DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 06-23-2026.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that claim 13 is currently withdrawn with traverse. If method claims 1-12, 14, and 16 reach allowability, apparatus claim 13 would not be eligible for rejoinder because it would not be commensurate in scope with an allowable method claim, as apparatus claims necessarily do not encompass method steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06-23-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically with respect to the special definition of “neck” in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1), Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064), and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929).
Applicant’s arguments, that the cited references do not teach or suggest obtaining flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%, and that Kapoor merely discloses generic downstream purification techniques applicable to flue gas, are not persuasive. Kapoor specifically references oxyfuel fired glassmaking furnace waste gas, and states that the exhaust gas from such a furnace usually contains about 30 to 50% carbon dioxide, which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, Kapoor renders obvious that other oxyfuel fired glassmaking furnaces produce waste (flue) gases containing about 30 to 50% carbon dioxide.
Applicant appears to argue that Reynolds and Kapoor are non-analogous art because Reynolds is directed to operational flexibility and energy balancing, and Kapoor is directed to downstream purification of flue gases from oxy-fuel furnaces. This is not persuasive because both Reynolds and Kapoor are in the field of endeavor of glass melting furnaces.
Terminal Disclaimer
The application/patent being disclaimed has been improperly identified since the number used to identify the application being disclaimed is incorrect. The reference application number was written as “18,708,837”, and the correct format is --18/708,837--. Thus the terminal disclaimer filed 06-23-2026 was disapproved. Please correct and resubmit the terminal disclaimer (no new fee required).
Because the terminal disclaimer was disapproved, the double patenting rejections are repeated below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/708837 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘837 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/710389 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘389 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/710437 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘437 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/869322 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘322 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/870799 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘799 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/871281 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘281 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-12 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/871289 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘289 application encompass all of the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1) in view of Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064) and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929).
Regarding claim 1, Reynolds ‘559 teaches:
providing a furnace comprising at least one melting tank (section 2, Fig. 1) comprising electrical heating means (electrodes 91, Fig. 1; p. 17, lines 33-35), a fining tank (section 3, Fig. 1) provided with oxy-combustion heating means (burners 7, Fig. 1; p. 8, lines 27-28; p. 10, lines 23-31), at least one inlet means located at the at least on melting tank (inlet 16, Fig. 1), and at least one outlet means located downstream of the fining tank (outlet 14, Fig. 1)
charging vitrifiable materials comprising raw materials and cullet in the at least one melting tank with the at least one inlet means, an amount of cullet being at least 10% in weight of a total amount of the vitrifiable materials (p. 8, line 3; p. 16, lines 7-8, 12-13; p. 24, line 9; p. 25, lines 31-32 - wherein the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the ranges taught by Reynolds ‘559, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05)
melting the vitrifiable materials in the at least one melting tank by heating with the electrical heating means (p. 10, lines 1-2; p. 15, lines 30-32; p. 19, lines 13-16)
fining the melt in the fining tank by heating with the oxy-combustion heating means alimented with gas and/or hydrogen (p. 8, lines 27-34; p. 9, lines 12-13, 22-24; p. 10, lines 16-17; p. 16, lines 24-25; p. 19, lines 16-18)
flowing the melt from the fining tank to a working zone through the at least one outlet means (p. 16, lines 9-10 - wherein whatever zone is connected to the outlet is considered to be a working zone)
an electrical input fraction for melting and fining ranges from 50% to 85% (p. 8, lines 11-13; p. 9, lines 10-14; p. 17, line 35-p.18, line 2; p. 19, lines 5-8; p. 25, line 30 - wherein the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the ranges taught by Reynolds ‘559, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05).
Reynolds ‘559 is silent regarding the furnace comprising at least one neck separating the at least one melting tank and the fining tank. In analogous art of glass melting furnaces, Drake ‘064 suggests a furnace for melting glass comprising a melting tank (melting tank 6, Figs. 1-2; p. 1, right column, lines 40-45; p. 2, right column, lines 43-47) and a fining tank (superheating tank 9 and optionally including refining chamber 11, Figs. 1-2; p. 1, right column, lines 48-54), and a neck separating the melting tank and the fining tank (restricted passageway or neck 8, Figs. 1-2; p. 1, right column, lines 22-23, 46-49; p. 2, right column, line 67-p. 3, left column, line 3) for the benefit of separating the tanks in order to allow independent heating of the tanks to different temperatures, thereby prolonging the life of the furnace (p. 1, left column, lines 46-52; p. 1, right column, lines 16-27; p. 2, left column, lines 52-56; p. 2, right column, lines 47-59; p. 3, left column, lines 1-7). Reynolds ‘559 also suggests the need for higher temperatures in the fining tank than in the melting tank (p. 8, line 15; p. 16, lines 24-25; p. 18, lines 30-33; p. 19, lines 13-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by providing the furnace with at least one neck separating the at least one melting tank and the fining tank for the benefit of separating the tanks in order to allow independent heating of the tanks to different temperatures, thereby prolonging the life of the furnace, as suggested by Drake ‘064.
Reynolds ‘559 is silent regarding capturing CO2 from flue gas, said flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%, the capturing CO2 from flue gas comprising compression and/or dehydration. Reynolds ‘559 does recognize that the flue gas contains CO2 that is removed from the furnace (p. 21, lines 8-11). In analogous art of oxyfuel fired furnaces for glass melting, Kapoor ‘929 suggests capturing CO2 from flue gas of an oxyfuel fired glass melting furnace, comprising compression and/or dehydration, said flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35% (column 1, lines 5-8, 34-36; column 4, lines 55-67; column 5, lines 37-41; column 8, lines 45-52 - wherein the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the ranges suggested by Kapoor ‘929, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05) for the benefit of recycling CO2 from waste flue of an oxyfuel fired glass melting furnace gas for reuse (column 3, lines 13-19; column 5, lines 42-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Takagi ‘859 by capturing CO2 from flue gas, comprising compression and/or dehydration, said flue gas having a CO2 concentration of at least 35%, for the benefit of recycling CO2 from waste flue gas of an oxyfuel fired glass melting furnace for reuse as suggested by Kapoor ‘929.
Regarding claim 2, Reynolds ‘559 further teaches the amount of cullet is at least 30% in weight of the total amount of the vitrifiable materials (p. 24, line 9; p. 25, lines 31-32 - wherein the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the ranges taught by Reynolds ‘559, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kapoor ‘929 further suggests the flue gas has a CO2 concentration of at least 40%, or at least 50% (column 1, lines 34-36 - wherein the claimed range overlaps or lies inside the ranges suggested by Kapoor ‘929, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Kapoor ‘929 further suggests the capturing CO2 from flue gas consists essentially of compression and/or dehydration (column 8, lines 48-50).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kapoor ‘929 further suggests eliminating acidic components from the flue gas, prior to or concurrent to the step of capturing CO2, for the benefit of purifying the flue gas for CO2 capture (column 2, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by eliminating acidic components from the flue gas, prior to or concurrent to the step of capturing CO2, for the benefit of purifying the flue gas for CO2 capture, as suggested by Kapoor ‘929.
Regarding claim 16, Drake ‘064 suggest the neck as described above, and further that an opening of the neck is partially under a glass melt free surface (restricted passageway or neck 8, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1), Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064), and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929) in view of Chmelar ‘530 (WO 2021/233530 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Reynolds ‘559 is silent regarding the oxy-combustion heating means being alimented with at least 50% hydrogen, or with at least 80% hydrogen. In analogous art of glass melting, Chmelar ‘530 suggests oxy-combustion heating means alimented with at least 50% hydrogen, or with at least 80% hydrogen as a known fuel composition for oxy-combustion heating means in glass melting furnaces, and for the benefit of providing high temperatures in the furnace (p. 6, lines 6-27; p. 2, lines 10-14; p. 9, lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by alimenting the oxy-combustion heating means with at least 50% hydrogen, or with at least 80% hydrogen, as a known fuel composition for oxy-combustion heating means in glass melting furnaces, and for the benefit of providing high temperatures in the furnace, as suggested by Chmelar ‘530.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1), Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064), and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929) in view of Alexander ‘529 (US 5,773,529).
Regarding claims 9-10, Reynolds ‘559 is silent regarding cullet pre-heating, at least partially by recovering heat from the furnace before charging the cullet in the at least one melting tank, wherein a maximum temperature of cullet at the cullet pre-heating is 450°C. In analogous art of glass melting, Alexander ‘529 suggests pre-heating cullet, at least partially by recovering heat from a glass melting furnace before charging the cullet in at least one melting tank, wherein a maximum temperature of cullet at the cullet pre-heating is 450°C, for the benefit of providing efficiency to the system by using waste heat to heat the cullet, and to purify the cullet before introduction to the furnace, but at temperatures that do not cause detrimental softening or fusion of the cullet in the pre-heating apparatus (column 3, lines 22-29; column 7, lines 13-17, 40-43; column 9, lines 57-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by pre-heating the cullet, at least partially by recovering heat from the furnace before charging the cullet in the at least one melting tank, wherein a maximum temperature of cullet at the cullet pre-heating is 450°C, for the benefit of providing efficiency to the system by using waste heat to heat the cullet, and to purify the cullet before introduction to the furnace, but at temperatures that do not cause detrimental softening or fusion of the cullet in the pre-heating apparatus, as suggested by Alexander ‘529.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1), Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064), and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929) in view of Suzuki ‘904 (US 4,135,904).
Regarding claim 11, Reynolds ‘559 is silent regarding pre-melting at least a part of the cullet in an auxiliary melting tank and flowing a pre-melted cullet to the at least one melting tank. In analogous art of glass melting, Suzuki ‘904 suggests pre-melting at least a part of cullet in an auxiliary melting tank and flowing a pre-melted cullet to at least one melting tank for the benefit of improving thermal efficiency and cost efficiency of the system (column 3, lines 2-21, 36-39; column 4, lines 2-23, 47-49; column 10, lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by pre-melting at least a part of the cullet in an auxiliary melting tank and flowing a pre-melted cullet to the at least one melting tank for the benefit of improving thermal efficiency and cost efficiency of the system, as suggested by Suzuki ‘904.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds ‘559 (WO 2020/229559 A1), Drake ‘064 (US 2,010,064), and Kapoor ‘929 (US 5,743,929) in view of Brouwer ‘497 (US 2015/0147497 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Reynolds ‘559 suggests soda-lime glass (p. 10, line 17), but does not explicitly teach the raw materials comprise less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds. In analogous art of molten glass compositions, Brouwer ‘497 suggests a soda lime composition wherein the raw materials comprise all oxides, and thus less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds as a known formulation for soda lime glass (¶ [0002]-[0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Reynolds ‘559 by making the raw materials comprise less than 25% in weight of carbonate compounds as a known formulation for soda lime glass, as suggested by Brouwer ‘497.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,929,266 teaches a melting tank with electrical heating means, a fining tank with combustion heating means, and a neck separating the melting tank and the fining tank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights