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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/JP2021/034015 filed 16 September 2021. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 27 September 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Japan on 1 October 2020 and 9 September 2021. It is noted, that the certified copies of the JP 2020-166634 and JP 2021-146783 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 28 June 2023, 10 March 2025, and 14 May 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
In claim 8, lines 4 and 24, it appears that the word “an” should be placed before the word “atmosphere”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a black quartz glass comprising 0.5 to 10 mass% of Si, 0.1 to 5 mass% of SiO and a residue being SiO2, wherein the SCE reflectance at a wavelength of 350 nm to 750 nm is 10% or less. The use of the term “residue” is confusing since it is not clear if the “residue being SiO2” refers is a wanted minor component of the black quartz glass, such as an impurity or if the “residue being SiO2” is the balance or remainder of the 100 mass% of the black quartz glass.
For the purposes of examination, the phrase “residue of SiO2” is being read that SiO2 is the balance of the 100 mass% of the black quartz glass. The balance would be calculated as the amount of SiO2 present when the 0.5-10 mass% Si and 0.1-5 mass% SiO components are subtracted from the 100 mass%. Use of the “comprising” language allows for the addition of other components even in larges amounts including impurities.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the SiO2 part" in lines 3, 4, and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear from claim 1 that the SiO2 in the black quartz glass is a separate “part”. Additionally, in claim 7, the phrase “a synthetic silica powder of the residue” in lines 4-5 as well as in line 9, is confusing. Since claim 1 recites “a residue being SiO2” and claim 7 appears to further define claim 1’s “a residue being SiO2” it is unclear if “the residue” in lines 5 and 9 are different residues than the residue in claim 1. Claim 7 would be clearer if rewritten. For example,
“The black quartz glass according to claim 1 wherein
the SiO2 is a sintered body of fumed silica; or
the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising of 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and a balance of synthetic silica powder having a D50 of 60 to 100 µm, a D10 of 40 µm or more and a D95 of 180 µm or less in a particle diameter; or
the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a balance of synthetic silica powder having a D50 of 60 to 100 µm, a D10 of 40 µm or more and a D95 of 180 µm or less in a particle diameter.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure-molded product”" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim would be clearer if the claim were amended to include the phrase “to provide a pressure-molded product,” prior to the word “heating” in line 3. See line 11 of claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the SiO2 part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, lines 8 and 9 recites “30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and a synthetic silica powder of the residue of claim 1”, this is confusing since it is believed that the SiO2 of claim 1 comprises the 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and the synthetic silica powder. This section of claim 8 would be clearer if rewritten to read, following the word “consolidating” in line 8, “the SiO2 of claim 1 comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and a balance of synthetic silica powder”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the atmosphere" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to read “an atmosphere”.
Claim 8, line 14, recites the limitation "the SiO2 part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, line 15, recites the limitation "the residue", this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “residue” of claim 1 is different than the “residue” as recited in line 15 of claim 8.
The portion of claim 8 in lines 14 and 15, which recites “the black quartz glass according to claim 1 wherein the SiO2 part is a sintered body comprising fumed silica of 30 to 60 mass% and a synthetic silica powder of the residue” would be clearer if rewritten to read “the black quartz glass according to claim 1 wherein the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and a balance of a synthetic silica powder”.
In claim 8, lines 18-21, the phrase “30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a synthetic silica powder of the residue of claim 1” is confusing since it is unclear if the “residue in claim 8, line 20 is different than the “residue” as recited in claim 1. The claim would be clearer if rewritten to read, following the word “consolidating” in line 18, “the SiO2 of claim 1 comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a balance of synthetic silica powder”.
Claim 8, line 26, recites the limitation "the SiO2 part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, line 28, recites the limitation "the residue", this renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “residue” of claim 1 is different than the “residue” as recited in line 28 of claim 8.
The portion of claim 8 in lines 25-28, which recites “the black quartz glass according to claim 1 wherein the SiO2 part is a sintered body comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a synthetic silica powder of the residue” would be clearer if rewritten to read “the black quartz glass according to claim 1 wherein the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a balance of a synthetic silica powder”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the SiO2 part" in lines 2, 3, and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear from claim 1, from which claim 20 ultimately depends, that the SiO2 in the black quartz glass is a separate “part”. Additionally, in claim 20, the phrase “a synthetic silica powder of the residue” in lines 3-4 as well as in lines 7-8, is confusing. Since claim 1 recites “a residue being SiO2” and claim 20 appears to further define claim 1’s “a residue being SiO2”, it is unclear if “the residue” in lines 4 and 8 are different residues than the residue in claim 1. Claim 20 would be clearer if rewritten. For example,
“The black quartz glass according to claim 19 wherein
the SiO2 is a sintered body of fumed silica; or
the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising of 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica and a balance of synthetic silica powder having a D50 of 60 to 100 µm, a D10 of 40 µm or more and a D95 of 180 µm or less in a particle diameter; or
the SiO2 is a sintered body comprising 30 to 60 mass% of fumed silica, 5 to 25 mass% of spherical silica having a D50 of 5 to 15 µm, a D10 of 1 µm or more and a D95 of 70 µm or less, and a balance of synthetic silica powder having a D50 of 60 to 100 µm, a D10 of 40 µm or more and a D95 of 180 µm or less in a particle diameter.”
Claims 2-6, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they depend either directly or indirectly to a claim rejected as indefinite without correcting the issue.
Conclusion
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
1 April 2026
Prosecution Insights