DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The reply persuasively shows that the previously issued Requirement for Election is now moot due to the cancelation of previously restricted claims 3-14 and 20-31, and because further the newly added claims depend from independent claims 1 and 16 in a manner such that the new dependent claims do not constitute distinct species. As such, the Requirement for Election is withdrawn and all pending claims can be examined in this prosecution.
Status of Claims
The claims 1-2, 15-19, and 32-56 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2024, 06/02/2025, and 05/13/2026 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 16, and 33-56 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 1 is indefinite because the ranges for the components making up the foamed colloidal silica binder are such that mathematically impossible compositions can be produced and would thus fall under the coverage of the claim as written. The claim recites that the foamed colloidal silica binder comprises about 20% to about 70% by weight colloidal silica particles, about 30% to about 80% by weight water, and the binder further comprises a synthetic non-protein foaming agent. There are portions of the range for water content that, along with the foaming agent being present in amounts within the 1:25 to 1:500 ratio with said water, would not allow for a remaining amount in the binder that is within the 20-70 wt% required to be taken up by the colloidal silica particles. At amounts near the claimed 80 wt% water, when the foaming agent content is taken into account after calculating said content according to ratios within the claimed range, the resultant combined amount of water+foaming agent is greater than 80 wt%, and thus it would not be possible to include sufficient colloidal silica particles (at least 20 wt%) such that the amount would fall within the corresponding range of the instant claim. For example, choosing 78 wt% water and a ratio of 1:25, the foaming agent content would be 3.12 wt%, and thus the content of water+foaming agent is over 80 wt%, and the remainder of the binder is thus less than 20 wt% for a colloidal silica content that must be 20 wt% or greater.
The same is thus true if the amount of water is any amount from 77-80 wt%. As a further illustrative example, choosing 79 wt% water and a ratio of 1:50, the foaming agent content would be 1.58 wt%, and as can be seen, the total content of water+foaming agent is greater than 80 wt% and would not allow for at least 20 wt% colloidal silica particles.
These situations show that there can be situations wherein two the amounts of two of the binder components fall within their ranges, but the third component would mathematically unable to. The ranges for the binder components in claim 1 are thus not compatible with one another as written, and the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not clear. The claim is therefore indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 2 and 15 are indefinite as depending from claim 1 and therefore containing the indefinite rejections thereof.
Independent claim 16 is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. The ranges for colloidal silica particles and water in the foamed silica binder, in combination with the ratio amounts for the foaming agent third component of the binder, lead to situations wherein compositions are covered wherein two binder component amounts fall within the covered ranges, but the third component mathematically cannot. Claim 16 is therefore indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 33-46 are indefinite as depending from claim 1 and therefore containing the indefinite rejections thereof.
Claims 46-56 are indefinite as depending from claim 16 and therefore containing the indefinite rejections thereof.
Claim 40 is further indefinite because it recites that refractory component comprises “about 15% to about 80% by weight of the alumina.” From this language, it is unclear if the intended meaning is that the refractory component is comprised of 15-80 wt% alumina, or if there is a certain amount of alumina in the claim 34 composition (the claim from which claim 40 depends), and that the refractory component contains 15-80 wt% of the total alumina in the composition (with the remaining alumina being in some other component of the composition).
Claim 42 is further indefinite for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 40. It is unclear if the recitation “comprises at least 99% by weight of the silica” is meant to convey that the refractory component is at least 99 wt% silica, or that there is a silica content in the composition and the refractory component accounts for at least 99 wt% of the total silica.
Claim 54 is further indefinite because it recites that refractory component comprises “about 15% to about 80% by weight of the alumina.” From this language, it is unclear if the intended meaning is that the refractory component is comprised of 15-80 wt% alumina, or if there is a certain amount of alumina in the claim 16 composition (the claim from which claim 54 depends), and that the refractory component contains 15-80 wt% of the total alumina in the composition (with the remaining alumina being in some other component of the composition).
Claim 56 is further indefinite for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 54. It is unclear if the recitation “comprises at least 99% by weight of the silica” is meant to convey that the refractory component is at least 99 wt% silica, or that there is a silica content in the composition and the refractory component accounts for at least 99 wt% of the total silica.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a porous article comprising 1.5-30 wt% dried foamed colloidal silica binder and 70-98.5 wt% solid refractory component, wherein the foamed colloidal silica binder comprises colloidal silica particles and a synthetic non- protein foaming agent, the binder prior to drying having a half-life of at least about 1 hour and the porous refractory article having a total porosity of about 25% to about 75%.
Claims 1 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 15, and 32-56 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-2, 16, and 33-56 are rejected. Claims 17-19 are allowed.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
12. 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 August 2026
Prosecution Insights