capture of carbon dioxide.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant. Yet upon further review, Sakurabayashi does disclose a glass composition where the total carbonate is less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds in [0024]. A PHOSITA would know that certain glass components are derived from potential carbonate raw materials. A PHOSITA can calculate from the preferred glass composition the preferred raw material composition as below,
PNG
media_image1.png
400
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the total raw material carbonate is 8.32%. Hence, the argument is moot.
Respectfully disagree. Kapoor discloses combustion with high purity oxygen or oxygen-enriched air (Col 2 lines 32-35). Kapoor cites the advantage of using oxygen or oxygen-enriched air in glassmaking furnaces as an opportunity to produce high purity carbon dioxide from the furnace exhaust gas as when oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen is used as the oxidant, the exhaust gas usually contains (a common knowledge assertion) about 30 to 50% carbon dioxide (Col 1 lines 31-38).
As well, the Summary of the Invention states “...thereby producing molten glass and a hot carbon dioxide rich furnace waste gas stream…”. As the claim limitation is “flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%”, Kapoor reads on the claim limitation. It can be argued
a level of carbon dioxide in exhaust gas is known to one skilled in the art in the industry, or
overlapping ranges are prima facie case for obviousness. Regarding Kapoor does not associate
such concentration levels with the furnace design recited in Claim 1, the test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37
CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks
the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the
objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or
objections. Hence the argument is moot.
that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features
upon which applicant relies (i.e., the combination alleged in the Office Action fails to
achieve the technical effect of the claimed invention ) are not recited in the rejected
claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from
the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37
CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks
the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the
objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or
objections. Hence the argument is moot.
The rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 15 is maintained. As Claims 2 and 4-13 depend on Claim 1,
the rejection of Claims 2 and 4-13 are also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Sakurabayashi teaches a process for melting vitrifiable materials to produce flat glass, comprising,
providing a furnace; Fig. 1, element 1 [0023], “ the manufacturing method of this embodiment comprises a glass melting furnace”.
comprising,
at least one main melting tank comprising electrical heating means; Fig. 2, [0032], “In order to directly electrically heat (heat through application of a current) the molten glass Gm to melt the glass raw materials Gr, a plurality of rod-shaped electrodes 11 are mounted to a bottom wall part 10 of the glass melting furnace 1.”
a fining tank; [0025], “The fining chamber 2 is a space for performing a fining step of fining (degassing) the molten glass Gm supplied from the glass melting furnace 1 through the action of a fining agent or the like.”
at least one neck separating the at least one main melting tank and the fining tank; Fig. 1, element 6 [0031], “The molten glass Gm is continuously discharged through the transfer pipe 6.”
inlet mean located at the at least one main melting tank; Fig. 2 element 12 [0034],
“The glass melting furnace 1 comprises a screw feeder 12 serving as a raw material
supply part. “
outlet mean located downstream of the fining tank; Fig. 1 element 7.
charging the vitrifiable materials comprising raw materials and cullet in the at least one melting tank with the inlet means, an amount of cullet being; [0034], [0031] “The screw feeder 12 is configured to continuously supply the glass raw materials (solid raw materials)…”, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the glass melting furnace 1 is configured to continuously melt glass raw materials (cullet may be included)…”,
melting vitrifiable materials in the at least one melting tank by heating with electrical means; [0032], “In order to directly electrically heat (heat through application of a current) the molten glass Gm to melt the glass raw materials Gr, a plurality of rod-shaped electrodes 11 are mounted to a bottom wall part 10 of the glass melting furnace 1 under the state in which the plurality of electrodes 11 are immersed in the molten glass Gm. In this embodiment, heating means other than the electrode 11 is not mounted to the glass melting furnace 1, and the glass raw materials Gr are melted only by electric heating (electric energy) with the electrode 11 (full electric melting).”
fining the melt in the fining tank; Fig.1 element 2 [0025], “The fining chamber 2 is a space for performing a fining step of fining (degassing) the molten glass Gm supplied from the glass melting furnace 1 through the action of a fining agent or the like.”
flowing the melt from the fining tank to a working zone through
the raw materials comprising less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds; [0024];
Sakurabayashi teaches a glass composition that preferably comprises in mass % (wt%),
58% to 65% of SiO2
12% to 23% of Al2O3
0% to 3% (particularly 0.1% to less than 2%) of B2O3
0% to less than 1% (particularly 0% to 0.5%) of Li2O+Na2O+K2O
0.1% to 6% (particularly 2% to 5%) of MgO
2% to 12% (particularly 3% to 10%) of CaO
0% to 5% of SrO
2% to 15% (particularly 5% to 12%) of BaO.
