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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-6 are currently pending. Claims 1 has been amended and claim 7 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (JP2007238419A).
Regarding claim 1, Miura discloses a quartz glass made of silica (0003) comprising a plurality of micropores (0016, Fig 1 and 2). The pores including non-communication and communication pores (Fig. 1 and 2).
Miura does not expressly teach an average pore size, obtained by mercury intrusion porosimetry, of 10 to 150 µm.
Miura discloses the same raw materials (silicon tetrachloride) and method of manufacturing of the body including flame hydrolysis (0008), deposition on a target (0008), growth by VAD method (0008), heat treatment and sintering in an inert environment with e.g., with Ar gas (0009 and 0011-0012). Thus an overlapping range of pore size would be expected.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Miura does not expressly teach a gas permeability or specific surface area of the silica glass. As discussed above, however, Miura, teaches the same raw materials and method manufacturing of the body (0008-0009 and 0011-0012), these properties would be expected from the prior art silica porous body (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 4, Miura discloses a bulk density of 1.3 x 103 kg/m3 or less (0007) (1.3 g/cm3 or less), overlapping the claimed bulk density of 0.3 to 2 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 5, Miura teaches a content of metal impurities including Na, Li, K, alkaline earth metals, and transition metals are each 50 ppb or less (0.05 ppm or less; 0012), overlapping the claimed 0.5 ppm by mass or less.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 1, 4, and 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Miura does not expressly teach the silica glass porous body being a shower plate. However, Miura teaches a silica glass body having a plurality of pores as claimed. As best understood from applicant’s specification, the structure imparted by the recitation of a “shower plate” is having pores, thus the body of Miura is capable of being used as a shower plate as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03/10/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues Miura does not teach subjecting the silica to a high pressure treatment and thus the pores size range would not be expected from the product of Miura.
Applicants specification teaches that the “high-pressure treatment” is a pressure of preferably 0.01 MPa to 200 MPa. Atmospheric pressure is 0.1 MPa. While Miura does not expressly disclose a pressure Miura does not teach sintering under a vacuum and thus it is presumed atmospheric pressure is used, and thus the silica is subjected to the same “high-pressure treatment” as argued by applicant.
Applicant argues that Miura states that the micropores and continuous open micropores and thus does not teach non-communication pores and communication pores.
It is clear from the images of Miura both communication pores and non-communication pores are present. Furthermore it is maintained that Miura disclose the same materials and processing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights