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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
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 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) 1, 3 and 6 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori, et al. (US 4,871,497) in view of Miyazawa (US 7,517,490) further in view of Confer, et al. (US 3,848,040).
With respect to claim 1, Natori, et al. teach a method for manufacturing a three-dimensional fired body comprising:
(a) a step of producing a shaping mold using an organic material (column 8, lines 30 – 35; examiner notes that the mold material is a trichloroethane solution of polystyrene and thus, is organic), the shaping mold having a shaping space which has the same shape as a shaped body having a hollow portion that opens to an outer surface thereof (see figure 3; see also column 3, lines 20 – 25), wherein a core corresponding to the hollow portion is integrated with the shaping mold and wherein the shaping mold and core are formed entirely from the organic material (column 8, lines 30 – 35; see also figure 2 below; examiner notes that per Natori, et al., example 6, the master mold 5, 6 and core 4 are formed from the above-mentioned [or same] mold material and thus, the examiner contends that the shaping mold and core are formed entirely from the organic material; examiner further notes that because the mold and core [see figure 2] are united or integrated into a single shaping space, the core is integrated with the shaping mold);
PNG
media_image1.png
233
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) a step of producing the shaped body in the shaping mold by pouring a ceramic slurry into the shaping space of the shaping mold and solidifying the ceramic slurry (column 8, lines 37 – 45);
(c) a step of drying the shaped body (column 8, lines 45 – 55) and then degreasing the shaped body (column 8, lines 1 – 5; examiner notes that a typical molded part per Natori, et al. is allowed to sit, wherein water in the slip is absorbed by the mold – thus, the shaped part is drying – after sitting, the part is further dried and then gradually heated to temperatures up to 1800oC – this gradual heating equates to degreasing [per applicant’s specification, degreasing occurs at elevated temperatures between 200 – 600oC]), wherein the shaping mold is eliminated by melting and removing the shaping mold during drying of the shaped body (column 8, lines 50 – 55; examiner notes that while the shaped body is allowed to stand for 1 hour, the solvent or acetone in the ceramic slurry softens the mold [in other words, the solvent in the slip casting solution is absorbed by the mold wherein softening of the mold and solidification or drying of the slip occur simultaneous; see column 3, lines 25 – 30; 48 – 51] and thus, the molds are melted and collapsed during drying of the shaped body, allowing the green body to be removed); and
(d) a step of firing the shaped body to obtain a three-dimensional fired body (see figure 3; column 7, lines 65 – 68; column 8, lines 1 – 5; examiner notes that the shaped body is further dried and sintered), wherein, in step (b), a slurry containing a ceramic powder is used as the ceramic slurry (column 8, lines 30 – 35), and after the ceramic slurry is poured into the shaping mold, the shaped body is produced in the shaping mold (column 8, lines 50 – 55);
Furthermore, Natori, et al. teach that the molds may be designed and configured to make complex shapes with hollow interiors (column 5, lines 60 – 67). For example, the reference teaches the claimed product which has a flat upper surface and a flat lower surface that are disposed parallel to each other, and a hollow portion, part of which is winding, that opens at the flat upper surface and the flat lower surface (figure 3 below). Alternatively, the examiner also notes that because the reference teaches that complex shapes may be fabricated, any number of shapes with openings and windings therein may be fabricated. Per MPEP 2144.03:
B. Changes in Shape
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In this case, the examiner contends that the particular configuration is not significant and is a matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image2.png
330
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Natori, et al. however, is silent with respect to the ceramic slurry containing a gelling agent such that the ceramic slurry is formed into a gel. It is noted, however that Natori, et al. does not limit the specific slurry – the solute of the slurry may be selected from several types of ceramics.
Miyazawa teaches a method of forming a green body. The green body is formed by gelcasting wherein the slurry to form the product is comprised of a ceramic powder, a dispersion medium, and a gelling agent (column 2, lines 25 – 31). The slurry is poured into a mold, dried and removed therefrom in order to form a product.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the slurry of Natori, et al. per the composition of Miyazawa prior to the filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of having a moldable slurry suitable to form a variety of parts depending on the end use.
In addition, the primary reference of Natori, et al. does not teach that in step (c), a drying temperature of the shaped body is set to be 30 – 200oC, a material for the shaping mold is a material having a melting point that is equal to or lower than the drying temperature of the shaped body and melting and removal of the shaping mold is carried out by heating the shaping mold at the drying temperature during drying of the shaped body.
Confer, et al. teach a method of slip casting bodies with hollow interiors, wherein the mold is typically made of organic polymer foam (column 3, lines 40 – 50). The mold is removed via collapse or melting thereof (column 3, lines 40 – 45) and/or the inclusion of heat (column 3, lines 44 – 45). To remove the mold, water from the slip (typically a solution of fused silica with a percentage of water) is absorbed by the mold walls, which consequently hardens the slip into a shaped article (column 4, lines 60 – 68). The mold walls soften and collapse by the absorption of water, the addition of any localized heat and acetone sprayed on the mold walls (column 4, lines 65 – 70). The temperature of the introduced heat can depend on the type of foam or material used for the mold(s). While Confer, et al. teach temperatures of up to 700oF, the examiner asserts this temperature can depend on the type of organic material (see also, Confer, et al., column 3, lines 69 – 75).
Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to introduce heat set between a temperature of 30 – 200oC as the drying temperature for the purpose of drying the shaped body and removing the mold simultaneously per the teachings in Confer, et al.
With respect to claim 3, Natori, et al. teach wherein, in the step (c), the shaping mold is eliminated by melting and removing the shaping mold under the conditions in which components of the shaped body are not melted and removed (column 8, lines 50 – 55).
With respect to claim 6 and 7, the examiner notes that the features of the fired body such that it is a plug with a gas passage to be placed on an electrostatic chuck or wherein the body has a cylindrical shape with upper and lower surfaces parallel to each other and a spiral hollow portion which opens at the flat upper and lower surface are complicated shapes required by the end use. Natori, et al. already teach that the mold may be manufactured in order to form intricately shaped parts for machines and structures (column 5, lines 60 – 67). The mold(s) may be manufactured such that casings, rotors, blades, etc. (figure 3 – 4; column 7, lines 27 – 28) may be easily cast. Thus, producing a three-dimensional body with a winding part which opens at the top and bottom is obvious. The examiner contends the feature(s) of the fired body as claimed are a change in shape which does not result in any distinguishing feature of the method itself. Per 2144.04, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Thus, in this case, the examiner contends that the change in shape of the fired body is a matter of choice.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori, et al., Miyazawa and Confer, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooper, et al. (US 6,375,880).
Natori, et al., Miyazawa and Confer, et al. teach the features as recited previously, but are silent with respect to in step (a), the shaping mold is produced using a 3D printer, and in the 3D printer, as a model material, a material that, after being hardened, is insoluble in a predetermined cleaning solution and components contained in the ceramic slurry is used, and as a support material, a material that, after being hardened, is soluble in the predetermined cleaning solution is used.
Cooper, et al. teach a mold-shaping deposition method (SDM) or 3D printing method to make molds for gelcasting (column 2, lines 15 – 20). The use of SDM or printing allows for the manufacture of different geometries while eliminating the need for expensive long lead-time tooling (column 2, lines 18 – 20). The mold made via SDM includes both support segments and mold layers (column 3, lines 10 – 15). The support segments are melted or dissolved, thus producing an empty mold cavity (column 3, lines 15 – 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the mold of Sakai, et al. via 3D printing or SDM per Cooper, et al. prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of manufacturing molds of different geometries quicker, eliminating the need for expensive long lead-time tooling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 25, 2026, with respect to reference(s) of Sakai, et al., Miyazawa and Cooper, et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously cited primary reference(s) of Sakai, et al. and Cooper, et al. fail to teach the newly-amended feature(s) of the core and shaping mold being made of the organic material and wherein the mold is eliminated or removed during drying of the shaped body. Applicant contends that both Sakai, et al. and Cooper, et al. teach that drying of the shaped body occurs after the mold is removed or eliminated.
The examiner concurs and thus, based upon an updated search has cited the new reference of Natori, et al. Natori, et al. teach a method of molding wherein the mold structure is softened and collapsed during drying the mold material or the slip material (column 3, lines 48 – 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783