1.Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are 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.
Claim 1, lines 5 and 6, applicant sets forth –compaction and processing—and it is unclear exactly what such ‘processing” entails. Clarification is required since the scope of “processing” is virtually infinite. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that “processing” is a general term including any operation that would be related to compaction, including compaction.
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 (see col. 6, lines 10-27).
Sceats et al is applied for reasons of record, the primary reference disclosing forming an electrode (cathode or anode) out of the instant porous powder and sintering the product, the primary reference essentially lacking a sequential compacting under an elevated temperature of “up to about 300 deg C” and a sintering of the composite at an elevated temperature to a required density and strength. Niedrach et al (see col. 6, lines 10-27) discloses exactly such an operation, wherein an electrode is made by uniformly blending the powders, hot pressing (ie, compacting) up to a temperature of 250 deg C and then sintering at an elevated temperature of 600-800 deg C. Niedrach et al also teaches that the exact conditions chosen for the hot pressing and sintering would be dependent on the porosity desired for the final electrode. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill would have adjusted the upper limit of the hot pressing temperature from 250 to 300 deg C based on this disclosure. Certainly, the exact temperatures and pressures for the steps are taught by Niedrach et al to be result effective dependent on the porosity of the final product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the formation process of Sceats et al with a hot pressing and sintering as taught in Niedrach et al to facilitate the formation of the electrode in the desired final shape. The use of aluminum oxide or silicon carbide as the porous powder is submitted to have been obvious in the combination as applied dependent on the exact properties desired for the final product. As already noted, these ceramics are conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been obvious additions to the powder of Sceats et al to tailor the properties of the final article.
3.Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. In view of applicant’s comments with respect to Pechenik et al, this reference has been replaced in the rejection with newly applied Niedrach et al. It is submitted that the instant steps of compacting at a temperature of up to about 300 deg C followed by a sintering at an elevated temperature to provide a compact of desired density and strength are fairly taught in Niedrach et al and would have been obvious additions to the method of Sceats et al to form the final product in its desired shape. It is also submitted that these steps are fairly conventional in the art, and have been for a number of years. The fact is, most of the art refers to either –(1) a cold compacting followed by sintering at an elevated temperature; or (2) a sintering under pressure at an elevated temperature which is increased to a desired final temperature. Pechenik et al is directed toward the (1) first operation, with the attendant advantages noted therein. However, the instant method is more akin to the (2) second operation, which obviously is also known in the art. In fact, instant claim 11 makes this clear—ie, the instant steps of compacting and sintering can occur simultaneously and would therefore be readable on any conventional process, with the compacting carried out to an initial temperature of 300 deg C and the sintering occurring at a higher temperature as the temperature is raised. It is clear that newly applied Niedrach et al is also directed to the (2) second operation, the reference merely stipulating the division in the process between the compacting and the sintering. As noted in Niedrach et al, the exact pressures and temperatures at which the compaction and sintering occur would have been readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art dependent on the exact properties desired for the final product.
4.The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Block et al employs pressure to convert nanopowders into a pressure toughened state—see Figs. 1 and 2.
5.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
Prosecution Insights