DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-20 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2023, 03/04/2024, and 04/04/2024 are 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. Claims 8 and 19 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 8 contains limitations to the particle size distribution of the glass particles that are defined by relationships of the Andreassen equation therein. However, the variables of said Andreassen equation are not adequately defined so as to enable one of ordinary skill to understand if a given particulate would meet the limitations imparted thereby, and thus fall within the scope of the instant claim 8 or not. It is not clear if the variables d - particle size and D - maximum size refer to the size and maximum size of glass particles as a whole as compared to the solid particulate components of the formulation, or if they refer to size and maximum size of certain portions of the glass particulate. If the latter is the intended meaning, the claim language does not make clear how these portions are chosen. Thus, it would not be possible for a skilled artisan to understand how to measure a given particulate in order to determine the d and D values and thus to determine if the particulate fell within the instant claim bounds. The Q 3 (d) value of the Andreassen equation is also not sufficiently explained or defined in the claims; while there is a given range for the q – distribution coefficient, there are no ranges defined for any of d, D, or Q 3 values, and thus it is not clear how a group of particles can satisfy the equation or not. The instant Specification discusses the Q 3 (d) as being calculated from the volume of respective fractions, but it is not clear how such calculation occurs. It appears as though this variable may be the cumulative percentage of particles finer than a certain value, but without any of the values or size variables being given, it is not possible for one of ordinary skill to use this equation to describe any particle size distribution. The metes and bounds of claim 8 are therefore unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. Claim 19 is drawn to a composite material, but contains limitations to an outer region and an inner region. A claim to a material is usually intended to cover the composition itself, i.e. a homogenous combination of components. The limitations to different regions of the claimed product seem to indicate that an article made from the composite material is what is intended to be covered by the claim, as a material per se would generally not be understood to have inner and outer regions. This ambiguity renders indefinite the metes and bounds of instant claim 19. 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason et al (US 10562809 B2 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Gleason et al teaches a composition comprising silica powder and glass powder (see claim 1). The Gleason composition is a formulation, and the preamble limitation that it is for a casting compound is an intended use limitation that is necessarily met by Gleason et al because there is nothing in the limitation that would preclude the prior art composition for such a use. The silica powder component can be fused silica, i.e. quartz glass (see column 9, lines 15-20). Gleason et al teaches that the composition comprises 1-90 wt% of the glass component, with a more specific ranges of 45-60 wt% and 45-50 wt% glass powder taught (see column 6, lines 46-51). Gleason et al further teaches that the solids portion of the inventive composition comprises 50-55 wt% of the silica component (see column 9, lines 19-21). The ranges for these two components thus overlap and render obvious the corresponding ranges of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The Gleason composition further comprises a vehicle component that is present in an amount of 10-40 wt% (see column 10, lines 20-25). This vehicle would constitute a slip portion of the composition, and is thus present in a range overlapping and rendering obvious the slip range of instant claim 1. The vehicle solvent can be water. Gleason et al teaches that the composition further comprises 0.1-50 wt% of an additive that can be colloidal (nanoparticulate) silica. This additive is taught as a part of the solids content. However, in a formulation such as that instantly claimed, the solid components and the liquid vehicle (slip) would be homogenously mixed. Thus, the distinction that the slip component contains the ultrafine SiO 2 particles and water does not distinguish the formulation of the instant claim from a composition wherein the ultrafine SiO 2 particles are taught as part of the solids. Thus, a prior art composition comprising glass particulate, quartz glass powder, water, and ultrafine SiO 2 in amounts meeting the instantly claimed range values would read on the instant claim; such a material would be indistinguishable from a formulation wherein the ultrafine SiO 2 started as a part of the slip but was thereafter mixed with the further components. This is the case with the Gleason et al composition in question. The additive (colloidal silica) content is 0.1-50 wt%, and the organic vehicle content, which comprises the solvent that can be water, is 10-40 wt%. As such, the colloidal silica content can be 50-70 wt% based on the total amount of colloidal silica+vehicle , and the remaining water content would thus fall within the range 30-50 wt%. These ranges overlap those of the instant claims, and the resultant ranges for each of the aforementioned four components of the composition overlap those corresponding ranges of instant claim 1. 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. Because the composition taught by Gleason et al contains the quartz glass powder, glass particulate, water, and ultrafine SiO 2 components of the instant claims in amounts that overlap those of the instant claim when determined according to the final composition (as opposed to separating out the slip composition), each limitation of claim 1 is met by the Gleason et al teachings. Claim 1 is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 7 , Gleason et al teaches that the glass component is a borosilicate glass. Claim s 9-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason et al (US 10562809 B2 ) in view of Umemoto et al (CN 103964824 A ). Regarding claim 9 , the claim differs from Gleason et al as applied above because Gleason et al does not specify the glass transition temperature or processing temperature of the glass component within the inventive composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gleason et al in view of Umemoto et al in order to use a glass having the glass transition temperature properties taught therein with the Gleason et al composition. Umemoto et al teaches a dielectric ceramic composition that is similarly composed to that of Gleason et al in that it comprises glass powder, quartz, and amorphous SiO 2 (see Abstract). Umemoto et al teaches that the glass component is one that has a glass transition temperature of 480-520 °C, and like the Gleason et al glass component, that of Umemoto et al is a borosilicate glass containing an alkali metal oxide (K 2 O) as a third component. This teaching would show one of ordinary skill that glasses of the type used in the Gleason et al composition advantageously have lower glass transition temperatures such as those in the Umemoto et al range. One would have had a motivation to use the Umemoto et al glass transition temperature range with the Gleason et al glasses because the lack of specific teaching in this regard by Gleason would lead one to look to other teachings such as those of Umemoto et al for an appropriate value. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because of the aforementioned similarities in dielectric compositions taught by Gleason et al and Umemoto et al. Each limitation of instant claim 9 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 10 , as discussed above, Umemoto et al teaches a glass having a glass transition temperature of 480-520 °C. Regarding claim 12 , the claimed composite material is disclosed as resulting from sintering of the formulation discussed in the instant Specification and claims. Thus, an equivalent formulation that is sintered would necessarily result in a composite material with the features of instant claim 12. As discussed above, Gleason et al in view of Umemoto et al teaches a composition that meets each limitation of the claim 1 and claim 9 formulations. The portions of quart glass, glass powder, water, and ultrafine SiO 2 are equivalent in the Gleason et al composition, and in view of Umemoto et al the glass would also be equivalent in terms of glass transition temperature. Gleason et al teaches that the inventive composition is sintered, and the thus-produced sintered composite material would as such necessarily have the phase proportions equivalent to those of instant claim 12. Further, the glass of the prior art of record, which is equivalent in terms of composition and glass transition temperature, would also thus be necessarily equivalent in T VA . It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Each limitation of claim 12 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 13 , as discussed above, the glass component taught by Umemoto et al and used in the Gleason et al composition is equivalent to that of the instant claims. The glass transition temperature is 480-520 °C and the T VA would thus also be expected to be equivalent and be greater than 1150 °C. Regarding claim 14 , as discussed above, Gleason et al teaches an equivalent composition to that instantly disclosed, and teaches sintering said composition. The resultant composite material would thus also be equivalent, and would have largely crystalline matrix component formed from the quartz glass starting component. The glass phase resultant from the starting glass powder is also present in an equivalent amount, as Gleason et al teaches an overlapping range for this component. Regarding claim 15 , the Gleason et al range for the glass component overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim. Regarding claims 16-17 , the SiO 2 matrix component of the instant claim is formed by sintering the formulation instantly disclosed, per the Specification. Thus, sintering of an equivalent composition to said formulation would necessarily result in an equivalent SiO 2 matrix. The matrix of the Gleason et al sintered composition is thus necessarily considered to be 75 vol% or greater cristobalite. Regarding claim 20 , the equivalent composite material taught by the prior art of record would necessarily have equivalent viscoelastic properties above a softening temperature of the glass component. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 formulation meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and wherein the formulation further has the particle size distribution limitations of instant claims 2-6, or wherein the formulation is rheopectic at room temperature. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a composite material meeting each limitation of instant claim 12, and wherein the glass component has the particle size limitations of instant claim 18. Conclusion 1 2 . Claims 1, 7-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected. Claims 2-6, 11, and 18 are objected to. 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 20 March 2026