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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 50 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 50 recites the broad recitation “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm”, and the claim also recites “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 100 mesh” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Examiner notes that while claim 50 recites a limitation found in previous claim 17, claim 17 is interpreted as further limiting claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm”, and claim 17 recites the more narrow qualifying limitation “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 100 mesh”. Combing both of these limitations within the same claim creates uncertainty because a person having ordinary skill in the arts would not be reasonably appraised as to which range controls the limitations of claim 50. For example, a DRC may comprise 5% crystalline silica with a size of 20 µm. 100 mesh corresponds to a sifting screen with holes of approximately 149 µm. In such a case, the DRC with 5% crystalline silica with a size of 20 µm would pass through a 100 mesh screen, thus meeting the 100 mesh limitation of claim 50. However, such a DRC would not meet the limitations of less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10 µm.
For the purposes of examination, per the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 50, the limitations of each of “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm”, and claim 17 recites the more narrow qualifying limitation “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 100 mesh” will be deemed to have been met as long as the limitation of “less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm” is met because a powder with a particle size having less than 5% crystalline silica with a size of less than 10µm would also meet the 100 mesh limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 22, 26, 34, 36, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mabie et al. (US4548381, hereinafter referred to as Mabie).
Regarding claim 1, Mabie discloses a silica-based dry refractory composition ("DRC") comprising silica and optionally a binder (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising silica. Examiner notes quartz corresponds to crystalline silica, and supersil corresponds to fused silica), wherein said silica comprises, by weight: -about 40% to about 80% quartz (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 49.5 wt.% quartz), and -about 20% to about 60% fused silica (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 49.5 wt.% Supersil, which corresponds to 49.5 wt.% fused silica); wherein said DRC has less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 16.5 wt.% quartz with a particle size of from 30/100 mesh, which corresponds to 149-595 µm because the particles are larger than a 30 mesh screen but smaller than a 100 mesh screen, as well as 33.0 wt.% of quartz with a particle size of nom. 200 mesh. Per Col. 3, lines 16-18, nom 200 signifies that the quartz powders are nominally at 200 mesh, which corresponds to 74 µm and is achieved because all ceramic particulate is screen through multiple mesh screens as detailed in Col. 3, lines 5-18 of Mabie. Col. 3, lines 5-18 specifies the particulate ceramic powders range from 50 to 325 mesh, which means that all of the particles are screen through a mesh screen of 50 mesh or smaller, and 325 mesh or larger. This causes all of the ceramic particles present to be within a range of from 44 µm (325 mesh) to approximately 300 µm (50 mesh) or smaller. In this manner of sifting through screens of various larger and smaller sizes, a particle size of nom 200 mesh can be achieved such as in Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1 whereby all the quartz particles are approximately 74 µm, and approximately 0% of the quartz has a size less than 10 µm), and further wherein said DRC is adapted for installation into a void (see Mabie at the Abstract, disclosing adding the mixture to a mold. Examiner notes a mold corresponds to a void) such that, when heated, at least a portion of the DRC forms thermal bonds and sinters (see Mabie at Col. 3, lines 56-58, disclosing the members are heated by applying a flame from a conventional propane torch. Examiner notes this corresponds to forming thermal bonds and sintering).
While Example B from Table 1 of Mabie does discloses the addition of water or liquid chemical binder (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising NH4OH binder liquid), Examiner notes that claim 1 which recites “the DRC is adapted for installation into a void without the addition of water or liquid chemical binder” is considered intended use. The intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when Applicant claims a composition in terms of function and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection (MPEP 2112). The composition of Example B from Table 1 is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition, and would be adapted for installation into a void without the addition of water or liquid chemical binder in a manner analogous to the instantly claimed DRC.
Regarding claim 3, Mabie discloses said DRC has <1% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 16.5 wt.% quartz with a particle size of from 30/100 mesh, which corresponds to 149-595 µm, as well as 33.0 wt.% of quartz with a particle size of nom. 200 mesh. Per Col. 3, lines 16-18, nom 200 signifies that the quartz powders are nominally at 200 mesh, which corresponds to 74 µm. Therefore, approximately 0% of the quartz has a size less than 10 µm).
Regarding claim 22, Mabie discloses said DRC has no fused silica that is 4 mesh or larger (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising fused silica with a size of 200 mesh, and fused silica with a size of 325 mesh. Examiner notes both of 200 mesh and 325 mesh are smaller than 4 mesh because particle size decreases with increasing mesh number.).
Regarding claim 26, Mabie discloses said DRC has less than about 35% fused silica that is 50 mesh or larger (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising fused silica with a size of 200 mesh, and fused silica with a size of 325 mesh. Examiner notes both of 200 mesh and 325 mesh are smaller than 35 mesh because particle size decreases with increasing mesh number, therefore, 100% of the fused silica particles are smaller than 50 mesh).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, while Mabie does not explicitly disclose a DRC wherein said fused silica comprises a broad pore distribution fused silica or >70% pore distribution fused silica, Mabie discloses in the rejection of claim 26 above that none of the fused silica particles are within the size of 4 and 10 mesh, therefore, the particles of Mabie meet the claim limitations of claims 34 and 36 per [0051] of the instant specification per the claim interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 50, Mabie discloses a silica-based dry refractory composition ("DRC") comprising silica and optionally a binder (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising silica. Examiner notes quartz corresponds to crystalline silica, and supersil corresponds to fused silica), wherein said silica comprises, by weight: -about 40% to about 80% quartz (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 49.5 wt.% quartz), and -about 20% to about 60% fused silica (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 49.5 wt.% Supersil, which corresponds to 49.5 wt.% fused silica); wherein said DRC has less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 10µm and less than about 5% crystalline silica having a size less than 100 mesh, (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 16.5 wt.% quartz with a particle size of from 30/100 mesh, which corresponds to 149-595 µm because the particles are larger than a 30 mesh screen but smaller than a 100 mesh screen, as well as 33.0 wt.% of quartz with a particle size of nom. 200 mesh. Per Col. 3, lines 16-18, nom 200 signifies that the quartz powders are nominally at 200 mesh, which corresponds to 74 µm and is achieved because all ceramic particulate is screen through multiple mesh screens as detailed in Col. 3, lines 5-18 of Mabie. Col. 3, lines 5-18 specifies the particulate ceramic powders range from 50 to 325 mesh, which means that all of the particles are screen through a mesh screen of 50 mesh or smaller, and 325 mesh or larger. This causes all of the ceramic particles present to be within a range of from 44 µm (325 mesh) to approximately 300 µm (50 mesh) or smaller. In this manner of sifting through screens of various larger and smaller sizes, a particle size of nom 200 mesh can be achieved such as in Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1 whereby all the quartz particles are approximately 74 µm, and approximately 0% of the quartz has a size less than 10 µm), and further wherein said DRC is adapted for installation into a void (see Mabie at the Abstract, disclosing adding the mixture to a mold. Examiner notes a mold corresponds to a void) such that, when heated, at least a portion of the DRC forms thermal bonds and sinters (see Mabie at Col. 3, lines 56-58, disclosing the members are heated by applying a flame from a conventional propane torch. Examiner notes this corresponds to forming thermal bonds and sintering).
While Example B from Table 1 of Mabie does discloses the addition of water or liquid chemical binder (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising NH4OH binder liquid), Examiner notes that claim 1 which recites “the DRC is adapted for installation into a void without the addition of water or liquid chemical binder” is considered intended use. The intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when Applicant claims a composition in terms of function and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection (MPEP 2112). The composition of Example B from Table 1 is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition, and would be adapted for installation into a void without the addition of water or liquid chemical binder in a manner analogous to the instantly claimed DRC.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mabie in view of Nyce et al. (WO2004014293, hereinafter referred to as Nyce, cited in the IDS dated 11/06/2024).
While claim 1 is rejected over 102(a)(1) in view of Mabie as detailed in the rejection above, Examiner notes that the subject matter of claim 1 is additionally obvious over Mabie in view of Nyce.
Mabie discloses an example of a refractory composition which meets the limitations of instant claim 1 as detailed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above, however, while Mabie discloses a quartz with a particle size nominally of 200 mesh which corresponds to 74 µm as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Applicant argues at page 8 of the Remarks dated 10/15/2024 that the composition of Mabie includes quartz particles finer than 10 µm in size. While this argument is not convincing for the reasons detailed in the response to arguments section below, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Mabie to minimize the amount of quartz with a particle size of 10 µm and lower to approximately zero as taught by Nyce. Mabie at Col. 3, lines 5-18 specifies the particulate ceramic powders range from 50 to 325 mesh, which means that all of the particles are screen through a mesh screen of 50 mesh or smaller, and 325 mesh or larger. This causes all of the ceramic particles present to be within a range of from 44 µm (325 mesh) to approximately 300 µm (50 mesh) or smaller.
Nyce discloses respirable or inhalable particles (see Nyce at page 20, line 40). Nyce teaches asbestosis and silicosis are two occupational lung diseases whose causes are known (see Nyce at page 10, lines 43-44). Nyce further teaches silicosis is a dust disease that comes from breathing in free crystalline silica dust (see Nyce at page 10, lines 45-46). Examiner notes quartz corresponds to crystalline silica per [0012] of the instant specification. Nyce further teaches large silica particles are stopped in the upper airways, but the tiniest specks of silica are carried down to the lung alveoli, where they lead to pulmonary fibrosis (See Nyce at Page 11, lines 2-3). Nyce discloses respirable or inhalable particles of a size sufficiently small to pass through the mouth and larynx upon inhalation and continue into the bronchi and alveoli of the lunch. In general, particles ranging from about 0.05 … [to] about 10 microns in size (See Nyce at page 20, lines 40-43).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention while practicing the invention of Mabie in view of Nyce would appreciate the silicosis health hazards disclosed by Nyce, and would be motivated to minimize the amount of quartz with a particle size of 10 µm or less to approximately zero with a reasonable expectation of successfully preventing silicosis while practicing the invention of Mabie by screening through multiple screens from 50 to 325 mesh as disclosed by Mabie.
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, 27-28, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mabie in view of Gisewhite (US20190119164, hereinafter referred to as Gisewhite).
Regarding claim 5, Mabie discloses said DRC comprises, by weight, about 95% to about 99.9% silica (see Mabie at Exp. No. B from Table 1, disclosing an example of a silica-based dry refractory composition comprising 49.5 wt.% quartz and 49.5 wt.% Supersil which corresponds to 49.5 wt.% fused silica, for a combined silica content of 49.5+49.5= 99 wt.% silica).
Although Exp. No. B from Table 1 does not comprise a binder, Mabie does disclose a mixture comprising particulate ceramic powders and a binder (see Mabie at the Abstract). Mabie is directed towards a receiver for casting molten material (see Mabie at the Abstract). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Exp. No. B from Table 1 of Mabie would naturally look to the prior art to add a binder to the formula of Exp. No. B when seeking to formulate a receiver for casting molten material.
Gisewhite is directed towards a jamb spray mix including certain materials having advantageous properties in treating a refractory surface region in a coke oven (see Gisewhite at [0001]).
Gisewhite discloses the jamb spray mix of the present disclosure comprises 0.1% to 10% of powdered boric acid by weight (see Gisewhite at [0016]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Gisewhite teaches boric acid serves as a low temperature binding agent (See Gisewhite at [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date when practicing the invention of Mabie to include boric acid in an amount as disclosed by Gisewhite with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a low temperature binder as taught by Gisewhite.
Regarding claim 8, Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses said DRC consists essentially of about 98.2% to about 99.6% silica, and about 0.4 to about 1.8% binder, and further wherein said binder is boron oxide (Mabie in view of Gisewhite comprises 99 wt.% silica minus 0.1-10% boric acid as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above, which overlaps with the claimed range. Examiner notes boric acid oxidizes to boric oxide when heated per the intended use of the instantly claimed invention per instant claim 1, which [0057] of the instant specification states is heated to about 700-1200°C. Examiner notes this is evidenced by the Wikipedia article Boron Trioxide, which in the second paragraph of the preparation section states can be readily prepared by heating boric acid above 300°C).
Regarding claim 9, Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses said DRC consists essentially about 97.5% to about 99.4% silica, and about 0.6 to about 2.5% binder, and further wherein said binder is boric acid (Mabie in view of Gisewhite comprises 99 wt.% silica minus 0.1-10% boric oxide as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 27, Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses said binder is chosen from the group consisting of: a boron containing chemical compound, cryolite, a noncalcium fluoride salt, a silicate compound, a phosphate compound, calcium silicate, calcium aluminate, magnesium chloride, ball clay, kaolin, a sulfate compound, a metal powder, and refractory frit (See the rejection of claim 5 above, where Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses boric oxide as a binder as disclosed).
Regarding claim 28, Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses said binder comprises a boron containing chemical compound chosen from the group consisting of boron oxide, boric acid, metaborate, boric acid, sodium borate, and potassium fluoroborate (See the rejection of claim 5 above, where Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses boric oxide as a binder as disclosed).
Regarding claim 31, Mabie in view of Gisewhite discloses said DRC consists essentially of silica and a binder chosen from the group consisting of: boron oxide, boric acid or a combination of boron oxide and boric acid (Mabie in view of Gisewhite comprises 99 wt.% silica minus 0.1-10% boric oxide as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above, which corresponds to a DRC consisting essentially of silica and a binder of boric oxide. The instant specification at [0053] discloses that while the DRCs consist essentially of silica ... and inorganic binders, the compositions may contain small amounts of one or more processing aid. Examiner notes that Exp. No. B from Table I of Mabie further comprises 0.01 wt.% Carbosil, which is a silica sol based processing aid, as well as 1 wt.% potassium silicate, which is an inorganic processing aid (a setting agent per Mabie at Col. 3 lines 35-36), both of which comprise a small amount per the instant specification at [0053].).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17, 20, and 49 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is directed towards a DRC wherein said silica has the following particle size distribution, by weight: ≥3/8" 0% to about 10% ≥ 4 mesh 0% to about 25% ≥ 30 mesh about 40% to about 60% ≥ 100 mesh about 60% to about 75% < 100 mesh about 25% to about 40%.
Claim 49 is directed towards the DRC of claim 1, wherein said DRC comprises about 25-40% silica having a size less than 100 mesh.
Claims 17 and 20 depend upon claim 13. Claims 17 and 20 do not contain allowable subject matter because of the limitations explicitly recited in each of claims 17 and 20; claims 17 and 20 are only allowable due to their dependence upon claim 13, which contains allowable subject matter. Examiner notes new claim 50 does not contain allowable subject matter because, while new claim 50 contains an explicitly limitation from claim 17 which was deemed to contain allowable subject matter, new claim 50 does not contain the allowable subject matter of claim 13 from which claim 17 depends.
The closest prior art is Mabie as applied to claim 1 above. Concerning claim 13, Mabie does not disclose or make obvious a DRC wherein said silica has the following particle size distribution, by weight: ≥3/8" 0% to about 10% ≥ 4 mesh 0% to about 25% ≥ 30 mesh about 40% to about 60% ≥ 100 mesh about 60% to about 75% < 100 mesh about 25% to about 40%. Concerning claim 49, Mabie fails to disclose or make obvious a DRC wherein the DRC comprises about 25-40% silica having a size less than 100 mesh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed 06/16/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 34 and 36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 34 and 36 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2025 concerning the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the second paragraph of page 9, Applicant argues that the 200 mesh particle size of Exp No. B of Mabie refers to a particle passed through a mesh size of 200, and Applicant’s expert in the affidavit filed 06/16/2025 argues this would include more than 5% of particles below 10 µm. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the affidavit opinion does not appear to be supported by evidence, and thus appears to be a conclusory argument unsupported by evidence. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (see MPEP 716.01(c)). Additionally, Examiner notes Mabie at Col. 3, lines 5-18 specifies the particulate ceramic powders range from 50 to 325 mesh, which means that all of the particles are screen through a mesh screen of 50 mesh or smaller, and 325 mesh or larger. This causes all of the ceramic particles present to be within a range of from 44 µm (325 mesh) to approximately 300 µm (50 mesh) or smaller. As such, arguments that the example of Mabie contains particles below 44 µm are not convincing. Examiner notes a multi-screening system such as Mabie would easily achieve particles of a narrow distribution such that the 200 mesh particle size of Exp No. B of Mabie would mean the particles are nominally of a size of 200 mesh (approx. 74 µm), and not merely that the particles have been screen through a single screen of 200 mesh size. Therefore, these arguments and the related expert affidavit are not convincing.
At the last paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to reduce the particles with a size less than 10 µm of Mabie as taught by Nyce in order to increase the safety of the particles as taught by Nyce because Mabie at Col. 2, line 64 and Col. 3 line 3 states sufficient fine particles are required to avoid producing weak molds. Examiner notes this argument is not convincing because Mabie’s recitation of “fine particles” and a desired effect does not disclose or teach greater than 5% of particles below 10 µm. Indeed, to the contrary, Mabie at Col. 3, lines 5-18 specifies the particulate ceramic powders range from 50 to 325 mesh, which means that all of the particles are screen through a mesh screen of 50 mesh or smaller, and 325 mesh or larger. As such this argument is not convincing.
As such, Applicant’s arguments and the attached affidavit are not convincing concerning the prior art rejections over Mabie and as supported by other art per the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731