As one skilled in the art would know, all XO and Y2O (alkalis and alkalines) in the glass have as a potential raw material source their respective carbonate. Using carbonate as the raw material source for items d-h above and the minimum mass% for the composition, a PHOSITA can calculate the below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakurabayashi discloses a composition containing 8.32% total carbonate, which reads on the instant claim limitation.
While Sakurabayashi teaches fining the melt in the fining tank, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
a fining tank provided with oxy-combustion heating means;
fining the melt in the fining tank by heating with the oxy-combustion heating means alimented with gas and/or hydrogen.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass using electrical heating means in the melting tank (elements 9 and 91 Fig. 1), Reynolds teaches the use of a fining tank with burners(length of element C, in combustion area 3, burner 7 of Fig. 1). “From the entry to the exit, the furnace superstructure includes two main sections, a heat recovery section 2 followed by a combustion section 3 divided into two zones 31 and 32 provided with burners 6, 7. An inlet 16 is provided upstream of the furnace for charging it with batch raw materials and a downstream outlet 14 for discharging refined glass is located at the combustion section 3.”, (lines 422-425). Further, the burner is an oxy-gas combustion burner, ““Burners in first combustion zone are oxy-combustion type or aero- combustion type…Oxy-combustion with gas and oxygen preheating”, (lines 282, 286); Burners in last combustion zone (zone 7) operated at relatively low power and are aero-combustion type, with cold or hot air, or oxy-combustion type with or without gas preheating”, (lines 276-277). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the oxy-gas burners located in the fining section of Reynolds in the process of Sakurabayashi, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of balancing heat inputs, wherein heat inputs of electrodes and burners is balanced seamlessly along furnace operation according to variation of fuel and electricity costs to minimize furnace production cost while limiting carbon dioxide emissions from combustion, as noted by Reynolds (lines 229-231).
While Sakurabayashi teaches vitrifiable materials that contain cullet, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
an amount of cullet being at least 10% in weight of a total amount of vitrifiable materials.
Reynolds further teaches an embodiment where the cullet is between 50%-70% for an emerald green glass (line 710). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cullet in the raw materials, as is commonly known in the art, to decrease the energy needed for melting the batch materials. Further, to also increase the pull rate of the melting operation, as noted by Reynolds (line 710-711).
While Sakurabayashi teaches the use of electrodes for heating, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
an electrical input fraction for melting and fining ranges from 50% to 85%;
Reynolds further teaches heat input of the electrodes may cover 20% to 80% of total furnace heat inputs (line 235). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flexible range of electrical input fraction of Reynolds in the method of Sakurabayashi, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of operating the glass furnace wherein heat inputs of electrodes and burners is balanced seamlessly along furnace operation according to variation of fuel and electricity costs to minimize furnace production cost while limiting carbon dioxide emissions from combustion, as noted by Reynolds (lines 228-231). Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Reynolds electrical input fraction range that corresponds to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
While Sakurabayashi teaches a duct to exhaust to discharge atmosphere in the furnace to the outside ([0036], and Reynolds teaches a discharge opening for flue gas provided upstream (in the fining section) (line 27) to recover flue gas for heat recovery, neither (the combination) teach specifically,
capturing CO2 from the flue gas;
said flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%;
the capturing CO2 from flue gas comprises compression and/or
dehydration.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass where oxy-fuel combustion burners reside in the fining portion, Kapoor teaches a method of capturing flue gases in an oxy fuel fired glass melting furnace that contains hot carbon dioxide rich furnace waste gas which is then treated to remove NOx and SOx to produce pure carbon dioxide as a bi-product of the process. (Col 2 lines 21-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to deploy the method of Kapoor to the process of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of efficiently removing NOx, SOx ,and particulates to levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency while at the same time producing carbon dioxide which meets food grade standards, as noted by Kapoor (Col 2, lines 10-19).
Further, Kapoor discloses combustion with high purity oxygen or oxygen-enriched air (Col 2 lines 32-35). Kapoor cites the advantage of using oxygen or oxygen-enriched air in glassmaking furnaces as an opportunity to produce high purity carbon dioxide from the furnace exhaust gas as when oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen is used as the oxidant, the exhaust gas usually contains (a common knowledge assertion) about 30 to 50% carbon dioxide (Col 1 lines 31-38). As well, the Summary of the Invention states “...thereby producing molten glass and a hot carbon dioxide rich furnace waste gas stream…”. Having a level of carbon dioxide in exhaust gas is known to one skilled in the art in the industry and would be inherent to the melting process. See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, Kapoor cites, as part of the purification process of the waste gas, that quench liquid containing carbonate is introduced to the waste gas in line 10 and reacts/contacts with the waste gas (Col 6 lines 62-67). Upon contact with the waste gas, the water in the quench liquid stream evaporates (dehydration) (Col 7 lines 1-2) before moving through filtration system B. Continuing, Kapoor teaches that after gas filtration in system B, the gas moves to scrubber C, where an aqueous carbonate solution enters, allows the waste gas to react with the carbonate, and then is cooled, where most of the moisture is condensed out (dehydration) of the gas (Col 7 lines 13-24); any aqueous solution remaining in scrubber C is discharged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the evaporation process in the gas waste stream purification process of Kapoor for the discharged gases of the combination, one being motivated to do so to prevent wetting of the filter equipment in element B, and for removing most of the water formed in the furnace due to combustion, as noted by Kapoor (Col 6 lines 58-61, Col 7 lines 40-44). As well, Kapoor further cites the use of feed compression in a conventional liquid carbon dioxide plant, E (Col 5 lines 37-40) . One skilled in the art would know that using compression in the process of making purified liquid CO2 is inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 2 - Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakurabayashi fails to teach wherein,
the amount of cullet is at least 30% in weight of the total amount of vitrifiable materials;
Reynolds teaches this previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakurabayashi fails to teach wherein,
(Claim 4) the CO2 concentration of said flue gas is at least 40%;
(Claim 5) the CO2 concentration of said flue gas is at least 50%;
Kapoor teaches both Claim 4 and Claim 5 previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Sakurabayashi fails to teach wherein,
the capturing CO2 from the flue gas consists essentially of compression and/or dehydration.
Kapoor teaches Claim 6 previously in Claim 1. There are four (4) waste gas processing steps (B,
C, D and E). Steps B and C use aqueous solutions that are eventually removed (dehydrated) and
Step E uses compression. Three of four processing steps include compression or dehydration,
which would read as consisting essentially of compression and/or dehydration.
Regarding Claim 7 and 8 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Manning (the combination) fail to teach,
(Claim 7) further comprising eliminating acidic components from said flue gas.
wherein the eliminating acidic components from said flue gas is prior or concurrent to the
capturing CO2.
Kapoor teaches eliminating SO2 containing gases in Step C (gas scrubbing system) (Col 5 lines 13-24),
where the discharge gas from Step C enters the NOx reduction plant (Step D) (Col 5 lines 25-26). Step C
and Step D occur prior to Step E, which is the CO2 capture and processing plant (Col 5 lines 37-41). SO2
and NOx gases are known in the art as acidic gases. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to eliminate the acidic
components of the flue gas prior to capturing the CO2 per the process of Kapoor and implement into the
process of the combination , as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of efficiently and
inexpensively reduce all of the impurities contained in glassmaking furnace flue gas to levels set by the
Environmental Protection Agency, as noted by Kapoor (Col 2 lines 11-14).
Regarding Claim 12 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Sakurabayashi fails to teach wherein,
the raw materials comprise less than 10% in weight of carbonate compounds.
Manning in Claim teaches the portion of carbonate materials in soda-lime glass is approximately 25%
(Page 120, Table 6.1) but not 10% carbonate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize for weight% of
carbonate materials, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize for weight% of carbonate materials for the purpose of ensuring
degassing of the glass melt, where the compositions and temperatures used have to be designed to
provide an appropriate combination of melt properties, particularly viscosity, to allow the escape of
carbon dioxide and any other gases that maybe present, as noted by Manning (Page 125 , Para 3).
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 .
Regarding Claim 13 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
a furnace configured for carrying out the process of claim 1;
Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor teach the claim in Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”) and further view of WO2021233530A1 by Chmelar et. al. (herein “Chmelar”).
Regarding Claim 3 and 14 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
(Claim 3) the oxy-combustion heating means are alimented with at least 50% hydrogen;
(Claim 14) the oxy-combustion heating means are alimented with at least 80% hydrogen.
In a similar endeavor of combustion in a glass furnace, Chmelar teaches a method of hydrogen
combustion with controllable flow of a hydrogen fuel gas composition and an additional gas flow
composition through a cavity of an industrial furnace, especially in a glass furnace
(Page 4, lines 23-26). Further, Chmelar cites a “hydrogen fuel gas composition if formed by a first fuel
constituent of 80 weight % or more of hydrogen gas and 20 weight % of less of another fuel gas or gas
constituent” (Page 6, lines 6-8). Continuing, “the hydrogen fuel gas composition can consist of…pure
hydrogen gas in total” (Page 6 lines 17-18), and “the another oxidant gas constituent, preferably oxygen,
can be present in an amount of 20 weight % or less” (Page 6 line 31, Page 7 line 1). It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have used the 80% hydrogen weight % gas in an oxy combustion burner per Chmelar in the
method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of having a ratio of
heating burner power to a hydrogen fuel gas composition kinetic power that balances out an optimal
weight between the intake of chemical energy per kinetic power of the gas compositions, and provide
for optimal combustion. As well, to prevent overheating of the furnace refractory, as noted by Chmelar
(Page 9, lines 12-16). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that using hydrogen gas in
place of carbon-based fuels reduces the amount of CO2 produced during combustion. The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”) and further view of U.S. Patent 9,611,164 by Jeanvoine et. al. (herein “Jeanvoine”).
Regarding Claim 9 and 11 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
of claim 1.
While Reynolds teaches the recovery of flue gas to heat a charge, such as batch materials that are
already in a melting tank (lines 310-311, line 319), the combination fails to teach,
(Claim 9) further comprising cullet pre-heating, at least partially by recovering heat from the
furnace, before charging said cullet in the at least one melting tank.
(Claim 11) wherein it comprises further a step of pre-melting at least a part of the cullet in an
auxiliary melting tank and flowing the pre-melted cullet to the at least one melting tank.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass where electrodes are used in the main furnace and a finer is
located downstream of the main furnace, where the main furnace can also have overhead
burners (Abstract lines 1-3, Col 1 lines 37-40), Jeanvoine teaches recovering heat from flue gases from
the main furnace and the auxiliary furnace to reheat the raw materials, including cullet, that feeds both
furnaces (Col 7 lines 6-12). The melting installation is depicted in Fig. 1 (Col 7 lines 30-67, Col 8 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to pre-heat the cullet from recovered heat from the furnace before charging
the cullet (raw materials) of the method of Jeanvoine in the process of the combination, as one would
be motivated to do so for the purpose of the common industrial reason of energy efficiency, as
capturing waste heat from melting tanks for other purposes, including heating raw materials, is known
to those skilled in the art. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Jeanvoine further cites the use of a “submerged-combustion auxiliary furnace, said auxiliary furnace
being fed with auxiliary batch materials, the auxiliary molten glass feeding the main furnace toward its
upstream end in the first third of its length” (Col 2 lines 36-43). In regard to the main furnace and the
auxiliary furnace, “they are generally supplied with conventional batch materials that are in the form of
a powder, and where appropriate, partially as cullet”, (Col 6 lines 1-3). The auxiliary furnace has raw
materials that contain cullet, and the raw materials when molten are fed to the main furnace. Hence,
the cullet is pre-melted and fed to the main furnace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-melt the cullet in the
auxiliary tank and flow the pre-melted cullet (raw materials) of Jeanvoine, and add this equipment and
process to the process of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of
providing a larger quantity of glass to the main furnace for a short period of time to meet demand, as
noted by Jeanvoine (Col 2 lines 44-67).
