DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed 07/01/2026. Upon entering the amendments, claim 19 is amended and claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment to claim 19 overcomes the previously issued ground of indefiniteness rejection under USC 112. This ground of rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 8 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.
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 Q3(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 Q3 values, and thus it is not clear how a group of particles can satisfy the equation or not. The instant Specification discusses the Q3(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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason et al (US10562809 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 SiO2 particles and water does not distinguish the formulation of the instant claim from a composition wherein the ultrafine SiO2 particles are taught as part of the solids. Thus, a prior art composition comprising glass particulate, quartz glass powder, water, and ultrafine SiO2 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 SiO2 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.
9. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason et al (US10562809 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 SiO2 (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 (K2O) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 2-6 and 11 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.
11. Claims 12-20 are allowed. The prior art does not teach or suggest a composite material meeting each limitation of instant claim 12.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive regarding the previously applied indefiniteness rejection of claim 8, or the previously applied prior art rejections of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of instant claim 8, applicant argues that the instant Specification discloses how the Andreassen model is used the particle-size distribution is determined. While it is true that Specification discusses the Andreassen equation and states that particles in the powder are divided into “various fractions” and that “corresponding fractions” are used to calculate Q3(d), this is not sufficient to understand how the equation should be applied in order to determine if a powder has a particle size distribution that would meet the instant claim 8 limitation. There is no disclosure in the Specification about which “various fractions” the powder is divided into – whether this be by a certain maximum particle size, and if so whether the fractions are equally-sized or not, or whether any value for a given fraction can be chosen. There is no disclosure in the Specification as to how many fractions must be considered in order calculate Q3(d) at various values, and if the indeterminate number of fractions must span the entirety of the particle size range or not. Further, while the Specification discloses that Q3(d) is “calculated from the volume of the respective fractions,” the nature of this calculation is unclear from the language used. It is ambiguous if the resultant Q3(d) is meant to be a single value (a “particle distribution”) describing the powder as a whole, or if there will be multiple Q3(d) values corresponding to various fractions. And if so, again the number, size, or extent of the various fractions is indeterminate from the instant Specification. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth about, and because the meaning of the claim 8 limitations remains unclear, the claim is still rejected under USC 112.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Gleason, applicant contends that the claimed formulation requires a base slip, quartz glass particles, and additional particles, with the base slip containing water and ultrafine SiO2 particles. Applicant argues that Gleason does not teach a formulation containing each aforementioned component because the water and ultrafine SiO2 particulate components in the Gleason formulation are not taught as being combined as a “base slip.” This is not persuasive because applicant’s contention is based on a state of the water+ultrafine SiO2 particles prior to their presence in the claimed formulation. That is, the water and SiO2 particles may start as a separate combination (a base slip) from the further components of the claimed formulation. However, after they are mixed with the further components to thus produce the claimed product (the formulation), they necessarily do not maintain their state of being a separate slip mixture. This would not be possible given the combining/mixing involved in producing a formulation. The claimed formulation is necessarily understood to be a mixture of the claimed components, because there is nothing in the claims to indicate that they are somehow segregated from one another within the formulation, and the instant Specification provides no basis for an interpretation that the water+SiO2 could maintain separateness within the formulation.
The instant claim is drawn to a formulation, and not a kit or other configuration wherein the listed components would reasonably be understood to be separate. Thus, the claim limitation to a base slip containing water and ultrafine SiO2 particles, within the formulation, is necessarily interpreted as meaning that the slip provides a water component and an ultrafine SiO2 component to the formulation, but that these two subcomponents would thereafter exist as mixed within the formulation. Because of this necessary understanding of the claim limitations, a prior art formulation that comprises water and ultrafine SiO2 particles in the instantly claimed amounts would read on the instant claim coverage, whether or not this prior art formulation is prepared by providing the water and ultrafine SiO2 particulate from a slip, or from other precursor states or mixtures. This is the case for the previously applied prior art to Gleason. As discussed above and in the previous Office Action, Gleason et al teaches a composition comprising silica powder and glass powder, wherein the silica powder component can be fused silica, i.e. quartz glass, and further comprises a water vehicle and an additive of colloidal silica. The ranges in Gleason for the aforementioned components are such that each corresponding range of the instant claim is overlapped and thus rendered obvious by the prior art teachings. That is to say that Gleason teaches a formulation that meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim 1 as necessarily interpreted as a homogenous mixture.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion that the Gleason composition has been “disassembled” and “regrouped,” the basis for the applied rejections is actually a proper assessment of the actual state of the claimed formulation (homogenous mixture) and a comparison with that of the applied prior art (a homogenous mixture comprises the same components in equivalent amounts). No “regrouping” is necessary or was undertaken because the components of the instantly claimed formulation cannot be interpreted as being “grouped” at all.
Applicant further argues that Gleason is non-analogous art because it teaches mixtures for the ultimate production of electronic materials and not refractories. However, this is not persuasive because, as discussed above, Gleason teaches a formulation that meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim. The equivalent formulation need not have an intended use that is the same as the intended use of the instantly claimed formulation in order to read upon the claim coverage. Because the instant claims are drawn to a formulation itself and not the use of said formulation in producing a refractory for glass production, whether or not a prior art document further teaches the same intended use is immaterial to the equivalence of the product.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive regarding the previously applied grounds of rejection of claims 12-17 and 20. These grounds are therefore withdrawn for said claims.
Thus, the grounds of rejection previously issued are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
14. Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected. Claims 2-6 and 11 are objected to. Claims 12-20 are allowed.
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16. 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
NSW3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights