DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation " the eliminating of the acidic components" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (WO 2020229559) in view of Kapoor et al. (5,743,929) and Drake (2,010,064). Reynolds teaches a method for melting vitrifiable materials in a furnace comprising providing for a melting tank, the melting tank having:
an upstream zone (section 2) converted by a crown C1 (crown 5) and equipped with an electrical heating means (lines 33-35 on page 17),
a downstream zone (combustion section 3) covered by a crows C2 (crown 4) and equipped with a combustion heating means (lines 5-10, 30-35 on page 16), and
a transition zone (wall 18) between the crown C1 (crown 5) and the crown C2 (crown 4) (line 35 on page 16, lines 1-2 on page 17, figure 1),
wherein the height H1 of crown C1 is less than ¾ of the height H2 of crown C2 (lines 31-32 on page 17, lines 17-18 on page 8)), satisfying the relationship H1 ≤ 0.75*H2, and
wherein the length L1 of the upstream zone (length A in section 2) is at least 40% of the combined length (length AB) of the upstream zone and the downstream zone (lines 14-16 on page 8, figure 1), which satisfies the relationship 0.25*(L1+L2) ≤ L1 ≤ 0.8*(L1+L2). Furthermore, since the transition zone is defined by a wall (18), it has a length (LT) that naturally satisfies the relationship LT ≤ 0.2*(L1+L2), given the length of upstream zone is 10m and the length of the downstream zone is 5m (page 26).
Reynolds also teaches the furnace further comprises:
an inlet (16) means located at the melting tank (lines 12-15 on page 6),
a fining tank covered by a crown and equipped with an oxy-combustion heating means (lines 19-20 on page 8, lines 18-20 on page 10),
an outlet means located downstream of the fining tank (lines 24-26 on page 16), and
an extraction means (opening 17) of a flue gas located at the upstream zone (lines 4-14 on page 17).
Reynolds teaches the method further comprises charging the vitrifiable materials comprising raw materials and cullet in the melting tank with the inlet means (lines 12-15 on page 16), the amount of the cullet being at least 10wt.% of the total amount of vitrifiable materials (line 9 on page 24), melting the vitrifiable materials in the melting tank with the electrical heating means and the combustion heating means (lines 2-3, 30-35 on page 8, lines 1-7 on page 9), fining the melt in the fining tank (lines 19-20 on page 8, lines 12-13 on page 9, lines 24-26 on page 16) by heating with the oxy-combustion heating means fed with gas (lines 22-24 on page 9, line 1 on page 11, line 35 on page 19, line 1 on page 20), and flowing the melt from the fining tank to a working zone (i.e. float glass tank) through the outlet means (lines 24-26 on page 16) , wherein an electrical input fraction is from 30% to 85% (lines 11-13 on page 8, lines 10-14 on page 9, lines 33-35 on page 17, lines 1-3 on page 18).
Reynolds teaches the flue gas includes CO2 gas (lines 8-9 on page 21), but is silent regarding capturing CO2 from the flue gas. Kapoor teaches glass melting furnace using oxy-combustion heating generates flue gas having 30%-50% carbon dioxide (col. 1 lines 31-38, col. 2 lines 21-25). Kapoor further teaches capturing CO2 from the flue gas from a melting furnace (col. 2 lines 28-30, col. 4 lines 63-67, col. 6 lines 26-27), wherein the capturing comprises compression and/or a dehydration (col. 5 lines 38-42, col. 6 lines 37-38, col. 8 lines 42-50). Kapoor teaches dehydration of the flue gas and compression of the CO2 provides for recovery of pure CO2 as a product (col. 1 lines 5-8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar flue gas treatment process for capturing CO2 from the flue gas of Reynolds, as pure CO2 can be recovered as a product, as taught by Kapoor.
Reynolds teaches exchanging heat between the batch material and the flue gas (line 28-31 on page 17, line 13 on page 21), but doesn’t specify pre-heating the cullet before being charged into the melting furnace. Kapoor further teaches using the flue-gas to preheat batch materials prior to entering the melting furnace (col. 9 lines 26-32), wherein batch materials including cullet (col. 5 line 66 to col. 6 line 7). Naturally, preheating of the cullet would reduce the energy needed in the furnace to melt the cullet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the step of preheating the cullet before entering the melting furnace so as to reduce energy needed to melt the batch materials.
Reynolds teaches a barrier that separates the fining zone from the melting zone (lines 25-26 on page 8), but fails to disclose a neck separating the melting tank and the fining tank. In a similar field of endeavor, Drake similarly teaches a glass melting furnace comprising a melting tank 6 covered by a first crown, a fining tank 9 (and 11) covered by a second crown, and a neck 8 covered by a third crown and separating and directly connecting the melting tank 6 and the fining tank 9 (col. 2 lines 4-13, 40-55). Drake teaches the neck separates the heat in the melting tank from the heat in the refining tank to prevent the heated atmospheres from passing into and mixing with each other, thereby allowing for control of the temperature conditions best suited for each tank without effecting the glass in the other tank (col. 3 lines 31-51), while also prevent attack on the furnace due to the evolution of volatile alkalis during melting, thereby extending the life of the furnace (col. 1 lines 46-55, col. 2 lines 1-27). Reynolds also teaches the fining zone requires heating up to a temperature of about 1500°C for fining (page 19 lines 18-20) by setting the heat input to the fining zone higher than the heat input of the downstream zone of the melting zone (page 20 lines 24-29, 29-34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a neck covered by a crown C3 and separating and directly connecting the melting tank and the fining tank of Reynolds, to allow in management of the different temperature zones required for the melting zone and refining zone, while also extending the life of the furnace, as taught by Drake.
Regarding claim 2, Reynolds teaches the amount of the cullet can be up to 50% of the total amount of vitrifiable materials (line 9 on page 24).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kapoor teaches glass melting furnace using oxy-combustion heating generates flue gas having 30%-50% carbon dioxide (col. 1 lines 31-38, col. 2 lines 21-25), which includes concentrations of at least 40% and includes 50%
Regarding claim 6, Kapoor teaches capturing of the CO2 consists of compression and/or a dehydration (col. 8 lines 42-50).
Regarding claims 7-8, Kapoor further teaches eliminating acidic components from the flue gas, prior or concurrent to the capturing of the CO2, so as to purify the flue gas for CO2 capture (col. 2 lines 21-31). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have further incorporated the step of eliminating acidic components from the flue gas, so as to provide for pure CO2.
Regarding claim 13, as can be seen in figures 1-2 of Drake, the opening of the neck is partially under a glass melt free surface (arrow 10).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (WO 2020229559), Kapoor et al. (5,743,929), and Drake (2,010,064) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chmelar (WO 2021/233530). Reynolds teaches oxy-combustion heating, but is silent regarding hydrogen as a fuel. In a similar field of endeavor, Chmelar teaches oxy-combustion burners for glass melting furnaces using at least 50% hydrogen, or with at least 80% hydrogen as a known fuel, for achieving high temperatures in the furnace (lines 6-27 on page 6). Chmelar teaches hydrogen fuel have lightweight characteristics that provides for better flame control, thereby providing for optimal combustion at a temperature range that prevents overheating of the furnace structure (page 8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar fuel comprising at least 80% hydrogen for the oxy-combustion means of Reynolds, so as to provide for controlled and optimized combustion, while preventing overheating of the furnace structure, as suggested by Chmelar.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (WO 2020229559), Kapoor et al. (5,743,929), and Drake (2,010,064) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander (5,773,529). Kapoor teaches using the flue-gas to preheat batch materials prior to entering the melting furnace, but doesn’t specify a preheating temperature. Alexander teaches preheating cullet using heat recovered from a glass melting furnace prior to supplying the cullet to the melting tank (col. 6 lines 56-59). Alexander teaches the preheating also provides for removal of impurities from the cullet (col. 3 lines 65-67, col. 4 lines 1-7). Alexander further teaches hot exhaust gases are typically about 400°C -500°C, and such temperatures provide for sufficient removal of the pollutants and odor in the cullet (col. 4 lines 1, 36-40, 53-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have preheated the cullet of Reynolds, Kapoor, and Drake to a temperature of about 400°C, as it also provides for the removal of pollutants and odor from the cullet, as taught by Alexander.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (WO 2020229559), Kapoor et al. (5,743,929), and Drake (2,010,064) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeanvoine et al. (2010/0064732). Kapoor teaches using the flue-gas to preheat batch materials prior to entering the melting furnace, but doesn’t specify the pre-melting of at least part of the cullet. Jeanvoine teaches a method for melting glass materials in a melting furnace comprising feeding raw materials and cullet in a melting tank (abstract, [0006]). Jeanvoine also teaches pre-melting of at least part of the cullet in an auxiliary melting tank and flowing the pre-melted cullet to the melting tank, especially in the case when the cullet is polluted, so as to afford the removal of the pollutants before feeding to the melting tank ([0029]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the pre-melting of at least part of the cullet before feeding to the melting tank in the process of Reynolds, Kapoor, and Drake, so as to provide for some of the contaminants in the cullet before adding to the batch raw materials.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. (WO 2020229559), Kapoor et al. (5,743,929), and Drake (2,010,064) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brouwer (2015/0147497). Reynolds exemplifies soda lime glass (line 17 on page 10), but is silent regarding the content of the glass raw materials. Brouwer teaches soda lime glass is a prevalent material for manufacturing glass containers and other articles, and typically comprises contains silica, soda, and lime, wherein the silica content is about 60-75 wt% of silica ([0002]-[0003]), which suggests the raw materials comprises less than 25 wt% of carbonate compounds. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the raw materials for the soda lime glass of Reynolds to comprise of less than 25 wt% of carbonate compounds, as Brouwer teaches as soda lime glass can typically comprise of 75 wt% of silica.
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.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/870,799 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application 18/870,799 recites all the same limitations for the melting furnace, steps for melting and fining, capturing of carbon dioxide, arrangement for the oxy-combustion burners, glass materials, and pretreatment of the cullet as the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/871,281 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application 18/871,281 recites all the same limitations for the melting furnace, steps for melting and fining, capturing of carbon dioxide, arrangement for the oxy-combustion burners, glass materials, and pretreatment of the cullet as the instant application
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 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 copending application 18/869,322 recites all the same limitations for the melting furnace, steps for melting and fining, capturing of carbon dioxide, arrangement for the oxy-combustion burners, glass materials, and pretreatment of the cullet as the instant application
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments filed August 26, 2026, applicant argues Drake does not disclose a neck separating a melting tank and directly connecting a fining tank, but instead is associated with an intermediate superheating tank and a refining tank. This argument is moot in light of the new rejection presented as a result of the amendment. Neck 8 of Drake is use a reference for the newly amendment feature of claim 1. Applicant further argues neck 8 of Drake connects a melting tank to a superheated tank and not between a melting tank to a refining tank. This is not found persuasive because Drake clearly teaches the superheated tank is used for refining, i.e. “molten glass produced is then caused to flow into the superheating tank where it is subjected to a relatively higher temperature which is sufficient to clear it of seeds” in col. 2 lines 10-13.
Applicant also argues the length Lt of the transition zone is not suggested by Reynolds. In response, Reynolds teaches the length of zone A is 10 m including the transition wall 18, the length of zone B is 5 m, length of zone F is 1 m, and zone C is 3.2 m (p.26). While figures are generally understood to be not to scale, it would appear the figure 1 of Reynolds is pretty close to scale, since the length of zone A looks to be approximately twice the length of zone B and the length of zone F looks to be approximately 1/5 of the length of zone B. Accordingly, the transition wall 18 looks to have a length less than that of the length of zone F, which would satisfy the claimed relationship of LT ≤ 0.2*(L1+L2), and 20% of 15 m (A+B) is 3 m. As noted by the applicant, the transition wall shown in figure 1 is abrupt, which may be indicative of the how short the incline is. Nonetheless, even with a gable or inclined wall, the length of the short incline wall would satisfy the claimed relationship of LT ≤ 0.2*(L1+L2).
Applicant also argues the references are directed to fundamentally different technical problems, and thus would not be combined. The argument was not found persuasive because both Reynolds and Drake teaches melting and refining tanks for producing molten glass, both teaches the steps of refining the molten glass (i.e. reducing seeds, see page 16, lines 24-26, col. 1 lines 46-52, respectively), and both are similarly concerned with reducing refractory corrosion caused by alkalis and increasing refractory life (see page 2 lines 6-11, 15-24 and page 14 lines 26-35, col. 1 lines 14-28, 51-52, respectively). Also, like the claimed invention, both are concern with creating distinct thermal and atmospheric environments within the furnace, i.e. a heat recovery section and combustion zones of Reynolds and melting/ superheating/ refining zones of Drake (see page 16 lines 5-6, col. 3 lines 43-51, respectively). Reynolds further express a similar concern with flue-gas circulation between the melting tanks and the refining tank (page 12 lines 5-13). While applicant has noted some differences in the methods of Reynolds and Drake, the overwhelming similarities would lead one skilled in the art to both for teachings on how to isolate zones of the melting furnace for enhanced energy efficiency and preventing corrosion of the furnace structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
