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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demott in US20160207814.
Regarding Claim 1: Demott teaches a composition of raw materials comprising 35 to 100 wt% of man-made mineral fibers (See paragraph 5). The man-made mineral fibers of Demott may be glass fibers or glass wool fibers (See Paragraph 7). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of raw materials comprising an overlapping range of glass wool. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
The claim is noted as including limitations drawn to the intended use of the composition, wherein the material is intended to be ‘melted and fiberized by external centrifugation in order to obtain a mineral wool’. Such limitations are given patentable weight based on the material’s capability to form said intended use and not to the actual use thereof. The material of the prior art is capable of being melted and fiberized by external centrifugation in order to obtain a mineral wool as it is the same composition and structure as the material claimed, being a glass wool with other meltable components (See Paragraph 5 and 13). The melted material of Demott may also be used to create mineral wools and thus is capable of the same intended use as the material of applicant (See Paragraph 16).
Regarding Claim 2 and 11: The melt produced by Demott may contain from 0.5-10 wt% Fe2O3 (iron oxide; See Paragraph 38). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of iron oxide. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
It is noted that Demott teaches the content of iron oxide in the melt; however, those of ordinary skill would expect that the composition of the melt corresponds to the composition of raw materials used to create said melt.
Regarding Claim 3 and 12: The melt produced by Demott may contain from 15-25 wt% Al2O3 (alumina; See Paragraph 38). Demott thus teaches an amount of alumina within the claim scope.
It is noted that Demott teaches the content of iron oxide in the melt; however, those of ordinary skill would expect that the composition of the melt corresponds to the composition of raw materials used to create said melt.
Regarding Claim 6: Demott teaches a composition of raw materials comprising 35 to 100 wt% of glass wool fibers (See paragraph 5 and 7). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of raw materials comprising an overlapping range of glass wool. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Demott teaches at Paragraph 38 that the composition of the melt as a whole may be boron-free (0-5 wt% B2O3). As the composition as a whole may be boron-free, the glass wool used as a raw material may also be boron free.
It is noted that Demott teaches the content of boron in the melt; however, those of ordinary skill would expect that the composition of the melt corresponds to the composition of raw materials used to create said melt.
Regarding Claim 8: Demott teaches a method, wherein the raw materials as set forth above are provided in a submerged combustion melter, and are melted. The submerged combustion melter of Demott is a glass furnace as claimed and is shown in Figure 1 (See Paragraph 13).
Regarding Claim 10: The instant claim is noted as being drawn to a product, wherein all of the limitations in the claim are in terms of product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations further limit the claimed product in terms of the composition and structure implied by the process as set forth and do not require the actual manipulations as set forth. The product-by-process claims as set forth do not imply any further limitation to the claimed material other than its identity as a mineral wool. The process and raw material as set forth do not set forth any compositional or structural implications. The mineral wool created from the raw material of Demott thus meets the claim limitations as set forth (See Paragraph 16).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carbol in EP0019600.
Demott teaches a composition of raw materials comprising 35 to 100 wt% of man-made mineral fibers (See paragraph 5). The man-made mineral fibers of Demott may be glass fibers or glass wool fibers (See Paragraph 7). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of raw materials comprising an overlapping range of glass wool. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Demott teaches the use of recycled glass wool as a raw material in the creation of mineral wool, but is silent in terms of the composition of the recycled glass wool used.
However, glass wool compositions are known in the art and taught by Carbol. Carbol teaches the creation of glass wool compositions (See Column 1, lines 1-6). The glass wool of Carbol contains 55-65 wt% SiO2, 1-2% Al2O3, 6-9.5% CaO, 1-4.5% MgO, 13-17% Na2O, 0-2% K2O, 1-7% B2O3, and 0.5-6% ZnO (See data spanning columns 2 and 3). Carbol is silent in terms of providing a sum of CaO+MgO or Na2O+K2O; however, Carbol teaches ranges of the individual elements that meet the claimed sum when taken together. The sum of CaO+MgO in Carbol is necessarily from 7-14 wt% and the sum of Na2O+K2O is necessarily from 13-19 wt%. Thus Carbol teaches a glass wool composition overlapping the compositions that are instantly claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to recycle any glass wool and use it as the raw material in the process of Demott. As the glass wool of Carbol is known, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to recycle it using the process according to Demott after its initial use. The recycling of used components as raw materials would have provided significant motivation to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernard in US6060413.
Demott teaches a composition of raw materials comprising 35 to 100 wt% of man-made mineral fibers (See paragraph 5). The man-made mineral fibers of Demott may be glass fibers or glass wool fibers (See Paragraph 7). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of raw materials comprising an overlapping range of glass wool. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Demott teaches that the raw material may further comprise glass powder or cullet.
Demott is silent in terms of the source of the cullet.
However, Bernard also teaches the creation of mineral fibers. Bernard teaches that cullet from glass fiber, flat glass and hollow-ware (cups, vases and other ‘household’ glass articles) may be used as raw materials in the creation of mineral fibers. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use glass cullet from flat glass and hollow-ware (household cullet) as the source of cullet in Demott based on the teachings of Bernard. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use these cullet sources as the cullet of Demott in order to use additional recycled materials, which reduces the production cost of the fibers.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demott as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Didler in US20110266488.
Demott teaches a method for recycling a glass wool material, wherein a raw material composition comprising 35 to 100 wt% of man-made mineral fibers (See paragraph 5) is melted. The man-made mineral fibers of Demott may be glass fibers or glass wool fibers (See Paragraph 7). Demott thus teaches an overlapping range of raw materials comprising an overlapping range of glass wool. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Demott teaches that the melted raw materials may be used in downstream processing, such as in the creation of mineral wool (See Paragraph 16).
Demott is silent in terms of methods for creating mineral wool from a melt.
However, means for creating mineral wool from molten compositions are known in the art and taught by Didler. Didler teaches that mineral wool may be made through various processes, such as by internal centrifugation or external centrifugation. Didler teaches that in external centrifugation, the melted material is provided on a peripheral surface of a rotating member. The molten material is ejected from said rotating member to provide mineral wool (See Paragraphs 34-36). Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to create mineral wool from the molten material of Demott using the external centrifugation methods taught by Didler as it is a conventional means for creating mineral wools. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Demott and Didler on the basis that Demott explicitly sets forth that the molten raw material may be used to create a mineral wool without actually setting forth how mineral wool is produced. Those of ordinary skill would be motivated to look to conventional methods, such as that of Didler, based on the teachings of Demott.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights