DETAILED ACTION
The present application is related to international application no. PCT/US23/81516.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed September 25, 2026, have been fully considered.
The objection to Claim 1, mailed June 25, 2026, regarding a typographical error has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains improper language in line 1 (“Disclosed herein”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN 101,531,462 A).
Claim 1. Tian discloses A cellular glass product produced from a glass composition (Abstract “foam glass”; [0014] – [0032]; Claim 1) comprising:
a source of MnO in an amount of 2% to 10% by weight ([0032] MnO2 ≈ 0-2.5; Claim 1);
SiO2 in an amount from 55% to 75% by weight ([0018] SiO2 ≈ 55-78; Claim 1);
Al2O3 in an amount from 1% to 10% by weight ([0020] Al2O3 ≈ 2-8; Claim 1);
CaO+MgO in an amount from 4% to 11% by weight ([0025] MgO ≈ 1-5; [0026] CaO ≈ 3-8; Claim 1);
Na2O+K2O+Li2O in an amount from 12% to 18% by weight ([0021] Li2O ≈ 0.1-0.5; [0022] Na2O ≈ 5-14; [0023] K2O ≈ 0.5-6.5; Claim 1); and
BaO+SrO in an amount of 0% to 0.3% by weight, wherein the cellular glass product meets at least one of the following properties (See claim objection; [0027] BaO ≈ 0-3; Claim 1):
the cellular glass product is a closed cell foam;
the cellular glass product has a density of about 75 kg/m3 to 300 kg/m3;
the cellular glass product has a thermal conductivity of 0.033 W/mK to 0.06 W/mK; and
the cellular glass product has a compressive strength of 0.4 MPa to 2.5 MPa (Table 1: compressive strength ≈ 1.35MPa – 1.65MPa).
Where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Claim 2. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition comprises SiO2 in an amount from 60% to 70% by weight ([0018] SiO2 ≈ 55-78).
Claim 3. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition comprises Al2O3 in an amount from 2% to 7% by weight ([0020] Al2O3 ≈ 2-8).
Claim 4. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition comprises CaO+MgO in an amount from 5% to 9% by weight ([0025] MgO ≈ 1-5; [0026] CaO ≈ 3-8).
Claim 5. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition further comprises SO3 in an amount of 0.2% to 0.9% by weight ([0030] SO3 ≈ 0.02-0.45).
Claim 6. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition further comprises Fe2O3 in an amount from 1% to 6% by weight ([0031] Fe2O3 ≈ 0.2-1.0).
Claim 7. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the glass composition further comprises TiO2 in an amount of 0% to 0.5% by weight ([0029] TiO2 ≈ 0.5-4).
Claim 8. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the cellular glass product comprises at least 20% by weight of scrap material or recycled cullet, Tian discloses that the commonly used raw materials for foam glass are scraps of flat glass and recycled waste glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range of scraps of flat glass and recycled waste glass in Tian to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the cellular glass product comprises 30% to 85% by weight of scrap material or recycled cullet, Tian discloses that the commonly used raw materials for foam glass are scraps of flat glass and recycled waste glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range of scraps of flat glass and recycled waste glass in Tian to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the cellular glass product has a thermal conductivity of 0.033 W/mK to 0.042 W/mK, although Tian discloses a thermal conductivity of about 0.082 w/(mK) to 0.095 w/(mK) (Table 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration(s) of the foam glass components in Tian to achieve the thermal conductivity range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1, wherein the cellular glass product has a compressive strength of 0.5 MPa to 1.45 MPa (Table 1: compressive strength ≈ 1.35MPa – 1.65MPa).
Claim 12. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the source of MnO is present in the glass composition in an amount of 3% to 8% by weight, although Tian discloses MnO2 ≈ 0-2.5 wt% ([0032]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration of MnO2 in Tian to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the source of MnO is present in the glass composition an amount of 4% to 6% by weight, although Tian discloses MnO2 ≈ 0-2.5 wt% ([0032]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration of MnO2 in Tian to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN 101,531,462 A) in view of Cui (CN 107,673,610 A).
Claim 10. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Tian does not disclose wherein the cellular glass product has a thermal conductivity of 0.033 W/mK to 0.042 W/mK. However, Cui teaches a foam glass (Abstract; [0005] – [0018]; Claim 1) comprising: a source of MnO in an amount of 2% to 10% by weight ([0015] 1-3 wt% MnO2; Claim 1); SiO2 in an amount from 55% to 75% by weight ([0008] 50-75 wt% SiO2; Claim 1); Al2O3 in an amount from 1% to 10% by weight ([0009] 5-9 wt% Al2O3; Claim 1); CaO+MgO in an amount from 4% to 11% by weight ([0010] 3-8 wt% CaO; [0011] 1-4 wt% MgO; Claim 1); Na2O+K2O+Li2O in an amount from 12% to 18% by weight ([0012] 8-15 wt% Na2O; [0013] 1-5 wt% K2O; Claim 1); wherein the foam glass has a thermal conductivity factor of about 0.036 W/(mK) to 0.045W/(mK) and a compression strength of about 0.5 MPa to 3MPa ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration(s) of the foam glass components in Tian, as taught by Cui, in order to achieve a thermal conductivity optimal for thermal insulation.
Claim 12. Tian discloses The cellular glass product according to claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the source of MnO is present in the glass composition in an amount of 3% to 8% by weight, Cui teaches a foam glass comprising MnO2 in an amount of 1-3 wt% ([0015]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed September 25, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the following:
“While it is true that the claims make SrO an optional ingredient (in combination with BaO), Tian is silent with respect to this specific oxide ingredient. Importantly, it does not teach its absence. There is no way from the record to discern from Tian how much SrO is present. Further, Tain teaches that the amount of BaO may greatly exceed the claimed amount and only one of the Examples in Table 1 of Tian fall within the claimed range for BaO+SrO (0-0.3%). Thus, the Office Action fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness at least because Tain cannot be read to teach amounts of SrO. The claims require that SrO be present in an amount of 0% to 0.3% (when coupled with BaO), but Tian does not teach an amount. Based on the record, SrO could be present in virtually any amount depending on the other ingredients. Unless and until the Examiner can show on the record where the references teach an amount of SrO that overlaps with the claimed amounts, the rejection is insufficient. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are allowable over the applied art and Applicant requests the rejections be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A cellular glass production produced from a glass composition comprising: … BaO+SrO in an amount of 0% to 0.3% by weight” in lines 1 and 7. The Examiner acknowledges and agrees with the Applicant that SrO is an optional ingredient (See Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/25/2026: p. 7), based on the instant claim language. In fact, neither BaO nor SrO is required by the claimed invention; both of these components may be considered optional, since their combined total can amount to 0% by weight of the cellular glass composition.
Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Tian need not expressly exclude SrO to read on the claimed invention. Moreover, it is compelling that Tian makes no mention of SrO throughout the entire disclosure. The Examiner finds that the absence of SrO in the disclosed embodiment(s) is sufficient to render obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Battigelli et al. (US 4,203,774).
Battigelli discloses a glass product (Abstract; Claim 9) comprising: a source of MnO in an amount of 2% to 10% by weight (Table II: 0-4 wt% MnO); SiO2 in an amount from 55% to 75% by weight (Table II: 59-65 wt% SiO2); Al2O3 in an amount from 1% to 10% by weight (Table II: 4-8 wt% Al2O3); CaO+MgO in an amount from 4% to 11% by weight (Table II: 4.5-9 wt% CaO + 0-4 wt% MgO); Na2O+K2O+Li2O in an amount from 12% to 18% by weight (Table II: 12.5-18 wt% Na2O + 0-3 wt% K2O); and BaO+SrO in an amount of 0% to 0.3% by weight (Table II: 0-5 wt% BaO).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
