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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (A)(i) and Species B(iii) in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains improper language in line 1. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the cellular glass product meets at least one of the following properties;” in lines 7-8. This limitation should be followed by a colon instead of a semicolon to clarify that the list of properties is attributed to the previous limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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]).
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).
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 8:00am - 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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 3674
Prosecution Insights