DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-15 are currently pending.
Claims 9-15 have been withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 are currently rejected.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 22-24, 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matano et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0321056 A1 in view of Koike et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2007/0042893 A1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matano et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0321056 A1 in view of Koike et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2007/0042893 A1.
Matano et al. teach a glass bead comprising in terms of mass percentages, 40-80% of SiO2, 0-30% of Al2O3, 0-20% of B2O3, 0-25% of CaO, 0-30% of Na2O, 0-30% of K2O, 0-10% of Li2O, 0-15% of TiO2, 0.1-50% total of MgO, SrO, BaO, and ZnO, 0-20% of Nb2O5, 0-20% of WO3, 0-10% of F2. See paragraphs [0022] and [0048]-[0061]. Matano et al. teach that the glass comprises at most 1% total of Fe2O3, NiO, Cr2O3, CuO. See paragraph [0020] and claims 1, 3, and 4. Matano et al. teach that the glass beads are spherical in shape. See paragraph [0018] and claim 6 and 7. Matano et al. teach the glass beads have an average particle size of 0.1-300µm. See paragraph [0037] and claim 8. Matano et al. teach that when the glass comprises too much TiO2, coloring is likely to occur. See paragraph [0056].
Matano et al. fail to teach that the glass beads comprise at most 80 ppm of Ti3+ as recited in claim 1.
Koike et al. teach titania silica glass particles 3-10 mass% of TiO2. See paragraph [0029]. Koike et al. teach that the titania silica particles have at most 70 ppm of Ti3+. See paragraph [0037]. Koike et al. teach that if the Ti3+ is higher than 70 ppm the glass maybe colored brown. See paragraph [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have glass beads of Matano et al. as suggested by Koike et al. because the resultant glass beads would have the forming properties while controlling the coloration caused by having to high concentration of a Ti3+ as described in the glass composition of Koike et al. See paragraph [0056] of Matano et al. and [0037] of Koike et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 11 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6 by Koike et al. (US 2007/0042893) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6 over Koike et al. has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see pages 6-8, filed 11 September 2025 over the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-8 (now 1, 3, 4, and 6-8) over Matano et al. (US 2017/0321056) in view of Koike et al. (US 2007/0042893) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to state that the glass of Matano et al. in view of Koike et al. would support the glass being colorless. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would further expect that the TiO2 content of Matano et al. would have less than 70 ppm of Ti3+ as taught by Koike et al. in paragraph [0037], since Koike et al. teaches that a TiO2 containing glass comprising greater than 70 ppm of Ti3+ may be colored.
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 Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
24 November 2025
Prosecution Insights