DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-14 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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 4-5 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to an inorganic composition that is in an amorphous state. However, claims 4 and 5 further limit the claim by reciting that the glass-forming component is fly ash, clinker ash, or basalt. As these are not necessarily amorphous materials, it is unclear if the claimed composition comprises an amorphous component derived from said fly ash, clinker ash, or basalt, or if the aforementioned components are actually present in the final form of the composition. If the latter interpretation is intended, it is unclear how this can constitute an inorganic composition comprising an amorphous component.
Because of these inconsistencies in the claim terms, the scope of what is intended to be covered by claim 1 is unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. Claims 4-5 are also indefinite as discussed above. Claims 2-3 and 6-14 are also indefinite as depending from claim 1 and thus containing the indefinite rejections therefrom.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent et al (FR 2571172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Laurent et al teaches a gadolinium-containing glass for absorption. The glass is a composition comprising SiO2 and Al2O3 as main glass-forming components (see claim 3 and page 4, lines 1-8) and further containing Gd2O3 as the neutrophage (neutron absorbing) component. Said Gd2O3 is a neutron shielding component, and Laurent et al teaches that this component is present in an amount of 10-30 mol% (see page 3, lines 1-3). Laurent et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the Gd2O3 (neutron shielding component) is present in an amount of 10-50 wt% when converted from the molar percentage taught. However, from the embodiment taught by ranges 40-72 mol% SiO2, 10-35 mol% Al2O3, and 10-30 mol% Gd2O3 there can be formed many compositions wherein the Gd2O3 content falls within the range of the instant claim, and wherein the remaining SiO2 and Al2O3 components (constituting the glass-forming component of the instant claim) are present in a total amount of greater than 50 wt% upon conversion. These compositions would result from routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping ranges of Laurent et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the embodiments resultant from routine experimentation with the overlapping ranges, the total of SiO2+Al2O3 accounts for greater than 0.5 by mass ratio. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Laurent et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the Laurent et al composition does not contain Fe2O3, and thus the mass ratio is less than 0.25. As discussed above, Laurent et al teaches ranges for SiO2, Al2O3, and Gd2O3 such that embodiments would result from routine experimentation therewith that contain the Gd2O3 neutron shielding component in an amount falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the Laurent et al composition does not contain Fe2O3, and thus the mass ratio is less than 0.15. As discussed above, Laurent et al teaches ranges for SiO2, Al2O3, and Gd2O3 such that embodiments would result from routine experimentation therewith that contain the Gd2O3 neutron shielding component in an amount falling within the range of the instant claim.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurent et al (FR 2571172 A1) in view of Watanabe et al (US 20190221324 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the claim differs from Laurent et al as applied above because Laurent et al does not teach the inventive glass composition in the form of fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Laurent et al in view of Watanabe et al in order to form glass fibers from the Laurent et al glass composition. Watanabe et al teaches a transparent neutron shielding material comprised of a resin matrix and having therein structurally reinforcing components such as glass fibers (see paragraphs 0017 and 0043). Watanabe et al further teaches that including glass in the inventive shielding material provides for protection against γ-rays (see paragraph 0036). These teachings in Watanabe et al would have provided motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Laurent et al glass compositions in the form of fibers, because doing so would constitute a known manner of use of such materials in the intended neutron shielding application, such manner of use taught to be advantageous by Watanabe et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Laurent et al teaches a neutron shielding glass composition and Watanabe et al teaches that neutron shielding materials can comprise glass fiber components therein. Each limitation of instant claim 6 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Laurent et al in view of Watanabe et al teaches a shielding material comprising a matrix along with a glass fiber component that would be formed from the Laurent et al material. The term “filled” does not impart any quantitative amount of fibers in the material, and thus the aforementioned material taught by Laurent et al in view of Watanabe et al constitutes a material filled with fibers according to instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Watanabe et al teaches a resin matrix material.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe et al teaches a neutron shielding member, and as such the member taught by Laurent et al in view of Watanabe et al would be a member meeting each limitation of the instant claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a composition meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein a component selected from those of instant claims 4 or 5 are also present in said composition. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a composition according to instant claim 1 that is in the form of flakes. The prior art does not teach or suggest a composition according to instant claim 8 in the form of a cement, and further does not teach a fiber bundle meeting the compositional limitations of instant claim 14 and comprising fibers according to instant claim 6.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights