DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-16 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 10/04/2023 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2 and 14-1 6 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 2 depends from claim 1 but the range for Al 2 O 3 is broadened to a minimum of 3.9% rather than 4.0%. A dependent claim containing a limitation that is broader than that from which it depends is indefinite under USC 112. Claim 14 is drawn to a glass furnace, but recites the glass furnace “as claimed in claim 1”. The claim is therefore improperly dependent and should likely depend from claim 13. Claim 15 contains a limitation to “the throat,” but claim 13, from which it depends, does not contain mention of “throat,” and there is thus not proper antecedent basis in claim 15 for this limitation. Claim 16 contains limitations to the overall dimensions of the block, but gives only a single value of 150 mm, and does not define which “dimensions” are being claimed. The nature of the actual size of the block in the claimed glass furnace is thus unclear, and the claim is ambiguous and indefinite under USC 112. 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. Claim s 1- 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alper et al (US 3632359) . Regarding claim 1 , Alper et al teaches a fuse cast refractory product comprising 84.7 wt% ZrO 2 , 5.7 wt% Al 2 O 3 , 8.3 wt% SiO 2 , 0.9 wt% Na 2 O, 0.2 wt% CaO , and 0.2 wt% Fe 2 O 3 +TiO 2 (see Table 1, Melt number 4560 [2]). The contents of HfO 2 , Y 2 O 3 , and B 2 O 3 are each 0 wt%, and there is no content of other species, indicating a value of less than 1.0 wt%. The Alper et al refractory therefore meets each range limitation of the instant claim. The ratio value of SiO 2 /(Na 2 O+K 2 O+B 2 O 3 ) for the aforementioned exemplary embodiment is 9.2, thus also meeting the corresponding limitation of the instant claim. Claim 1 therefore differs from Alper et al in that Alper et al does not teach an embodiment wherein the SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 contents each fall within the ranges of the instant claim, and also that the SiO 2 content is at least 8.5 wt% and the Al 2 O 3 content is at least 5.1 wt%. However, Alper et al teaches ranges for each of the aforementioned two components that overlap the corresponding instant claim ranges, and extend above 8.5 wt% and 5.1 wt% (see claim 1). Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the amount of SiO 2 falls within the range 8.0-11.0 wt%, and also wherein this amount is greater than 8.5 wt% (see Table 1, melt no. 1399, 1385). Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the Al 2 O 3 falls within the instant range, but at values below 5.1 wt% (see Table 1, melt no. 1366). From these teachings, one of ordinary skill would have, through routine optimization and experimentation with the Alper et al teachings, arrived at refractory that meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim, and that further either contains Al 2 O 3 in an amount of less than 5.1 wt% (thus not requiring at least 8.5 wt% SiO 2 ), or that contains at least 5.1 wt% Al 2 O 3 and also at least 8.5 wt% SiO 2 . 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. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 2 , as discussed above, Alper et al teaches a fuse cast refractory comprising 84.7 wt% ZrO 2 , 5.7 wt% Al 2 O 3 , 8.3 wt% SiO 2 , 0.9 wt% Na 2 O, 0.2 wt% CaO , and 0.2 wt% Fe 2 O 3 +TiO 2 . Further, Alper et al teaches a SiO 2 range overlapping that of the instant claims, and embodiments wherein the amount falls within said range (see Table 1). While the aforementioned exemplary embodiment has a SiO 2 /(Na 2 O+K 2 O+B 2 O 3 ) value of 9.2, values of this ratio between 10.0-19.0 would be arrived at through routine optimization and experimentation with the Alper et al ranges; the aforementioned increased SiO 2 content that is taught by Alper et al would also increase this ratio value, with levels greater than 10.0 covered by the ranges. As such, each further limitation of the instant claim is taught and suggested by the prior art of record, and the claim is not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 3 , as discussed above, Alper et al teaches a fuse cast refractory comprising 84.7 wt% ZrO 2 , 5.7 wt% Al 2 O 3 , and 0 wt% B 2 O 3 . Regarding claim 4 , the aforementioned Alper et al melt number 4560 [2] embodiment comprises 8.3 wt% SiO 2 . Regarding claim 5 , the Alper et al melt number 4560 [2] refractory comprises 5.7 wt% Al 2 O 3 , 0.9 wt% Na 2 O , and is free of B 2 O 3 . The range taught by Alper et al for SiO 2 overlaps the range of the instant claim, thus rendering obvious said claim range. Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the SiO 2 falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 1). The further limitations of claim 5 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 6 , the Alper et al melt number 4560 [2] refractory comprises 0.9 wt% Na 2 O and is free of B 2 O 3 . The ranges taught by Alper et al for SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 overlap the ranges of the instant claim, thus rendering obvious said claim ranges. Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the SiO 2 falls within the instantly claimed range and embodiments wherein the Al 2 O 3 content is within the range of claim 6. (see Table 1). The further limitations of claim 6 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 7 , the SiO 2 /Al 2 O 3 ratio of the aforementioned melt number 4560 [2] refractory is 1. 46. Regarding claim 8 , t he range taught by Alper et al for Al 2 O 3 overlaps the range of the instant claim, thus rendering obvious said claim range. Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the Al 2 O 3 falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 1). Regarding claim 9 , the ranges taught by Alper et al for SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 overlap the ranges of the instant claim, thus rendering obvious said claim ranges. Further, Alper et al teaches embodiments wherein the SiO 2 falls within the instantly claimed range and embodiments wherein the Al 2 O 3 content is within the range of claim 9 (see Table 1). The further limitations of claim 9 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 10 , Alper et al teaches an embodiment wherein the SiO 2 is 8.4 wt% (see Table 1). The range for Al 2 O 3 taught by Alper et al extends from 1.0 wt% to the SiO 2 amount. As such, the Alper et la Al 2 O 3 range overlaps and renders obvious the range of instant claim 10. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Regarding claim 11 , Alper et al teaches an embodiment having a SiO 2 /(Na 2 O+K 2 O+B 2 O 3 ) value of 9.2. However, values of this ratio between 10.0-19.0 would be arrived at through routine optimization and experimentation with the Alper et al ranges; the aforementioned increased SiO 2 content that is taught by Alper et al would also increase this ratio value, with levels greater than 10.0 covered by the ranges. As discussed above, Alper et al teaches embodiments having greater than 5.1 wt% Al 2 O 3 , wherein the melt number 4560 [2] refractory comprises 5.7 wt% Al 2 O 3 . Regarding claim 12 , Alper et al teaches that the SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 contents of the inventive refractory are chosen in order to restrict the amount of corundum and/or mullite crystals to no more than 25-30 percent by volume of the total refractory minus the volume of ZrO 2 crystals (see column 4, lines 40-45). For the aforementioned embodiment having 84.7 wt% ZrO 2 (crystals), this content of corundum+mullite would be approximately (100-84. 7)* 0.25 = 3.8%. Thus, the content of corundum and mullite is below 5%, and the corundum content of the aforementioned embodiment would be understood to be less than 5 vol%. Regarding claim 13 , Alper et al teaches that the inventive refractory is used in blocks for lining glass melting furnaces (see column 2, lines 20-30). Regarding claim 14 , Alper et al teaches an embodiment having a SiO 2 /(Na 2 O+K 2 O+B 2 O 3 ) value of 9.2. However, values of this ratio between 10.0-19.0 would be arrived at through routine optimization and experimentation with the Alper et al ranges; the aforementioned increased SiO 2 content that is taught by Alper et al would also increase this ratio value, with levels greater than 10.0 covered by the ranges. Regarding claim 16 , Alper et al teaches block sizes of 10 x 10 x 18 inches (see column 5, lines 1-5). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alper et al (US 3632359) in view of Okumiya et al (US 4336339). Regarding claim 15 , as discussed above, Alper et al teaches a fuse cast refractory meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and used in a glass melting furnace. Alper et al does not specify that the blocks formed from the inventive refractory are used in a throat portion of the furnace. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alper et al in view of Okumiya et al in order to use the Alper et al blocks in this position. Okumiya et al teaches a high zirconia fused refractory product having similar composition to that of Alper et al (see Abstract), and teaches that the refractory is advantageously used as the refractory product for high corrosion resistance such as a throat part of a glass melting furnace which is used in the severest condition (see column 4, lines 30-36). This teaching would have provided motivation and guidance to one of ordinary skill as to the specific portion of the glass furnace for which to use the Alper et al refractory, because Alper et al is not as specific as to the specific portion, and because Okumiya et al specifically indicates that such high-zirconia refractories can be used advantageously for the furnace throat portion. Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Conclusion 1 2 . No claim is allowed. 1 3 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 4 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner 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 NSW 4 March 2026