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”) and further view of U.S. Patent 9,611,164 by Jeanvoine et. al. (herein “Jeanvoine”)
and in further review of WO2012150175A1 by Bioul et. al. (herein “Bioul”).
Regarding Claim 10 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, Manning, Kapoor and Jeanvoine in the rejection of claim
9 above teach all of the limitations of claim 9.
While Jeanvoine teaches pre-heating cullet, Jeanvoine fails to teach wherein,
a maximum temperature of cullet at the cullet pre-heating is 450°C.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass where heat is recovered from burners of an oxy-combustion
element of a furnace to pre-heat raw materials ([0025], Bioul teaches raw materials that include cullet
([0011]. Further, Bioul cites the use of “fumes” to heating vitrifiable material where the heating of the
material is performed in a heat exchanger ([0025]). Continuing, “the temperature of the vitrifiable
charge in the exchange…should not exceed 500°C” ([0028]).
While Bioul teaches the pre-heating of the vitrifiable material is performed in a heat exchanger,
overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the
portion of Bioul’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, while advantageous to bring raw materials (including cullet) to the highest possible
temperature for pre-heating, certain temperatures should not be exceeded in order to not make the
charge “sticky”, as noted by Bioul ([0028]).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 2,990,438 by Lambert et. al. (herein “Lambert”).
Regarding Claim 16 – Sakurabayashi, Reynolds, and Kapoor in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
While Sakurabayashi discloses a transfer pipe 6 from the melting chamber 1 to the fining chamber 2
(FIG. 1 where the opening of the neck (the transfer pipe 6) enters the finer 2, and that transfer pipe 6 is
transfers molten glass in a horizontal direction and heated through the application of a current [0030],
Sakurabayashi does not explicitly disclose
the opening of the neck is partially under the melt.
In a similar endeavor of making molten glass with a melt chamber, a fining chamber, and a conduit
between the melt chamber and fining chamber that is heated, Lambert discloses a melting chamber 1
and a fining chamber 2 with a channel (4-5), heated above the temperature of the melting
chamber temperature by electrical means ( (Col 2 lines 1-4), (Col 2 lines 25-28)), from the melting
chamber to the fining chamber, where opening (neck) 5 is at the entrance to the fining chamber (FIGS I-
IX). In all figures, the opening (neck) 5 into the fining chamber 2 has part of the opening 5 (neck) below
and above the surface of the glass in the fining chamber.
Lambert discloses the claimed invention except for a melt chamber electrically heated and a fining
chamber heated by oxy-combustion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the channel of Lambert in the
electrically heated transfer pipe method of Sakurabayashi, as one would be motivated to do so for the
purposes of reducing the temperature in the melt chamber (fuel economy) as well as having glass with a
higher temperature in the channel than the melting chamber temperature so that the glass in the
channel can be fed into the fining chamber on the top layer of glass for fining, and not sink to the
bottom of the fining compartment where the potential resides for the glass to exit the fining chamber
without being refined, as noted by Lambert (Col 2 lines 18-21, Col 1l lines 56-66).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20200331789A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Sakurabayashi et. al. (herein
“Sakurabayashi”) and in further view of WO2020229559A1 by Reynolds et. al. (herein “Reynolds”)
and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,743,929 (as submitted in the IDS dated 05/15/2024) by Kapoor et.
al. (herein “Kapoor”).
Regarding Claim 15 - Sakurabayashi teaches a process for melting vitrifiable materials to produce flat glass, comprising,
providing a furnace; Fig. 1, element 1 [0023], “ the manufacturing method of this embodiment comprises a glass melting furnace”.
comprising,
at least one main melting tank comprising an electrical heater; Fig. 2, [0032], “In order to directly electrically heat (heat through application of a current) the molten glass Gm to melt the glass raw materials Gr, a plurality of rod-shaped electrodes 11 are mounted to a bottom wall part 10 of the glass melting furnace 1.”
a fining tank; [0025], “The fining chamber 2 is a space for performing a fining step of fining (degassing) the molten glass Gm supplied from the glass melting furnace 1 through the action of a fining agent or the like.”
at least one neck separating the at least one main melting tank and the fining tank; Fig. 1, element 6 [0031], “The molten glass Gm is continuously discharged through the transfer pipe 6.”
an inlet located at the at least one main melting tank; Fig. 2 element 12 [0034],
“The glass melting furnace 1 comprises a screw feeder 12 serving as a raw material
supply part. “
an outlet mean located downstream of the fining tank; Fig. 1 element 7.
charging the vitrifiable materials comprising raw materials and cullet in the at least one melting tank with the inlet, an amount of cullet being; [0034], [0031] “The screw feeder 12 is configured to continuously supply the glass raw materials (solid raw materials)…”, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the glass melting furnace 1 is configured to continuously melt glass raw materials (cullet may be included)…”,
melting vitrifiable materials in the at least one melting tank by heating with the electrical heater; [0032], “In order to directly electrically heat (heat through application of a current) the molten glass Gm to melt the glass raw materials Gr, a plurality of rod-shaped electrodes 11 are mounted to a bottom wall part 10 of the glass melting furnace 1 under the state in which the plurality of electrodes 11 are immersed in the molten glass Gm. In this embodiment, heating means other than the electrode 11 is not mounted to the glass melting furnace 1, and the glass raw materials Gr are melted only by electric heating (electric energy) with the electrode 11 (full electric melting).”
fining the melt in the fining tank; Fig.1 element 2 [0025], “The fining chamber 2 is a space for performing a fining step of fining (degassing) the molten glass Gm supplied from the glass melting furnace 1 through the action of a fining agent or the like.”
flowing the melt from the fining tank to a working zone through
the raw materials comprising less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds; [0024];
Sakurabayashi teaches a glass composition that preferably comprises in mass % (wt%),
58% to 65% of SiO2
12% to 23% of Al2O3
0% to 3% (particularly 0.1% to less than 2%) of B2O3
0% to less than 1% (particularly 0% to 0.5%) of Li2O+Na2O+K2O
0.1% to 6% (particularly 2% to 5%) of MgO
2% to 12% (particularly 3% to 10%) of CaO
0% to 5% of SrO
2% to 15% (particularly 5% to 12%) of BaO.
As one skilled in the art would know, all XO and Y2O (alkalis and alkalines) in the glass have as a potential raw material source their respective carbonate. Using carbonate as the raw material source for items d-h above and the minimum mass% for the composition, a PHOSITA can calculate the below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakurabayashi discloses a composition containing 8.32% total carbonate, which reads on the instant claim limitation.
While Sakurabayashi teaches fining the melt in the fining tank, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
a fining tank provided with oxy-combustion heating means;
fining the melt in the fining tank by heating with the oxy-combustion heating alimented with gas and/or hydrogen.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass using electrical heating means in the melting tank (elements 9 and 91 Fig. 1), Reynolds teaches the use of a fining tank with burners(length of element C, in combustion area 3, burner 7 of Fig. 1). “From the entry to the exit, the furnace superstructure includes two main sections, a heat recovery section 2 followed by a combustion section 3 divided into two zones 31 and 32 provided with burners 6, 7. An inlet 16 is provided upstream of the furnace for charging it with batch raw materials and a downstream outlet 14 for discharging refined glass is located at the combustion section 3.”, (lines 422-425). Further, the burner is an oxy-gas combustion burner, ““Burners in first combustion zone are oxy-combustion type or aero- combustion type…Oxy-combustion with gas and oxygen preheating”, (lines 282, 286); Burners in last combustion zone (zone 7) operated at relatively low power and are aero-combustion type, with cold or hot air, or oxy-combustion type with or without gas preheating”, (lines 276-277). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the oxy-gas burners located in the fining section of Reynolds in the process of Sakurabayashi, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of balancing heat inputs, wherein heat inputs of electrodes and burners is balanced seamlessly along furnace operation according to variation of fuel and electricity costs to minimize furnace production cost while limiting carbon dioxide emissions from combustion, as noted by Reynolds (lines 229-231).
While Sakurabayashi teaches vitrifiable materials that contain cullet, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
o an amount of cullet being at least 10% in weight of a total amount of vitrifiable materials.
Reynolds further teaches an embodiment where the cullet is between 50%-70% for an emerald green glass (line 710). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cullet in the raw materials, as is commonly known in the art, to decrease the energy needed for melting the batch materials. Further, to also increase the pull rate of the melting operation, as noted by Reynolds (line 710-711).
While Sakurabayashi teaches the use of electrodes for heating, Sakurabayashi fails to teach,
an electrical input fraction for melting and fining ranges from 50% to 85%;
Reynolds further teaches heat input of the electrodes may cover 20% to 80% of total furnace heat inputs (line 235). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flexible range of electrical input fraction of Reynolds in the method of Sakurabayashi, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of operating the glass furnace wherein heat inputs of electrodes and burners is balanced seamlessly along furnace operation according to variation of fuel and electricity costs to minimize furnace production cost while limiting carbon dioxide emissions from combustion, as noted by Reynolds (lines 228-231). Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Reynolds electrical input fraction range that corresponds to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
While Sakurabayashi teaches a duct to exhaust to discharge atmosphere in the furnace to the outside ([0036], and Reynolds teaches a discharge opening for flue gas provided upstream (in the fining section) (line 27) to recover flue gas for heat recovery, neither (the combination) teach specifically,
capturing CO2 from a flue gas;
said flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%;
the capturing CO2 from flue gas comprises compression and/or
dehydration.
In a similar endeavor of melting glass where oxy-fuel combustion burners reside in the fining portion, Kapoor teaches a method of capturing flue gases in an oxy fuel fired glass melting furnace that contains hot carbon dioxide rich furnace waste gas which is then treated to remove NOx and SOx to produce pure carbon dioxide as a bi-product of the process. (Col 2 lines 21-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to deploy the method of Kapoor to the process of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of efficiently removing NOx, SOx ,and particulates to levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency while at the same time producing carbon dioxide which meets food grade standards, as noted by Kapoor (Col 2, lines 10-19).
Further, Kapoor discloses combustion with high purity oxygen or oxygen-enriched air (Col 2 lines 32-35). Kapoor cites the advantage of using oxygen or oxygen-enriched air in glassmaking furnaces as an opportunity to produce high purity carbon dioxide from the furnace exhaust gas as when oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen is used as the oxidant, the exhaust gas usually contains (a common knowledge assertion) about 30 to 50% carbon dioxide (Col 1 lines 31-38). As well, the Summary of the Invention states “...thereby producing molten glass and a hot carbon dioxide rich furnace waste gas stream…”. Having a level of carbon dioxide in exhaust gas is known to one skilled in the art in the industry and would be inherent to the melting process. See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, Kapoor cites, as part of the purification process of the waste gas, that quench liquid containing carbonate is introduced to the waste gas in line 10 and reacts/contacts with the waste gas (Col 6 lines 62-67). Upon contact with the waste gas, the water in the quench liquid stream evaporates (dehydration) (Col 7 lines 1-2) before moving through filtration system B. Continuing, Kapoor teaches that after gas filtration in system B, the gas moves to scrubber C, where an aqueous carbonate solution enters, allows the waste gas to react with the carbonate, and then is cooled, where most of the moisture is condensed out (dehydration) of the gas (Col 7 lines 13-24); any aqueous solution remaining in scrubber C is discharged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the evaporation process in the gas waste stream purification process of Kapoor for the discharged gases of the combination, one being motivated to do so to prevent wetting of the filter equipment in element B, and for removing most of the water formed in the furnace due to combustion, as noted by Kapoor (Col 6 lines 58-61, Col 7 lines 40-44). As well, Kapoor further cites the use of feed compression in a conventional liquid carbon dioxide plant, E (Col 5 lines 37-40) . One skilled in the art would know that using compression in the process of making purified liquid CO2 is inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights