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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8-11, and 17 have been amended.
The prior objections to claims 1, 10, and 11 are withdrawn as moot in view of the amendments to those claims.
The previous rejection of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn, the amendments to the claims having rendered moot the basis for the rejection.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
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 17 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.
As amended, claim 17 recites the limitation “the alkaline earth oxide” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are rejected by reason of their dependence from claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art reference is U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0169073 to Backhaus-Ricoult et al. (hereinafter “Backhaus-Ricoult”), which teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62) and an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131); reasonably, the remaining weight percentage of the zircon body (i.e., from 90 wt.% to 99 wt.%) is made up of the ceramic phase, i.e., the crystalline phase (see ¶ 0009; claim 1). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises one or more alkaline earth materials (see ¶¶ 0090, 0113); and Backhaus-Ricoult teaches that “alkaline earth concentration in the glass phase can be less than or equal to about 2 wt %, e.g., ranging from about 0.05 wt % to about 2 wt %” (¶ 0131).
However, Backhaus-Ricoult does not explicitly teach wherein the amorphous phase comprises an alkaline earth oxide including for a total weight of the amorphous phase CaO of at least 3.4 wt.%, BaO of at least 0.5 wt.%, SrO of greater than 0.1 wt.%, or a combination thereof.
Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 1 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the allowable subject matter of that independent claim. Because claims that depend from an allowable base claim are also allowable over the prior art, claims 2-9 are allowable.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art reference is Backhaus-Ricoult, which teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62), and Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises “at least one secondary crystalline phase” of about 0.001 wt.% to about 5 wt.% (see ¶ 0130). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088), and Backhaus-Ricoult moreover teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the ceramic body of the refractory object comprises mullite (see ¶¶ 0045, 0129). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises silicon (see Backhaus-Ricoult at ¶ 0128). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises one or more alkaline earth materials (see Backhaus-Ricoult at ¶¶ 0090, 0113) and wherein “alkaline earth concentration in the glass phase can be less than or equal to about 2 wt %, e.g., ranging from about 0.05 wt % to about 2 wt %” (see Backhaus-Ricoult at ¶ 0131).
However, However, Backhaus-Ricoult does not explicitly teach wherein the amorphous phase comprises silica (SiO2) of at least 20 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase and an alkaline earth oxide including BaO, SrO, CaO, or a combination thereof, wherein a ratio of CSiO2 to CAKO of not greater than 16 and at least 2, wherein CSiO2 is a content of silica relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase, and CAKO is a total content of alkaline earth oxide relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase.
Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 10 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and therefore include the allowable subject matter of that independent claim. Because claims that depend from an allowable base claim are also allowable over the prior art, claims 11-16 are allowable.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Dependent claims 18-20 would likewise be allowable if claim 17 were rewritten or amended to overcome the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art reference is Backhaus-Ricoult, which teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62) and an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088). Backhaus-Ricoult teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131); reasonably, the remaining weight percentage of the zircon body (i.e., from 90 wt.% to 99 wt.%) is made up of the ceramic phase, i.e., the crystalline phase (see ¶ 0009; claim 1).
Backhaus-Ricoult teaches wherein the refractory object has a creep rate of less than 8 E -6 h-1 at a temperature of 1300 °C and a stress of 625 psi (about 4.3 MPa) (see ¶ 0132; claim 2). However, Backhaus-Ricoult does not explicitly teach that the zircon body of the refractory object has a creep deformation rate of not greater than about 1.5 E -5 h-1 at a temperature of 1350 °C and a stress of 2 MPa; not greater than about 7.5 E -6 h-1 at a temperature of 1325 °C and a stress of 2 MPa; not greater than about 3.5 E -6 h-1 at a temperature of 1300 °C and a stress of 2 MPa; or any combination thereof.
Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 17 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and therefore include the allowable subject matter of claim 17.
Additionally, the present claims are deemed allowable over the references of record for substantially the reasons set forth by Applicant in the response filed June 30, 2026, which have been found persuasive.
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 comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
