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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 13, 2026.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 2018/0273707).
Regarding claim 1, Price discloses a polymer powder composition comprising polysilazane, which corresponds to a preceramic resin, and a flow promoter such as fumed aluminum oxide [0001, 0030 and 0052].
Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses the fumed aluminum oxide as hydrophobic [0052].
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the composition may include one or more fillers [0050].
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses the filler as carbon [0050].
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the polymer powder composition comprises polysilazane [0030].
Regarding claims 7-9, the reference does not specifically disclose the volume percent of polysilazane or of fumed aluminum oxide. The reference does, however, disclose control the amount of filler and additives in a sufficient amount to perform its intended function without adversely affecting the powder composition or the article prepared therefore and in order to provide the thermoplastic particles with sufficient flowability [0050-0051]. Note that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amounts of polysilazane and fumed aluminum oxide in order to provide sufficient flowability.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 2018/0273707) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Querol Esparch et al. (US 2021/0277222).
Price discloses the claimed composition comprising a preceramic resin and fumed aluminum oxide, see above discussion. The reference further discloses that the composition contains one or more optional components in an amount sufficient to perform its intended function without adversely affecting the powder composition or an article prepared therefrom [0050]. The reference further discloses the one or more optional components can be a particulate inorganic filler (such as ceramic) or an inorganic fiber [0050].
Regarding claim 5, the reference fails to disclose the filler as zirconium diboride particles or silicon carbide whiskers.
Querol Esparch discloses a three-dimensional printed part made from a thermoplastic polymer powder and fillers such as zirconium boride, which corresponds to ZrB2, and silicon carbide fibers, see abstract and [0078-0080]. Additionally, the reference discloses the fillers can have a Knoop hardness of at least 1200 or a reinforcing material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include zirconium boride and/or silicon carbide fibers in order to improve the hardness of the composition as well as reinforce it.
Regarding claim 12, while the references do not specifically disclose the claimed volume amounts, Price discloses controlling the amount of filler and additives in a sufficient amount to perform its intended function without adversely affecting the powder composition or the article prepared therefore and in order to provide the thermoplastic particles with sufficient flowability [0050-0051]. Note that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amounts of polysilazane, fumed aluminum oxide and fillers in order to provide sufficient flowability, hardness and reinforcement without adversely affecting the powder.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US 2018/0273707) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Querol Esparch et al. (US 2021/0277222) and Lin et al. (US 2018/0333913).
Price discloses the claimed composition comprising a preceramic resin and fumed aluminum oxide, see above discussion. The reference further discloses that the composition contains one or more optional components in an amount sufficient to perform its intended function without adversely affecting the powder composition or an article prepared therefrom [0050]. The reference further discloses the one or more optional components can be a particulate inorganic filler (such as ceramic) or an inorganic fiber [0050].
The reference fails to disclose the filler as zirconium diboride particles or silicon carbide whiskers.
Querol Esparch discloses a three-dimensional printed part made from a thermoplastic polymer powder and fillers such as zirconium boride, which corresponds to ZrB2, and silicon carbide fibers, see abstract and [0078-0080]. Additionally, the reference discloses the fillers can have a Knoop hardness of at least 1200 or a reinforcing material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include zirconium boride and/or silicon carbide fibers in order to improve the hardness of the composition as well as reinforce it.
Neither reference discloses the preceramic resin as polycarbosilane.
Lin discloses a pre-ceramic material that includes a polymer that can be heated to form a ceramic material [0123]. The pre-ceramic material may include polysilazanes and polycarbosilanes [0123].
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use polycarbosilane as a known alternative to polysilazane for forming ceramic materials.
While the references do not specifically disclose the claimed volume amounts, Price discloses controlling the amount of filler and additives in a sufficient amount to perform its intended function without adversely affecting the powder composition or the article prepared therefore and in order to provide the thermoplastic particles with sufficient flowability [0050-0051]. Note that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amounts of polycarbosilane, fumed aluminum oxide and fillers in order to provide sufficient flowability, hardness and reinforcement without adversely affecting the powder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights