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
Claims 13-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected salt bath system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
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 42 is rejected as being indefinite because the term “substantially free” is relevant and it is unclear what this amount is being compared to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (WO 2014045979) as cited in the machine translation provided
Regarding claim 35, Yamada discloses a method for regenerating a molten salt, the method comprising:
circulating the molten salt through a containment device, regeneration tank, positioned outside of a first interior volume defined by a salt bath tank, tempering tank 1, page 3-step 1
the molten salt comprising one or more impurities formed during an ion exchange process, inherently a skilled artisan knows that ions come out of the glass as the ions from the salt are exchanged with, these become as excess ions, also known in the art as poisoning ions, that have come out of the glass (sodium precipitates), and
the containment device, (regeneration tank 2) comprising a regeneration medium positioned within a second interior volume defined by the containment device, (regeneration tank 2); and contacting the molten salt with the regeneration medium within the containment device via (transfer means 4), wherein the contact reduces a concentration of the one or more impurities in the molten salt (page 6,
In step 4, in order to perform the regeneration treatment of the molten salt subjected to the glass chemical strengthening treatment, a part of the molten salt is transferred from the first tank (chemical strengthening tank 1) to the second tank (regeneration tank (sedimentation tank) 2). The molten salt is transferred by the molten salt transfer means 4. A known method such as a pump, pumping, pumping out, or siphoning can be used for feeding the molten salt…the Na ion concentration range to be controlled…Na ion concentration of the transferred molten salt is reduced.
Thus the impurities are reduced.
Regarding claim 36, Yamada discloses a temperature of the, regeneration tank 2, or second interior volume is 470° C (page 4 ¶4) and the first interior volume is 500-600° C of the strengthening tank 1, thus overlapping with the claimed temperature range of the second interior “greater than or equal to 3 °C less than a temperature of the first interior volume”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 26-34, 37-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2014045979) as cited in the machine translation provided
Regarding claim 26, Yamada discloses a method for regenerating a molten salt, the method comprising:
circulating the molten salt through a containment device, regeneration tank, positioned outside of a first interior volume defined by a salt bath tank, tempering tank 1, page 3-step 1
the molten salt comprising one or more impurities formed during an ion exchange process, inherently a skilled artisan knows that ions come out of the glass as the ions from the salt are exchanged with, these become as excess ions, also known in the art as poisoning ions, that have come out of the glass (sodium precipitates), and
the containment device, (regeneration tank 2) comprising a regeneration medium positioned within a second interior volume defined by the containment device, (regeneration tank 2); and contacting the molten salt with the regeneration medium within the containment device via (transfer means 4), wherein the contact reduces a concentration of the one or more impurities in the molten salt (page 6,
In step 4, in order to perform the regeneration treatment of the molten salt subjected to the glass chemical strengthening treatment, a part of the molten salt is transferred from the first tank (chemical strengthening tank 1) to the second tank (regeneration tank (sedimentation tank) 2). The molten salt is transferred by the molten salt transfer means 4. A known method such as a pump, pumping, pumping out, or siphoning can be used for feeding the molten salt…the Na ion concentration range to be controlled…Na ion concentration of the transferred molten salt is reduced.
Thus the impurities are reduced.
Yamada discloses the regeneration tank (2) positioned outside of the molten salt tank (1) MPEP 2144.04 states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)
It would be an obvious matter of design choice to a skilled artisan to rearrange the regeneration tank (2) to be within the salt tank (1) instead of outside and still pump the impure molten salt through the regeneration tank to remove impurities from the molten salt, thus regenerating it.
Regarding claim 27, Example 1 on page 12 indicates a sodium impurity from the glass ion exchange, A skilled artisan knows the original molten potassium nitrate salt will exchange potassium for the sodium in the glass thus yielding excess nitrate and the sodium will bond with at least some of this nitrate thus the impurities comprise an alkali metal nitrite, an alkali metal oxide, an alkaline earth metal nitrite, an alkaline earth metal oxide, or combinations of these.
Regarding claim 28, the regeneration medium comprises an alkali metal phosphate salt, an alkali metal carbonate or combinations of these (See Fig 1, and page 7 ¶5-page 8).
Regarding claim 29-31, Yamada does not indicate the claimed particle size of claim 39. Yamada states;
“What is necessary is just to stand still until Na containing precipitate precipitates completely. The time required for the precipitate to settle completely depends on the particle size of the precipitate, and the smaller the particle size, the longer the time is required”
It would be obvious to optimize the particle size of the regeneration medium as motivated to optimize the precipitate time. A particulate is considered a grain, saddle, or monolith shape given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 32, Yamada suggests potassium nitrate (page 4 ¶4) and potentially potassium carbonate (Page 4 ¶7) thus the salt bath composition positioned within the first interior volume (1) is considered substantially free of the regeneration material.
Regarding claim 33, Yamada does not disclose the rate the molten salt is circulated through the containment device however it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pump the salt through the regeneration tank (2) in correspondence with the rate at which the impurity precipitates (steps 5-7).
Regarding claim 34, Yamada discloses heating a salt bath composition comprising an alkali metal salt to an ion exchange temperature to form the molten salt (process 1, step 1 Page 4 ¶2); and
submerging a glass article into the molten salt such that an ion exchange between the molten salt and the glass article occurs, wherein the ion exchange between the molten salt and the glass article forms the one or more impurities in the molten salt (Step 2, Page 2 ¶2-3).
Regarding claim 37, Example 1 on page 12 indicates a sodium impurity from the glass ion exchange, A skilled artisan knows the original molten potassium nitrate salt will exchange potassium for the sodium in the glass thus yielding excess nitrate and the sodium will bond with at least some of this nitrate thus the impurities comprise an alkali metal nitrite, an alkali metal oxide, an alkaline earth metal nitrite, an alkaline earth metal oxide, or combinations of these.
Regarding claim 38, the regeneration medium comprises an alkali metal phosphate salt, an alkali metal carbonate or combinations of these (See Fig 1, and page 7 ¶5-page 8).
Regarding claims 39-41, Yamada does not indicate the claimed particle size of claim 39. Yamada states;
“What is necessary is just to stand still until Na containing precipitate precipitates completely. The time required for the precipitate to settle completely depends on the particle size of the precipitate, and the smaller the particle size, the longer the time is required”
It would be obvious to optimize the particle size of the regeneration medium as motivated to optimize the precipitate time. A particulate is considered a grain, saddle, or monolith shape given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 42, Yamada suggests potassium nitrate (page 4 ¶4) and potentially potassium carbonate (Page 4 ¶7) thus the salt bath composition positioned within the first interior volume (1) is considered substantially free of the regeneration material.
Regarding claim 43, Yamada does not disclose the rate the molten salt is circulated through the containment device however it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pump the salt through the regeneration tank (2) in correspondence with the rate at which the impurity precipitates (steps 5-7).
Regarding claim 44, Yamada discloses heating a salt bath composition comprising an alkali metal salt to an ion exchange temperature to form the molten salt (process 1, step 1 Page 4 ¶2); and
submerging a glass article into the molten salt such that an ion exchange between the molten salt and the glass article occurs, wherein the ion exchange between the molten salt and the glass article forms the one or more impurities in the molten salt (Step 2, Page 2 ¶2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hu (US 20180057402) [0035] storage case within molten salt
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights