1.Upon an update of the search, new art has been found that is material to the claims and hence the prosecution has been reopened. A new action hereby follows on claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19.
2.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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sceats et al 2021/0143389 in view of Niedrach et al 4,681,673 and Mueller et al 2016/09254433 (see paragraph 0034).
Sceats et al and Niedrach et al are applied for reasons of record as set forth in the office action dated January 13, 2026, the references failing to teach a step of shaking the powder in a device to maximize a bulk density of the powder to form a shaken powder. Mueller et al (paragraph 0034) discloses that a green body of ceramics would be shaken in a mold “to increase the (bulk) density to a maximum of 30% of the theoretical density”. Clearly, Mueller et al is teaching that a shaking of a powder to form a shaken powder—prior to sintering—is advantageous for maximizing the bulk density of a loose powder. It is further submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the shaking of Mueller et al to have been an obvious step and advantageously used in the combination as applied to form a green body that would have a maximized bulk density as set forth in instant claim 1.
3.Upon updating the search, new art to Mueller et al has been found which is submitted to render the instant claims as obvious when taken in combination with Sceats et al and Niedrach et al. It is submitted that shaking a powder to maximize its bulk density is well known in the art as taught in Mueller et al and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been expected to know this. Indeed, shaking or vibrating a loose powder has conventionally been used to homogenize the powder and increase its bulk density through the elimination of air gaps and it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been expected to know of this.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
