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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on Jul. 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner acknowledges the invention of Group I includes original claims 1-14 and new claims 21-24.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 21-24 is/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.
In claim 1, line 6, Applicant claims “a total width of the pre-melting zones”, but it is unclear to the Examiner how many of the plurality of pre-melting zones Applicant is referencing or which of the plurality of pre-melting zones Applicant is referencing or if all of the plurality of pre-melting zones are included. For Examination purposes the Examiner interprets “a total width of the pre-melting zones”, as “a total width of the plurality of pre-melting zones”, which includes all pre-melting zones. Claims 2-14 and 21-24 depend from claim 1, and are also indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bioul et al. (US 2024/0343627A1 – hereinafter Bioul) in view of Saget et al. (US2025/0019287 – hereinafter Saget) and Yang et al. (CN112803661A – hereinafter Yang).
For the Yang reference, the Examiner is referencing the pages of the English Translation filed by Applicant on Jul. 5, 2026 (22 pages total).
Regarding claim 1, Bioul (Title, Fig. 5, [0021], [0048], [0073], [0093], and [0109]) discloses a segmented furnace (corresponding to a kiln) with an embodiment with a two melting tank configuration (T1i, T1ii) or a three melting tank (T1i, T1ii, T1iii) and a fining tank T2. Accordingly, Bioul provides for a plurality of pre-melting zones. Additionally, Bioul (Fig. 1) teaches walls (i.e. bottom and side walls) forming the segmented furnace. The walls of the segmented furnace of Bioul provide for a pool wall and a pool wall configured to form a plurality of pre-melting zones.
Bioul discloses the pool wall configured to form the fining tank, but fails to disclose the pool wall configured to form a clarification zone and a homogenization zone. However, Saget (Fig. 2, [0143], and [0174]) discloses a tank having walls forming a refining and homogenizing zone downstream a melting zone 100. Both Bioul and Saget disclose a furnace wall forming a tank downstream of a melting zone. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Saget where a tank downstream of a melting zone includes refining and homogenizing, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the pool wall configured to form the fining tank T2 of Bioul where the fining tank comprises a refining zone (i.e. clarification zone) and a homogenizing zone. Therefore, the combination of Bioul and Saget provides for the pool wall is configured to form a clarification zone, a homogenization zone, and a plurality of melting zones. Additionally, based on the combination of Bioul in view of Saget, the plurality of melting zones are in communication with the homogenization zone, and the homogenization zone is in communication with the clarification zone. Additionally, Bioul (Fig. 5 and [0065], [0105], [0139]) discloses the widths of the pre-melting zones (W1i, W1ii, W1iii) and the width W2 of the fining tank (i.e. clarification and homogenization zones. Bioul ([0065], discloses W1i<0.8W2), ([0105]) discloses Wlii < 0.8 W2 and ([0139] discloses W1iii < 0.8 W2. Based on the range of widths for W1i, W1ii, and W1iii, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Bioul where the total width of the pre-melting zones (W1i+W1ii or W1i+W1ii+W1iii) is greater than a width of the clarification zone and a width of the homogenization zone (W2) (For Example (0.6 W2+0.6W2 = 1.2 W2 or 0.6 W2+0.6W2+0.6W2 = 1.8 W2). Accordingly, the combination of Bioul in view of Saget provides for embodiments where a total width of the pre-melting zone is greater than a width of the clarification zone (i.e. W2) and a width of the homogenization zone (i.e. W2).
Bioul (Fig. 5) discloses a plurality of electrodes on the pool wall (i.e. bottom) in the pre-melting wall in a grid pattern, which provides for a plurality of electrodes arranged on the pool wall of the pre-melting zone, where the outer electrodes provide for a plurality of electrodes arranged on the pool wall on four sides of the pool wall (i.e. bottom wall) of the pre-melting zones. Bioul (Fig. 5, [0025]-[0026], [0072], [0110]) discloses an outlet Oi (corresponding to a discharge port) in fining tank T2 (i.e. clarification zone and homogenizing zone) and inlet ports/means (li, lii, liii) in the pre-melting zones. Therefore, based on the additional disclosures by Bioul, Bioul in view of Saget provides for the pool wall is provided with a discharge port (Oi) and a plurality of feed ports (li, liii, liii), the plurality of feed ports are in communication with the pre-melting zones (T1i, T1ii, T1iii), and the discharge port (Oi) is in communication with the clarification zone.
Bioul fails to disclose a plurality of electrodes arranged on the pool wall on two sides of each of the clarification zone and the homogenization, a spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the pre-melting zone is less than a spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the clarification zone and spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the homogenization zone. However, Yang (Figs. 1-4 and pgs. 4-5) discloses a furnace comprising functional areas including a pre-melting zone 2, a clarification zone 4, and a homogenizing zone 5. Yang discloses electrodes 1 arranged on the pool wall on two sides of each of the pre-melting zone, clarification zone and homogenization zone. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Yang, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the clarification zone and homogenization zone comprising a plurality of electrodes arranged on the pool wall on two sides to provide for additional heating capability in the clarification and homogenization zone of the apparatus of Bioul in view of Saget. Additionally, Yang (pgs. 6-7) discloses the distribution of hot spots of the melting furnace and the heating power is affected by the electrode spacing/distance. Therefore, the electrode spacing is a prior art recognized result effective variable, and it would be obvious to optimize the spacing between electrodes in the pre-melting zone, clarification zone, and the homogenization, and routine optimization of the electrode spacing for heating would provide for a spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the pre-melting zones is less than a spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the clarification zone and a spacing between electrodes on the two sides of the homogenization zone.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul (Fig. 5, [0073] and [0110]) discloses necks (Ni, Nii, and Niii). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Bioul provides for a transition zone (i.e. necks) formed between the pre-melting zone and the homogenization zone.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul (Fig. 5) suggests the electrodes have equal spacing on each of the sides of the pre-melting zone. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Bioul provides for the electrodes on the two sides of the pre-melting zone are arranged at equal spacing.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Yang discloses the distribution of hot spots of the melting furnace is affected by the electrode spacing/distance. Therefore, the electrode spacing is a prior art recognized result effective variable, and it would be obvious to optimize the spacing of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul in view of Saget provides for the fining tank T2 comprising the clarification zone and the homogenization zone. This provides for the clarification zone and the homogenization zone having the same width. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Bioul provides for the width of the clarification zone is equal to the width of the homogenization zone.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Yang discloses the distribution of hot spots of the melting furnace is affected by the electrode spacing/distance. Therefore, the electrode spacing is a prior art recognized result effective variable, and it would be obvious to optimize the spacing of the electrodes, and through routine optimization, the electrodes on the two sides of the clarification zone and the electrodes on the two sides of the homogenization arranged with equal spacing.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Yang discloses the distribution of hot spots of the melting furnace is affected by the electrode spacing/distance. Therefore, the electrode spacing is a prior art recognized result effective variable, and it would be obvious to optimize the spacing of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul (Fig. 1 and [0021]-[0026]) discloses a crown covering the melting tank (i.e. pre-melting zone) and the fining tank (i.e. clarification and homogenization zones) and the crown arranged on side walls (corresponding to breast walls). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the pool wall of the modified furnace of Bioul is provided with a breast wall (i.e. side wall) and a crown arranged on the breast wall.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul (Figs. 1 and 5 and [0060]-[0061]) teaches combustion means 3 (i.e. burners) arranged on the side walls of the tank to supply heat energy. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified apparatus of Bioul comprising a plurality of burners arranged on the breast wall.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bioul et al. (US 2024/0343627A1 – hereinafter Bioul) in view of Saget et al. (US2025/0019287 – hereinafter Saget) and Yang et al. (CN112803661A – hereinafter Yang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN115594386A – hereinafter Liu) and Holler et al. (US 3,836,689 – hereinafter Holler).
For the Liu reference, the Examiner is referencing pages of the attached English Machine Translation.
Regarding claim 11, Bioul fails to disclose the apparatus further comprising a plurality of current measuring instruments. However, Liu (pg. 3) teaches a control system to adjust the output current of an electrode for temperature control including a current transformer to detect the current of the electrode (corresponding to a current measuring device) and Holler (Col. 4, lines 14-31) teaches a current controlling circuit connected in series with the lead from the transformer to the electrode. Accordingly, since the modified apparatus comprises a plurality of electrodes, and Liu and Holler teaches controlling and measuring output current of electrode for temperature control where the controlling circuit is connected in series from the transformer to the electrode, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to provide for controlling the plurality of electrodes for temperature control and the controlling includes a plurality of measuring instruments for the plurality of electrodes and wherein each of the plurality of current measuring instruments is connected in series with one of the plurality of electrodes and configured to measure data of a current passing through the electrode in order to provide for temperature control.
Regarding claim 12, Bioul fails to disclose the apparatus further comprising a voltage controller, wherein the voltage controller is connected to the plurality of electrodes and configured to adjust a voltage of the plurality of electrodes. However, Liu (pg. 4) teaches a control system for supplying power to electrodes to a glass furnace and a plurality of power controllers to change the output voltage so the electrode converts the electric energy into heat energy for heating the molten glass in the glass furnace. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide for controlling the voltage connected to the plurality of electrodes to provide control the supplied electric energy that is converted to heat energy by the electrodes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bioul et al. (US 2024/0343627A1 – hereinafter Bioul) in view of Saget et al. (US2025/0019287 – hereinafter Saget) and Yang et al. (CN112803661A – hereinafter Yang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merkle (US 5,158,412) and Min et al. (US 2016/0023937 – hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul discloses inlet port/means (li, lii, and liii), which provides for a plurality of feed ports/means.
Bioul fails to disclose a plurality of automatic feed gates are provided at the plurality of feed ports, respectively, and configured to control feeding speed. However, Merkle (Fig. 1, Col. 1, lines 5-9, Col. 2, lines 31-55 and Col. 4, lines 36-67) discloses a charging apparatus for introducing batch material into a glass melter. Merkle discloses a solids charger 10 adjacent an opening in reactor 9 of a glass melter where the batch charger feeds raw batch into one end of the furnace and controls the rate of feed (i.e. feeding speed) of the solid material to the reactor. Merkle additional control of feeding solids of the reactor by vertically adjustable gate 15 to control the height and profile of solids on the solids charger plate. Based on the additional teachings by Merkle, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that feed means of Bioul could be provided by the combination of an opening (i.e. feed port) and a charging apparatus for feeding material into a glass melter including automatic feed gates at the plurality of feed ports and configured to control a feeding speed, since it has been taught by Merkle an opening with an automatic feed gate is known in the prior art to control the rate of feed of solid material to a glass melter.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Bioul discloses a discharge port, but fails to disclose an automatic discharge gate provided at the discharge port and configured to control a discharge speed. However, Min (Figs. 1-2, abstract, and [0038]-[0039]) teaches gates used to control the flow rate of molten glass to be discharged. Therefore, based on the additional teachings of a gate used to control the flow rate of molten glass to be discharged, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Bioul could be improved by the addition of a gat to control the flow rate of the molten glass to be discharged from the discharge port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim. But Claims 10, 14, and 21-24 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are resolved and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of ultrasonic components arranged on an outer side of the pool wall corresponding to the pre-melting zones, the homogenization zone, and the clarification zone.
Regarding claims 14 and 21-24, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a processor that is communicatively connected with a plurality of ultrasonic components, a plurality of current measuring instruments, a voltage controller, a plurality of automatic feeding gates, and an automatic discharge gate.
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