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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 14-17, 19, 30 in the reply filed on 5-12-2026 is acknowledged.
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 2,17 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 2 recites “the hollow bodies”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the hollow bodies” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 17 recites “the composition prior to filing”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the composition prior to filing” in previous claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3,5-7,9,11,14-17,19,30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Byrne et al(2018/0207611).
Byrne et al teaches a composition for producing porous structures(para 0136 noting “particulate adsorbent material”), the composition comprising: from 5 wt.% to 95 wt.% hollow glass bodies (para 0136 noting “hollow borosilicate glass microspheres”, also noting glass microspheres in table 2 composition with 45 wt% based on percentage of total combined weight of the hollow glass bodies and the inorganic powder (glass microspheres dry wt 1336/2969 = 45% )) ; from 5 wt.% to 95 wt.% inorganic powder(para 0136 noting “kaolin clay”, wherein kaolin clay is a fine white clay powder; also noting kaolin in table 2 composition with 55 wt% based on percentage of total combined weight of the hollow glass bodies and the inorganic powder (kaolin dry wt 1633/2969 = 55%)), wherein the wt.% is based on the total combined weight of the hollow glass bodies and the inorganic powder; at least one binder(methylcellulose binder in table 2); and water(para 0136 stating “the dry ingredients were charged to the equipment and then the silicate and a sufficient amount of water were added to result in an extrudable paste”) , wherein the inorganic powder has a median particle size of less than or equal to 0.5 times a median particle size of the hollow bodies(noting powder of kaolin clay has a median particle size of less than or equal to 0.5 times a median particle size of hollow borosilicate glass microspheres”).
With regards to claim 3, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the inorganic powder comprises a single inorganic powder that acts as one or more of a rigid frame material, a crystallization agent, a reactive agent, or combinations of these(examiner notes that “kaolin clay” is a single inorganic powder, and examiner notes the limitations “that acts as one or more of a rigid frame material, a crystallization agent, a reactive agent, or combinations of these” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis , wherein the stated limitations are characteristics based on a sintered composition, wherein the composition of claim 1 does not require a sintered structure).
With regards to claim 5, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the inorganic powder that acts as one or more of a rigid frame material, a crystallization agent, a reactive agent, or combinations of these(examiner notes that “kaolin clay” is an inorganic powder, and examiner notes the limitations “that acts as one or more of a rigid frame material, a crystallization agent, a reactive agent, or combinations of these” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis , wherein the stated limitations are characteristics based on a sintered composition, wherein the composition of claim 1 does not require a sintered structure).
With regards to claim 6, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the inorganic powder includes a rigid frame material comprising one or more powders selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, cordierite, mullite, spinel, forsterite, wollastonite, clinoenstatite, diopside, zircon, sapphirine, clay(kaolin clay), SiC, Al4C₃, ZrC, Si₃N₄, AIN, and combinations of these (Examiner notes the limitations “includes a rigid frame material are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis , wherein the stated limitations are characteristics based on a sintered composition, wherein the composition of claim 1 does not require a sintered structure.”.
With regards to claim 7, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the inorganic powder comprises a rigid frame material that is capable of maintaining its original particle shape at temperatures: (i) greater than the softening temperature of the hollow bodies, has a melt temperature greater than the softening temperature of the hollow bodies, or both; or (ii) greater than the crystallization temperature of the hollow bodies, has a has a melt temperature greater than the crystallization temperature of the hollow bodies, or both (Examiner notes the claimed limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis , wherein the stated limitations are characteristics based on a sintered composition, wherein the composition of claim 1 does not require a sintered structure).
With regards to claim 9, Byrne et al further teaches one or more powders selected from the group consisting of MgO, Mg(OH)₂, CaO, K2O, Na₂O, KOH, NaOH, CaCO₃, B₂O₃, B(OH)₃, BN, B4C, TiO2, talc, clay(kaolin clay), forsterite, wollastonite, clinoenstatite, diopside and combinations of these.
With regards to claim 11, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the hollow bodies: (i) comprise silica glass microspheres; or (ii) have a D50 of from 1 µm to 100 um and a size distribution of less than 0.8, where the size distribution is defined as the quotient of (D50-D10)/D50; or (iii) have a wall thickness of from 0.2 um to 10 um.
With regards to claim 14, Byrne et al further teaches wherein the composition has a peak firing temperature less than or equal to 1400 °C(para 0139 stating “the dried particles/pellets were then calcined under inert nitrogen atmosphere in a box furnace, a tube furnace, or in a rotary kiln. … up to about 1100 °C”. )
With regards to claim 15, Byrne et al further teaches a porous structure prepared from the composition of claim 1.
With regards to claim 16 , Byrne et al further teaches from 5 wt.% to 95 wt.% glass based on the total weight of the porous structure; and from 5% to 95% inorganic powder based on the total weight of the porous structure.
With regards to claim 17 , Byrne et al further teaches wherein the porous structure comprises a size and shape within 15% of a size and shape of a green structure comprising the composition prior to firing (Examiner noting based on a sintering temperature of about 1100 °C, and based on a composition including components of claim 1, that a porous structure prepared from the composition of claim 1 is expected to have a size and shape within 15% of a size and shape of a green structure comprising the composition prior to firing).
With regards to claim 19 , Byrne et al further teaches wherein the porous structure has a D-factor of less than or equal to 0.5, wherein: the D-factor is equal to (d50-d10)/d50; d50 refers to a mean pore diameter of the porous structure at which 50% by volume of the open porosity of the porous structure has been intruded by mercury during a porosimetry measurement; and d₁₀ is equal to the pore diameter at which 90% by volume of the open porosity of the porous structure has been intruded by mercury during a porosimetry measurement (Examiner noting based on a sintering temperature of about 1100 °C, and based on a composition including components of claim 1, that a porous structure prepared from the composition of claim 1 is expected to have a D-factor of less than or equal to 0.5 ; also noting para 0141 stating “by varying the proportions of ingredients , exemplary particulate adsorbent was prepared with a range of porosity properties”).
With regards to claim 30 , Byrne et al further teaches wherein the porous structure has median pore from 8 µm to 20 µm, and a porosity of from 50% to 85%, or both (Examiner noting based on a sintering temperature of about 1100 °C, and based on a composition including components of claim 1, that a porous structure prepared from the composition of claim 1 is expected to have median pore from 8 µm to 20 µm, and a porosity of from 50% to 85%, or both ; also noting para 0141 stating “by varying the proportions of ingredients , exemplary particulate adsorbent was prepared with a range of porosity properties”).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne et al(2018/0207611).
Byrne et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 but is silent as to comprising from 50 vol.% to 99 vol.% hollow glass bodies and from 1 vol.% to 50 vol.% inorganic powder based on the combined true volume of the hollow bodies and the inorganic powder. Examiner respectfully submits a vol% of the hollow borosilicate glass microspheres and a vol% of the kaolin clay are a result effective variable, wherein it would been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vol% of the hollow borosilicate glass microspheres and kaolin clay, through routine experimentation, in order to meet the claimed vol%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights