DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on Jun. 10, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the product claims 12-14 are linked to the method of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps. Applicant argues Claims 12-14 are expressly limited to containers “obtained from recovered post-consumer glass according to the method” and this origin produces objectively detectable characteristics to Rohrer and claims this is a result of a heterogeneous chromatic composition that varies between batches and produces inter-lot variability. This is not persuasive, as there is no defined batch composition claimed except for soda-lime-silica and composition of raw materials of cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide, and iron oxide and steps melting and manufacturing to produce the claimed glass container thickness and rejection of containers due to permeability criteria. Accordingly, the special technical feature of the method and product claims is the technical feature of a glass container made of soda-lime-silica glass including at least cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide, and iron oxide with a thickness of at least 1.5 mm having a permeability of 3% or less against a visible light between 450 nm and 680 nm, and as stated in the restriction requirement, this technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Rohrer (US 2002/0045016). The glass container of Rohrer has the claimed composition, glass thickness, and permeability, which is the same as the resultant composition of the glass container produced in the method of claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the special technical feature between Groups I and II does not make a contribution in view of the prior art of Rohrer, since Rohrer appears to provide for the claimed produced glass container. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error all “commas” used for a decimal separator in the weight percentages or glass thicknesses must be corrected to a “period”.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, Applicant uses the term “permeability” in reference to an optical property of visible light in the glass. The Examiner interprets the term permeability as representing “transmittance” of the glass, since this is the standard term to reference an optical property of the glass.
In claim 10, the Examiner interprets the pieces of colored glass as referencing pieces of hardly transparent colored glass recited in claim 9.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in line 1. “A fabrication method of a mass-produced glass containers” should be “A fabrication method of mass-produced glass containers” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error, “1,5mm” should be “1.5 mm”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error in lines 3 and 5. In line 3, “adjusting the percentages” should be “adjusting percentages”, and in line 5, “data related to the amounts” should be “data related to amounts”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error all “commas” used for a decimal separator in the weight percentages must be corrected to a “period”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the receptacle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, Applicant has recited multiple glass thickness criteria, such as a glass thickness of at least 1.5 mm or with a glass thickness in most (i.e. greater than 50%) of the receptacle, and a glass thickness of at least 1.5 mm and with a glass thickness in most (i.e. greater than 50%) of the receptacle. There is no step that references the receptacle with mass produced glass containers, so it is unclear to the Examiner what thickness limitation Applicant is attempting to claim. For Examination purposes, the Examiner examine the claims with the mass-produced glass containers having a glass thickness of at least 1.5 mm.
Also, in line 13 of claim 1, multiple permeability specifications are recited in the step of detecting and rejecting, specifically above 3% or above 1%, the claims lacks clarity since it is unclear which rejection criteria should be applied. The Examiner will examine the claims with the detecting and permeability rejection criteria of above 1%.
Additionally, claim 1 claims in lines 8-11 “. . .automatically manufacturing therewith the mass-produced glass containers . . .through an automatic compression and/or blow molding process. The (PGPUB [0005]) specification states the compression molding only generates a parison. Accordingly, it is unclear to the Examiner how the container is actually produced with the embodiment of automatic compression, since automatic compression and blow molding is required according to the specification. Please clarify claim 1. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
Claim 2 claims multiple permeability criteria against visible light between 450 nm and 680 nm wavelength, such as below 3% or below 1%. The claim lacks clarity since it is unclear which criteria should be applied. The Examiner will examine the claims with the permeability criteria of below 3%. Claims 5 depends from claim 2 and is also indefinite.
Claim 3 claims multiple chromatically homogeneous glass raw material percentages (up to 20% by weight, up to 10% by weight, or up to 5% by weight) , it is unclear to the Examiner which raw material percentage range should be applied. The Examiner will examine with the glass raw material percentage of up to 20% by weight.
Claim 4 claims detecting and rejecting manufactured glass containers with a glass thickness less than 4 mm, but claim 1 requires containers of at least 1.5 mm. Since the range of detecting and rejecting is a glass thickness of less than 4 mm, and only containers of at least 1.5 mm can be manufactured, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the method includes conditions where all containers can be rejected. Additionally, claim 4 claims providing multiple permeability criteria with multiple wavelength ranges. It is unclear if this criteria is linked with the detecting and rejecting step in claim 4 or is criteria tied to manufactured containers not rejected. Please clarify the method steps and how the criteria is applied in claim 4.
Claim 7 claims multiple weight percentages for cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, and iron oxide. It is unclear to the Examiner which range Applicant is claiming. Additionally, Applicant uses the term “or” between criteria for cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide and iron oxide. Based on lines 6-7 of claim 1, it is interpreted cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide, and iron oxide are required claim 1. Accordingly, the term “or” between each additive in claim 7, makes the claim lack clarity since it can be interpreted each additive is not required. Please clarify claim 7. For Examination purposes the Examiner will interpret all additives are required and used the broadest range for each additive as the weight percentage criteria for each additive.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the temperature of the molten material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Molten material is not recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the molds” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Molds are not recited in claim 1.
The term “flaws” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flaws” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please define a flaw.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The claims appear to include multiple embodiments with multiple ranges for the rejection criteria making the claims indefinite. Please clarify the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 1 appears to contain allowable subject matter, but due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with the claims allowability of the claims is unable to be fully determined. Once the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with the claims are resolved, the Examiner will reconsider allowance of claims 1-11.
The following is a review of the prior art including a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of Lehman (US 2004/0078110A1) in view of Brouwer (US2015/0147497) and Rohrer et al. (US 2002/0045016 – hereinafter Rohrer) with reference to the method of claim 1 is discussed below.
Lehman (Fig. 1, abstract, [0003]-[0005[ and [0017]) discloses a method of producing glass products with desired properties using different batches of recycled mixed colored glass cullet, and teaches glass recycling involving post-consumer glass and discloses the glass products as bottles. The glass products as bottles corresponds to mass-produced glass containers. Lehman discloses ([0017]-[0025]) providing a computer controlled process which identifies virgin glass raw materials, the desired target glass properties, the composition of a batch of mixed colored cullet, and the quantity of cullet to be used in the glass melt, and determines the proper amounts of raw materials to add to the batch of mixed colored glass so that recycled glass product is produced having the desired coloring oxides, redox agents, and glass structural oxides in the proper proportion. Lehman ([0024]) teaches specifying transmission properties (i.e. permeability) of the recycled glass products of the particular color. Lehman ([0030]) discloses examples of specifying the transmission properties of the recycled glass products including specifying a thickness of the finished product made from the calculated composition, specifying optical transmission (i.e. permeability) of the finished product at various wavelengths, and specifying levels of chromium, iron, and cobalt of the finished glass product. Lehman ([0098]-[0099] and [0112]) also teaches other coloring oxides, such as Mn and Ni and teaches chromium oxide, iron oxide, and cobalt oxides used to produce optical properties in the glass.
Lehman (Fig. 1 and [0041]) also teaches the method illustrates techniques for determining the composition of glass batches and (Figs. 7-10) discloses various batches with different recycled cullet compositions and recycling mixed colored cullet glass as broken pieces of glass of mixed colors and teaches ([0061]) mixed colored cullet is primarily made of soda-lime silica glass. Accordingly, the mixed colored cullet glass corresponds to a mixture of pieces of soda-lime-silica recovered post-consumer glass. Additionally, Lehman (Fig. 4 and ([0045]-[0059]) teaches various mixtures of clear (flint), amber, and green glass as the recycled glass. Therefore, based on the teachings by Lehman discussed above, Lehman provides for a fabrication method of mass-produced glass containers with desired optical properties using recovered post-consumer glass where the method comprises obtaining batches of raw material glass manufacture, where each batch includes a mixture of soda-lime-silica recovered post-consumer glass with a composition including mixtures of clear (flint), amber, and green recycled glass (corresponding to a heterogeneous chromatic composition predominantly transparent) and mixing additives to the batches, such as cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide, and iron oxide to produce optical properties in the glass, where the additives provide for the raw material visible light shielding additives, as claimed.
Lehman fails to explicitly state the batches are successive batches, but it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the batches can be successive batches to mass produce the glass containers.
Lehman ([0100]) also teaches the mixture of cullet (corresponding to a mixture of pieces of soda-lime-silica recovered post-consumer glass), typically ranges between 35% and 75%, but may vary based on legislative requirements. Lehman ([0048]) teaches a cullet composition of 25% which is outside of the typical range, and teaches to encourage recycling and minimizing waste, government legislated guidelines effect that new glass products should contain a proportion of recycled glass.
Lehman fails to disclose the range of each batch including between 80% and 100% by weight of the mixture of pieces of soda-lime-silica recovered post-consumer glass (i.e. mixture of recycled color cullet). However, Brouwer (abstract and [0018]-[0020]) teaches it is known in the art to use 100 wt% of post-consumer glass to make containers. Accordingly, based on the teachings by Lehman, such as legislative requirements may dictate the proportion of recycled glass and recycling to minimize waste and that higher weight percentages of recycled glass including 100 wt%, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a mixture of cullet to further minimize waste, such as a mixture of recycled glass cullet with percentages higher than 75%, such as the claimed range of between 80% to 100%, in order to further minimize waste or meet stricter legislative requirements.
Additionally, Lehman ([0065] and [0084]) and discloses melting the batches comprising the mixture of recycled color cullet and other additives such as manganese, cobalt, and nickel. Lehman ([0121]) also discloses the final shape of the glass article by molding molten glass to the desired shape, and discloses bottles and the like formed by blowing, pressing, casting, and/or spinning of the molten glass against a mold. Accordingly, based on the additional disclosure by Lehman, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method further comprises a step of melting successive batches of raw material and manufacturing glass containers through an automatic compression (press molding) or blow molding process.
As discussed above, Lehman ([0030]) discloses examples of specifying the transmission properties of the recycled glass products including specifying a thickness of the finished product made from the calculated composition, specifying optical transmission (i.e. permeability) of the finished product at various wavelengths.
Lehman fails to disclose manufacturing glass containers with a glass thickness of at least 1.5 mm. However, Rohrer (abstract) teaches a composition for a container and (claims) teaches containers having a wall thickness ranging from 1 to 20 mm, preferably 2 to 7 mm. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Rohrer, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, manufacture the mass-produced glass containers with prior art known glass thickness, such as a thickness of 2 to 7 mm, which overlaps Applicant claimed thickness range of at least 1.5 mm.
Rohrer also discloses ([0016], Fig. 4, Experiments 1 and 2) the glass composition providing for complete shielding (corresponding to approximately 0% permeability) in the visible part of the light spectrum between 450 nm and 680 nm wavelength, ([0019]) the basic formula includes cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide, and iron oxide.
However, Lehman, Brouwer, and Rohrer fail to disclose or fairly suggest the method further comprising detecting and rejecting manufactured containers with permeability against visible light between 450 nm and 680 nm above 1% or above 3%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights