Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/437,332

CERAMIC MATERIALS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 08, 2021
Examiner
FORSYTH, PAUL ALAN
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Coorstek Membrane Sciences AS
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 28 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 28 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Amendment The reply filed on July 25, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 11, 14, 17-18, 20-22, and 25 are pending. Claims 17-18 and 20-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19, and 23-24 have been cancelled. Claims 11 and 14 have been amended. All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 11, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013020728 A to Takahashi (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Takahashi”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0346370 to Kobayashi (hereinafter “Kobayashi”). Regarding claim 11, Takahashi teaches a glass-ceramic/silver composite (bonded part formed from two components, Abstract) comprising a silver phase (¶ 0010) and a glass-ceramic phase comprising one or more crystalline ceramic phases (¶ 0010; Abstract). Takahashi teaches wherein the glass-ceramic/silver composite is electrically conductive (¶ 0011). Takahashi teaches wherein said composite comprises 50-80 wt% of said silver phase, based on the combined weight of said silver phase, said one or more crystalline ceramic phases and any residual glass (¶ 0014); this is a range which substantially overlaps the claimed range of 45-60 wt%. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Takahashi is silent as to chromium; chromium is not specified as a component material in any of the compositions detailed in Takahashi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the glass-ceramic/silver composite of Takahashi is chromium-free. Takahashi teaches that the material forming the one or more crystalline ceramic phases of the glass-ceramic phase includes SiO2, Al2O3, and, preferably, MgO and/or CaO (both alkaline earth oxides). However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach that the one or more crystalline ceramic phases are formed from a material having the general formula xAO-yAl2O3-zSiO2 in which AO represents an alkaline earth oxide or mixture of alkaline earth oxides and x, y and z represent the mol% of AO, Al2O3 and SiO2, respectively, and in which x = 35-55 mol %, y = 0-15 mol %, and z = 40-60 mol %. Kobayashi, in the closely related field of glass compositions for producing a glass ceramic sealants for electronic components and the like (see ¶ 0001 and Abstract), teaches a glass composition for producing a glass ceramic (Abstract). Kobayashi teaches multiple embodiments of glasses that have values of AO, Al2O3 and SiO2 that read on claim 11 as amended; relevant data for four such embodiments (Examples 5-8 from Tables 1 and 2 of Kobayashi) are given in Table A below (“Tx” is crystallization initiation temperature): Table A Component (mol %) / Property Claim 11 Example 5 (Table 1) Example 6 (Table 1) Example 7 (Table 2) Example 8 (Table 2) SiO2 40-60 40.0 41.2 41.6 42.9 Al2O3 0-15 0.0 2.9 4.2 7.1 CaO 35-55 (AO) 40.0 38.2 37.5 35.7 ZnO 20.0 17.7 16.7 14.3 Tg (°C) 625 690 695 704 Tx (°C) 718 841 864 917 Glass-ceramic CTE (10-6 K-1) 9.5 9.0 8.3 8.2 Further, Kobayashi teaches that all of the Examples listed above form crystalline ceramic phases upon firing (see p. 7, Table 1, and p. 8, Table 2, and see ¶ 0122). Thus, Kobayashi teaches one or more crystalline ceramic phases formed from a material having the general formula xAO-yAl2O3-zSiO2 in which AO represents an alkaline earth oxide or mixture of alkaline earth oxides (namely, CaO) and x, y and z represent the mol% of AO, Al2O3 and SiO2, respectively, and in which x = 35-55 mol %, y = 0-15 mol %, and z = 40-60 mol %. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi by substituting the glass ceramic material of Kobayashi as the glass-ceramic phase in the glass-ceramic/silver composite of Takahashi. Design incentives, such as a desire for a glass-ceramic phase that facilitates repeated use the glass-ceramic/silver composite at the operating temperatures of a fuel cell (see Takahashi at ¶¶ 0002, 0015), would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the glass ceramic material of Kobayashi (see Kobayashi at ¶ 0035). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to substitute the glass ceramic material of Kobayashi into the glass-ceramic/silver composite of Takahashi with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Takahashi with the glass ceramic material of Kobayashi in order to take advantage of excellent sealing properties of the Kobayashi material (see Kobayashi at ¶ 0036). Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi does not explicitly teach that the glass-ceramic phase has a dilatometric softening temperature above 1000°C. However, given that precursor compositions of the glass-ceramic phase taught by Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi (i.e., Examples 5-8 of Kobayashi) are substantially similar in composition to the precursor glasses of the claimed invention (see Applicant’s Specification, p. 23, Table 1), and given the substantial similarity in such properties as glass transition point (Tg) and the CTE of the resulting glass-ceramic material (compare values in Table A above with Applicant’s Specification, p. 25, Table 2), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the glass-ceramic phase of Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi, like the glass-ceramic phase of the claimed invention, would also necessarily possess a dilatometric softening temperature above 1000°C. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Moreover, since the compositions of the glass-ceramic phase taught by Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi (i.e., Examples 5-8 of Kobayashi) exhibit crystallization temperatures (Tx) well below the melting point of silver (961.8°C) (see Table A above), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the glass ceramic phase would exhibit a very high degree of crystallization and thus contain less than 10 volume % of residual glass phase (see Applicant’s Remarks filed July 25, 2025, p. 6). Regarding claim 14, Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi teaches the composite material as claimed in claim 11, as set forth above. Since Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi teaches a substantially similar in composition as the claimed invention, and since Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi in particular teaches that the glass-ceramic/silver composite comprises 50-80 wt% of silver phase (Takahashi at ¶ 0014), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that said silver phase is necessarily present in an amount of 20 mol% or more of said composite material. Regarding claim 25, Takahashi as modified by Kobayashi teaches a material that is substantially free of both B2O3 and P2O5 (see Takahashi at ¶ 0029; see Kobayashi at p. 7, Table 1, and p. 8, Table 2, listing mol % of B2O3 as 0.0 and not listing P2O5 at all; see also Kobayashi at ¶ 0073). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed July 25, 2025 with respect to claim(s) 11, 14, and 25 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0370844 to Kumar et al. (“Kumar”) teaches a seal composition that includes a first alkaline earth metal oxide, a second alkaline earth metal oxide which is different from the first alkaline earth metal oxide, aluminum oxide, and silica (Abstract). In one particular embodiment, Kumar teaches a precursor glass that comprises 12.9 mol% CaO, 15.7 mol% BaO, 13.3 mol% Al2O3, 57.3 mol% SiO2, and 0.9 mol% K2O (p. 4, Table 1, Example 3). U.S. Pat. Pub. 2007/0037031 to Cassidy et al. (“Cassidy”) teaches interconnect and gas separator for a solid oxide fuel cell includes a cermet material comprising a first conductive phase and a second ceramic phase (Abstract). U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0068677 to Crosbie (“Crosbie”) teaches a glass composition consisting essentially of (by mol percent) about 55<SiO2<75; 5<BaO<30; and 2 <MgO<22 for use as a matrix of composite materials (Abstract). U.S. Pat. No. 5,273,837 to Aitken et al. (“Aitken”) teaches a solid electrolyte fuel cell (claim 1; Abstract) that includes a sealing glass (Col. 8, lines 37-54). Aitken discloses one particular embodiment of the sealing glass comprising 30.0 mol% BaO, 5.0 mol% Y2O3, 5.0 mol% La2O3, and 60 mol% SiO2 (Col. 9, Table 1, example 8). 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 PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT. 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 R. 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. /P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600677
CERAMIC GREEN SHEET LAMINATION AID AND CERAMIC GREEN SHEET COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583797
SINTERED POLYCRYSTALLINE CUBIC BORON NITRIDE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577167
DIELECTRIC COMPOSITION AND MULTILAYER CERAMIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573425
GLASS COMPOSITION, GLASS SHEET AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND SUBSTRATE FOR INFORMATION RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570572
GLASS COMPOSITION FOR GLASS FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+14.3%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 28 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month