DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to the amendment filed 11/12/2025, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-11 have been withdrawn and replaced from the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura (JPH01210306A, used machine translation attached to previous office action) in view of Droz (WO2017060601A1, supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation), and further in view of Hofmann (AU2004219602A1, used paragraph numbers as listed for the document previously attached).
Regarding claim 1, Uchimura discloses a manufacturing method for an abradable part (absent a specific definition of ‘abradable’, everything is abradable up to some degree and thus, Uchimura provides an abradable part) comprising:
injecting under pressure a slip containing a refractory ceramic particle powder into the moulding cavity (11) of an injection tooling (5, 10) ([0001] page 4, aluminum oxide based slurry injected into air permeable porous mold under pressure),
draining liquid by filtration from the slip that passed through the moulding cavity (11) and retaining the particle powder inside said moulding cavity (11) so as to obtain a blank comprising refractory particles ([0001] page 2, draining liquid through release films 4 and 9 by vaporization and vacuum suction),
demoulding the blank comprising refractory particles ([0001] page 4, solid ceramic surrounded by release films 4 and 9 removed from lower mold), and
heat treating the blank comprising refractory particles in order to form the abradable part ([0001] page 4, firing),
the injection tooling (5, 10) comprising a porous material mould ([0001] air permeable mold) consisting of a moulding cavity (11), an enclosure of rigid material (7, 2) in which the porous material mould is held, the enclosure of rigid material (7, 2) further comprising at least one injection port (14), at least one discharge vent ([0001] bottom of page 3, ventilation holes (12) and (13)) and at least one injection canal connecting said at least one injection port (14) to the moulding cavity of the porous mould for the injection of the slip into the moulding cavity (Fig 2), wherein the injection tooling comprises a sacrificial capsul
Uchimura is silent on the sacrificial capsule being rigid.
In the analogous art of ceramic composite molding, Droz discloses wherein the material of the porous capsule is microporous PTFE ([0057]), which is disclosed to be the rigid porous sacrificial capsule material in the present specification (page 9 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Uchimura to select microporous PTFE as disclosed by Droz, as a rigid sacrificial capsule material as a selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Uchimura is further silent on, prior to injecting the slip, placing glass beads in the closed internal volume of the sacrificial capsule.
In the analogous art of molding, Hofmann discloses the use of glass beads as a filler material that impart desirable properties such as reduced dielectric constant and improved toughness to the composite ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Uchimura with the use of a glass bead filler in the molding cavity inside the sacrificial capsule in order to impart to the product further desired properties, such as improved toughness and reduced dielectric constant, as suggested by Hofmann. Further, it has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
It would further have been obvious to place the glass beads prior to injecting the slip, since adding the beads after the slip is injected would likely destroy the molded article and require repeating the process due to the need to force the beads inside the closed capsule while the capsule is filled with molded material. Further, the selection of any order of performing process steps as well as the selection of any order of mixing ingredients has been held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (C)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Uchimura is silent on forming a fibrous texture from refractory ceramic fibers, and placing the fibrous texture in mold before injecting the slip under pressure.
Droz discloses forming a fibrous texture from refractory ceramic fibers, and placing the fibrous texture in the internal volume of the sacrificial capsule before injecting the slip under pressure ([0011-0012] forming fibrous texture from refractory ceramic fibers and placing in mold followed by injection of slip under pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form and place a fibrous texture from ceramic fibers as disclosed by Droz into the cavity inside the sacrificial capsule in order to increase the mechanical strength of the material, as suggested by Droz ([0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Droz further discloses wherein the rigid sacrificial capsule is made of porous resin ([0057] microporous PTFE).
Regarding claim 7, Uchimura discloses wherein the sacrificial capsule comprises a first and second part assembled together, the first part consisting of a first cavity corresponding to one portion of the shape of the part to be manufactured, the second part comprising a second cavity corresponding to another portion of the shape of the part to be manufactured (Fig 2, release films (9 and 4)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura (JPH01210306A, used machine translation attached to previous office action) in view of Droz (WO2017060601A1, used attached machine translation), further in view of Hofmann (AU2004219602A1, used paragraph numbers as listed for the document previously attached) as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Mazzanti (US20100244312A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Uchimura is silent on the rigid sacrificial capsule being made out of a second porous material identical to the porous material of the mold.
In the analogous art of slip casting, Mazzanti discloses the capsule being made out of a second porous material identical to the porous material of the mold ([0052] constraining means 6 might be positioned on internal surfaces which form the cavity 4; [0056] constraining means 6 may be made of the same material as the mold S, depending on the design requirements of the mold S).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to choose to make the release film materials and mold materials to be the same material, in order to retain the same mechanical properties of all molding surfaces surrounding the product, to keep the processing of the product simple by not needing to consider two different materials when deciding on processing conditions, such as injection pressure of the slip. Further, it has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose a known material based on its suitability for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura (JPH01210306A, used machine translation attached to previous office action) in view of Droz (WO2017060601A1, used attached machine translation), further in view of Hofmann (AU2004219602A1, used paragraph numbers as listed for the document attached to this action), as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Linnot (US20070082149A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Uchimura is silent on the rigid sacrificial capsule having a wall thickness comprised between 1 and 30 mm.
In a further analogous art, Linnot discloses a liner with a wall thickness comprised between 1 and 30 mm ([0038] less than 20 mm thick, Fig 1, liner 30 is thinner than molding volume 32, [0077] thickness imparts flexibility to liner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to choose a wall thickness between 1 and 30 mm for the sacrificial capsule in order to impart adequate flexibility to the liner for accommodating the edges of the preform in the mold, as suggested by Linnot ([0077]).
Regarding claim 8, Uchimura discloses a drying step and a firing step for removing the slurry solvent and sintering the ceramic body, respectively ([0001]).
Modified Uchimura is silent on the specific temperatures at which the drying and firing stages occur.
In the analogous art of molding, Linnot discloses wherein the heat treatment of the blank comprises a first stage performed at a temperature between 40°C and 95 C so as to dry the liquid of the slip present in the blank and a second stage performed at a temperature of 1200°C so as to bind the refractory ceramic particles together and form a part from the blank (example 1, [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select temperatures capable of drying and sintering the ceramic product of Uchimura such as those temperatures disclosed in Linnot in order to ensure the product of Uchimura is free of liquid before firing, and to ensure a complete firing where the ceramic particles bound together, as is conventional in the art. Specifically with regard to Linnot disclosing 90°C for the drying temperature, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Specifically with regard to Linnot disclosing 1200°C for the sintering temperature, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 9, modified Uchimura is further silent on wherein the first stage is performed according to a gentle elevation gradient comprised between 1 °C/min and 6°C/min to reach a temperature comprised between 40°C and 95°C maintained for a duration comprised between 30 min and 90 min.
Aside from the disclosure of Linnot, it is clear that with respect to drying, firing, and burning the sacrificial capsule, the temperatures and times for these processes such as the temperature over time gradients in claim 9 and their total durations and maximum temperatures would constitute result-effective variables, as temperature and time are well known in the art to be the primary drivers by which drying, firing, and burning take place. Furthermore, the gentle elevation gradient necessarily would dry the water in the capsule slowly rather than quickly (i.e. by boiling), and would necessarily result in the reduction in surface porosities due to boiling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select combinations and variations of temperatures and times such as a gentle elevation gradient comprised between 1°C/min and 6°C/min to reach a temperature comprised between 40°C and 95°C maintained for a duration comprised between 30min and 90min as is claimed in claim 9 in order to effectively meet the desired respective outcomes of the known drying and firing processes and in order to avoid the surface degradation due to boiling of water inside the capsule, and as a matter of routine optimization, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 10, Uchimura discloses the heat treatment also includes the burning of the sacrificial capsules ([0001] release films are burned out during firing).
Modified Uchimura is further silent on a third heating stage between the first and second stages, the third stage being performed at a temperature comprised between 450°C and 600°C.
Aside from the disclosure of Linnot, it is clear that with respect to drying, firing, and burning the sacrificial capsule, the temperatures and times for these processes such as maximum temperatures in claim 10 would constitute result-effective variables, as temperature and time are well known in the art to be the primary drivers by which drying, firing, and burning take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select a burning temperature between 450°C and 600°C for the sacrificial capsule as in claim 10 in order to effectively meet the desired outcome of the burning of the release films of Uchimura, as a matter of routine optimization, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Further, the selection of any order of performing process steps is further prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C). In this case, this would be the selection of a third heat treatment stage between the first and second stage in order to decouple the capsule burning from the ceramic article sintering step.
Regarding claim 11, modified Uchimura is further silent on wherein the third stage is performed according to a gentle elevation gradient comprised between 1°C/min and 7°C/min to reach the temperature comprised between 450°C and 600°C maintained for a duration comprised between 30 min and 4 h.
Aside from the disclosure of Linnot, it is clear that with respect to drying, firing, and burning the sacrificial capsule, the temperatures and times for these processes such as the temperature over time gradient in claim 11 and their total durations and maximum temperatures would constitute result-effective variables, as temperature and time are well known in the art to be the primary drivers by which drying, firing, and burning take place. Furthermore, the gentle elevation gradient necessarily would dry the water in the capsule slowly rather than quickly (i.e. by boiling), and would necessarily result in the reduction in surface porosities due to boiling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to select combinations and variations of temperatures and times such as a gentle elevation gradient comprised between 1°C/min and 7°C/min to reach a temperature comprised between 450°C and 600°C maintained for a duration comprised between 30min and 4 hours as in claim 11 in order to effectively meet the desired outcome of the burning of the release films of Uchimura and in order to avoid the surface degradation due to boiling of water inside the capsule, and as a matter of routine optimization, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 1 on pages 5-6 of applicant’s remarks that Uchimura does not disclose that the liquid phase of the slip is evacuated from the porous sacrificial capsule by filtration, the examiner disagrees. As noted previously, the liquid phase of the slip must necessarily pass through the release films 4 and 9 which constitute the capsule in order to reach the permeable membrane, where the liquid is then evaporated. Further, in view of the new rejection of claim 1, the release films 4 and 9 are made of a material identical to that of the present invention (microporous PTFE), and thus will also drain the liquid phase of the slip from the sacrificial capsule, as claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 6 of applicant’s remarks that in Uchimura, this argument is rendered moot in view of the new rejection of claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 1 on page 6 of applicant’s remarks that the heat treating allows both burning of the sacrificial capsule and sintering the refractory particles of the blank, the examiner notes this limitation is disclosed by Uchimura, as stated above in the rejection of amended claim 1 ([0001] page 6, firing burns off the release films (4) and (9) to obtain the desired ceramic sintered body), and the material of the capsule was modified to be microporous PTFE, as disclosed in the present specification, which is also burned away.
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754