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 .
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejections are withdrawn based on the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 2-6, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to rejections based on Verweij have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 regarding the rejections based on Jang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues Jang fails to teach the open and closed interstices or that the final porous structure comprises at least 90% glass and at least 85% amorphous-glass phase and similar limitations in the dependent claims. This is not persuasive as Jang teaches the soda lime borosilicate glass spheres are sintered together by example at 90 wt% with glass powder and 100 wt% borosilicate glass spheres as set forth in the prior rejections. The SEM images, result descriptions and experimental results referred to support this. Additionally, borosilicate glass is amorphous glass and thus meets the limitations. Applicant argues that recitation of the batch compositions of Jang does not express the final fired structure. This is not persuasive as no other materials are present and thus the sintered product especially that of the 100 wt% glass spheres would reflect only that material in the final product. The examiner notes that argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary.
For claim 10, applicant argues the inclusion of further inorganics would not include the glass powder of Jang. This is not persuasive, as glass is considered an inorganic solid material and thus would fall within a reasonable interpretation.
For claim 18, it is noted that the claim includes about 0.6 g/cm3 which is what Jang teaches.
For claim 19, It is noted that Jang SEM images provide thus provide the necessary information to estimate the pore size. Further, Jang links the cell size distribution which is taught to the pore size [PG. 3263].
Thus, the rejections stand as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6, 10, 12, 15-16, 18-19 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (Processing of Cellular Glasses Using Glass Microspheres), herein Jang, as evidenced by 3M (3M™ Glass Bubbles S60HS).
In regards to claim 1, Jang teaches a porous composite of sintered glass microspheres and glass powder [Abstract, Sec. II-III]. The microspheres are physically bonded to one another and have interstices throughout the porous structure, the interstices comprising closed interstices that do not open to surfaces of the porous structure [Abstract, Fig. 1 (a-c), Sec. III ]. At least 50% of the glass microspheres are closed glass microspheres, each closed glass microspheres defining a sealed void therein, wherein the porous structure has at least 10% closed porosity in terms of volume [ Figs. 1 (a-c) and 2, Table 1, Sec. II, Fig. 5]. The open porosity is 42% to 62% by volume [Abstract, Sec. III, Fig. 4]. Jang further teaches composite comprising 90 wt% glass microspheres and 10 wt% glass powder or examples with 100 wt% microsphere content [Fig. 5, Table I. Secs. II-III]. Jang further teaches the glass of the powder and the glass microspheres, 3M S60HS, are soda-lime-borosilicate glass and are thus amorphous [Sec. II and 3M]. Thus, at least 85% of the composite is amorphous glass.
In regards to claim 6, Jang further teaches from about 65% to about 100% of the glass bubbles are closed [Sec. II-III, Fig. 1-2].
In regards to claim 10, Jang further teaches the composite comprises 90 wt% glass microspheres and 10 wt% glass powder [Table I – CG4, Sec. II].
In regards to claim 12, Jang further teaches the composite comprises 100 wt% glass microspheres and 0 wt% glass powder [Table I – CG5, Sec. II].
In regards to claim 15, Jang further teaches a composite with a closed porosity greater than about 10% [Fig. 5, 90 wt% microspheres and sinter temp of 750 oC].
In regards to claim 16, Jang further teaches a composite with an open porosity greater than about 40% [Fig. 5, 50-90 wt% microspheres and all sinter temps].
In regards to claim 18, Jang does not expressly teach the bulk density of the porous composite however, it is expected to meet the limitation as Jang teaches apparent density of the microspheres is 0.6 g/cm3 , thus the composite is expected to have a density of about 0.6 g/cm3 for a 100% microsphere sample [Sec. II].
In regards to claim 19, Jang further teaches the pore size as a cell size which has a median pore size of less than about 40 µm and more than 0.008 µm [Sec. III, Fig. 3].
In regards to claim 46-47, Jang further teaches the pore size as a cell size which has a median pore size of less than about 40 µm and more than 0.008 µm [Sec. III, Fig. 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (Processing of Cellular Glasses Using Glass Microspheres), herein Jang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20230136926 A1) [ids dated: 01/282025], herein Chen.
Regarding claim 17, Jang teaches the composite has use as a catalyst support but Jang does not teach that the composite porous structure has a cellular honeycomb structure.
Chen teaches a particulate filter having a cellular honeycomb structure comprising a plurality of glass bubbles bonded to one another [Abstract, 0006, 0011]. The honeycomb having 400 cells per square inch and a web thickness of 7 mils [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the composite of Jang to make a honeycomb filter having the structure taught by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so as Chen teaches composites of glass bubbles bonded to one another have utility as honeycomb filters and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights