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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02 December 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 13 & 28 have been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-30 are presently pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
In the reply filed on 27 June 2025, applicant elected without traverse Group I (drawn to dual density discs), Species I (Fig. 1A, with a threaded interface along the entire length) for Aspect I, and Species A (wherein the first and second ceramic are the same) for Aspect II.
Following an interview with applicant’s representative on 30 July 2025 to confirm the elections, in the previous action, claims 28 & 29 were examined, with claims 1-27 & 30 withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention and/or a non-elected species.
As noted in Applicant’s remarks filed 02 December 2025, applicant has now amended claims 1 & 13 to be directed to elected Species I (FIG. 1A), with rejoinder of claims 1-15 sought.
After review, claims 1-11 appear to be directed to the elected species and/or include limitations generic to the elected species, and claims 12 & 13 might be seen to read on the elected species (but raise possible issues under 35 U.S.C. 112). However, claim 14 & 15 recited limitations which appear to conflict with features of the elected species.
In particular, claim 14 recites “an inlet, outlet or both an inlet and an outlet of the dual density has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the porous core” which, as understood, is a feature of Species II (FIG. 1B), not elected Species I (FIG. 1A).
Similarly, claim 15 recites “an inlet, outlet or both an inlet and an outlet of the dual density has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the porous core” which, as understood, is a feature of Species III (FIG. 1C), not elected Species I (FIG. 1A).
Examination Note: the combination of claim 1 (wherein threads extend axially between the outer tube ends; as in FIG. 1A) with the respective limitations of claims 14 & 15 (as in FIGs. 1B & 1C, respectively) would appear to result in new combinations of limitations which were not sufficiently disclosed in the original specification.
In view of the above, claims 1-13 are hereby rejoined and examined in this action.
Claims 14-27 & 30 remain withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention and/or non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following issues:
FIG. 1A: The label “L” for the overall length is missing (the length lines remain but the actual letter is omitted);
FIG. 1C: The reference number “110” for the lower sleeve is missing.
Additionally, the outer tubes (102) in figures 1A-1C now appear to have additional features (i.e., components shown in alternative hatching, such as between the central portion of the outer tube in figs. 1B & 1C and the end sleeve portions thereof). Clarification is requested as such features raise questions about the actual structures disclosed, which may impact claim interpretation. For the elected embodiment (FIG. 1A) the application discloses that the sleeves may be monolithic, so the amended drawings do not necessarily effect interpretation of the claims currently under examination. However, the descriptions of figs. 1B & 1C (paras. 16-19) does not explicitly state that these outer tubes are monolithic. Thus, it is unclear if these new features and/or the sleeves in these additional embodiments are to be considered part of the outer tube. This is particularly important as it is unclear if these additional components and/or the sleeves are required to also be formed from the same metal oxide having the specified purity. Furthermore, figs. 1B & 1C appear to show unexplained asymmetric features along the inner diameters of the outer tubes, which raises further questions as to the disclosed structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The inner and outer diameter ranges for the dense outer tube recited in claim 5 (i.e., 1 to 75 millimeters; 0.8 to 70 millimeters), and the “initial length” range for dense outer tube recited in claim 6 (i.e. 1 to 120 millimeters) are not recited in the specification. In fact, no specific ranges or values for these dimensions appear in the specification.
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 11 recites “The threads can be machined in the dense outer tube before or after the disposing of the powder into the dense outer tube”. It is unclear how one would machine threads inside after powder has been disposed therein, at least in embodiments where the porous core extends along the entire length of the outer tube (i.e., as shown in the figures).
Note: this issue was raised in the previous action but was not addressed in Applicant’s response.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: the phrase “its inner surface” in “the porous core contacts the dense outer tube at its inner surface” may be confusing. Consider “the porous core contacts the inner threaded surface of the dense outer tube” or equivalent.
Claims 10 & 11: “the metal oxide used” is potentially confusing. While intended to refer to the metal oxides which form the outer tube and porous core, claim 1 does not define that the metal oxides are “used”, and the phrasing might also suggest an intended use rather than a composition of the parts themselves.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9, 12 & 13 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 6 recites “wherein the dense outer tube has an initial length of 1 to 120 millimeters”. It is unclear how the “initial length” is being defined. It is unclear whether this is referring to an “initial length” during the manufacturing process (but not necessarily the final length of the finished part), or whether this is referring to an “initial length” of the finished part prior to some unspecified change in length during installation or use (e.g., due to tension / compression / heating, etc.).
Claims 7-9 recite “wherein the porous core is manufactured from a metal oxide powder having an initial purity of greater than [92%, 99%, 99.5%]”, which raises several issues.
First, it is unclear how “initial purity” is to be determined. It is unclear whether this is merely referring to the initial stock powder material (which may then be reduced in purity by compounding with other materials during the manufacturing process, or perhaps increased in purity by some sorting / filtering process, prior to forming the finished component) but not necessarily indicative of a required purity in the final product, or whether this is intended to mean an “initial purity” of the finished porous core prior to its operational use (where it may capture impurities as a filter, etc.).
Furthermore, with respect to the ranges recited in claims 7 and 8 (i.e., an initial purity of greater than 92% and 99%, respectively), assuming that the “initial purity of the metal oxide powder” is intended to refer to the metal oxide purity of the porous core, then the range of “greater than 92% in claim 7 appears to conflict with the range of “greater than 99%” in claim 1, and the range of “greater than 99%” in claim 8 appears to restate the same range as in claim 1, raising doubt as to what exactly is being further limited (see related 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections).
Claim 12 recites “where the inner threaded surface is located at an inlet, an outlet of the tube or both at the inlet and the outlet of the tube” which raises several issues.
First, while “an inlet” is likely also supposed to be “of the tube”, the claim may be read such that the inlet may be an inlet of another component.
Additionally, claim 1 already recites that the inner threaded surface extends “axially between the outer tube ends”. As best understood, this would already require the threaded surface to be located along both the inlet and the outlet, raising doubt as to what exactly is being further limited (see related 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections).
The specification explains (para. 15) that the inner threaded surface can be machined along the entire length (L)(i.e., extending from one end to the other), or can be provided only along the sleeves (100)(for length L1). However, claim 1 appears to limit the claims to the embodiment wherein the inner threaded surface is machined along the entire length (i.e., as shown in FIG. 1A).
Claim 13 recites “where an inlet, outlet or both an inlet and an outlet of the dual density disc has threads on the inner surface” which raises several issues.
First, as a result of ambiguous phrasing, it is unclear if the first “inlet, outlet” are required to be “of the dual density disc” like “both an inlet and an outlet of the dual density disc”, or if these may refer to an inlet or outlet of a different component.
Next, no “inner surface” has been established for the dual density disc. The only inner surface is the “inner threaded surface” of the dense outer tube in claim 1.
It is unclear if the “threads on the inner surface” in claim 13 is intended to refer to the same “inner threaded surface” of the dense outer tube in claim 1.
If that is the case, then claim 13 raises the same issues as claim 12: claim 1 already appears to require the threads along the entire inner surface, which would include both the inlet and the outlet (of the dense outer tube).
Otherwise, the limitations of claim 13 might be seen as an improper (and indefinite) combination of mutually exclusive features of different embodiments: the inner threaded surface of the dense outer tube corresponds to the embodiment of FIG. 1A; the dual density disc (but not necessarily the dense outer tube) having threads on an inlet, outlet, or both, may be a features of the embodiments of FIGs 1B or 1C, where the sleeves (110, 112) may be separate from the dense outer tube.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 8, 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the porous core is manufactured from a metal oxide powder having an initial purity of greater than 92%”. However, claim 1 already recites “the porous core has a metal oxide purity of greater than 99%”.
If the “initial purity” of the metal oxide powder in claim 7 is intended to correspond to the “metal oxide purity” of the porous core in claim 1 (as best understood to be the case), then claim 7 appears to be improperly broadening the range of acceptable purity (i.e., lowering the threshold from >99% to >92%).
As such, claim 7 is an improper dependent claim as it fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or otherwise fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 similarly recites “wherein the porous core is manufactured from a metal oxide powder having an initial purity of greater than 99%”. As claim 1 already recites “the porous core has a metal oxide purity of greater than 99%”, if the “initial purity” of the metal oxide powder is intended to correspond to the “metal oxide purity” (as best understood to be the case), then claim 8 is an improper dependent claim as it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “where the inner threaded surface is located at an inlet, an outlet of the tube or both at the inlet and the outlet of the tube”.
The specification explains (para. 15) that the inner threaded surface can be machined along the entire length (i.e., extending from one end to the other), or can be provided only along the sleeves.
Claim 1 recites that the inner threaded surface extends “axially between the outer tube ends” (i.e., the embodiment wherein the inner threaded surface is machined along the entire length as shown in FIG. 1A) which, as understood, would implicitly require the inner threaded surface to be located along both the inlet and the outlet.
The first two options permitted in claim 12, wherein the inner threaded surface is located at an inlet or an outlet, would implicitly suggest that the inner threaded surface may not necessarily be located on the other one, thus improperly broadening the claim scope by removing the requirement that the inner threaded surface extends between the outer tube ends.
The third option permitted in claim 12, wherein the inner threaded surface is located both at the inlet and the outlet of the tube, may be seen as failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends since the limitation of claim 1 already appears to implicitly require the inner threaded surface to be located along both the inlet and the outlet.
Alternatively, this third option might be seen to implicitly suggest that the inner threaded surface may only be located at the inlet and outlet (rather than extending axially between the ends), thus improperly broadening the claim scope by removing the requirement that the inner threaded surface extends between the outer tube ends.
Regarding claim 13, as set forth in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is unclear if the “threads on the inner surface” of the “dual density disc” in claim 13 are intended to correspond to the same “inner threaded surface” of the dense outer tube which extends “axially between the outer tube ends” in claim 1. If this is the case, then claim 13 may be seen as improper for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends (i.e., as claim 1 may already require the threaded surface on the inlet and outlet) and/or for failing to include all of the limitations of the claim on which it depends (i.e., improperly broadening) for substantially the same reasons as set forth for claim 12 above.
Alternatively, if the threads of the dual density disc recited in claim 13 are intended to be provided in lieu of the inner threaded surface of the dense outer tube in claim 1 (i.e., directing the claim to one of the other disclosed embodiments), then claim 13 is improper for failing to include all of the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-13, 28 & 29 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2003/0027706 A1; hereafter Kobayashi) in view of Kuno et al. (US 2023/0115033 A1; hereafter Kuno) and/or Wheeler et al. (US 3,852,045; hereafter Wheeler).
Examination Note: the instant claims in this application, filed 11/21/2022, have an effective filing date of 11/22/2021, via priority claim to a previous provisional application. US 2023/0115033 A1 to Kuno et al., assigned to NGK Insulators, Ltd., is considered to have been effectively filed on 10/07/2021 via foreign priority claim and is therefore effective as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). To promote compact prosecution, however, alternative grounds of rejection in view of Wheeler are also provided.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses (fig. 4) a dual density disc (1A) comprising:
a dense outer tube (2A; “ring-shaped dense portion”) extending axially between outer tube ends (i.e., upper and lower ends of 2A as oriented in fig. 4a) and comprising a metal oxide (e.g., alumina [para. 65, lines 6-10 & table 4]; see also para. 13) having a purity of greater than 92% (para. 65, lines 6-8: “Ceramic fine particles 8…with a purity of 99.9 percent…”); and
a porous core (3A; “porous portion 3A with a [shape] of a disk”) extending axially between the outer tube ends (as shown; face 3a of the porous core being substantially coplanar with the upper end of the outer tube; face 3b of the porous core being substantially coplanar with the lower end of the outer tube) and comprising a metal oxide (e.g., alumina [para. 64 & para. 65, lines 1-5 & table 3]; see also para. 13) of a lower density than a density of the dense outer tube (see table 4: dense portion has 0% porosity, porous portion has relatively greater porosity and, therefore, lower density; see also paras 18-20); wherein:
the porous core has a metal oxide purity of greater than 99% (see table 3: the alumina [Al203] example materials [6 & 7] are shown as 99.9% alumina by weight; thus, both alumina examples in table 3 are understood to have a 99.9% purity); and
the dense outer tube has an inner surface (i.e., at interface 21 in fig. 4a) extending axially between the outer tube ends (as shown).
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that using a metal oxide powder of greater than 99% purity to make sintered components, in general, is well-known in the art. By way of example, see US 4724078 A (for porous materials: col. 1, line 46: “alumina which is at least 99.9% by weight pure”), US 2009/0029087 A1 (for molded materials: para. 52: “Examples of the ceramic powder include alumina, aluminum nitride, zirconia, YAG and the mixtures thereof, and a powder with high purity of 99% or more is preferably used.”), etc.
Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose the inner surface of the dense outer tube extending axially between the outer tube ends to be an inner threaded surface.
Rather, as shown in fig. 4, the interface (21) between the dense outer tube and the porous core is arranged substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis / direction (A) of the tube (see para. 49). However, Kobayashi further suggests that the configuration of the interface between the porous core and the dense outer tube may be arranged to affect the final component in various ways. In one example, Kobayashi suggests that, if the interface is formed with at least one part oriented in an angled / crossing direction (e.g., greater than 45° or 60°) or in a perpendicular direction to a pressing direction (i.e., the longitudinal axis), the resulting bonding strength at the interface may be improved (see para. 28).
Kuno teaches (e.g., figs. 1-3; see also modified form in fig. 12, etc.) a dual density disc (10) comprising:
a dense outer tube / disk (20; para. 29: “The ceramic plate 20 is a ceramic disk…”) extending axially between outer tube / disk ends (i.e. upper end 21, incl. surface 21c; and a lower end, as shown, facing layer 40) and comprising a metal oxide (para. 29: “the ceramic plate 30 is a ceramic disk…such as an alumina sintered body…”); and
a porous core (26; para. 31: “The plug 26 is a porous body and is a ceramic porous body according to the present invention”) extending axially between the outer tube ends (see figs. 1 & 3; see also fig. 12) and comprising a metal oxide (e.g., alumina; para. 31: “An example of the ceramic porous body can be a porous body composed of the same material as the ceramic plate 20”) of a lower density than a density of the dense outer tube (i.e., the porous core being a porous body of the same material as the dense outer tube disk would have a correspondingly lower density); and
the dense outer tube / disk has an inner threaded surface (i.e., inner threaded surface 24a of through-hole 24) extending axially between the outer tube ends (as shown).
Kuno explains that the threaded interface between the outer tube / disk and the porous core results in a “zig-zag shape in the up-down direction” such that the interface forms a longer “distance” than would be the case if no threads were provided, which can prevent “creeping discharge” from occurring across the disc.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi such that the inner surface of the dense outer tube extending axially between the outer tube ends is an inner threaded surface, in view of the teachings of Kuno, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a through-hole in a dense ceramic component for receiving a porous core as a threaded inner surface, configured to engage a corresponding threaded outer surface of the porous core, as in Kuno) to improve a similar device (i.e., the dual density disc of Kobayashi having, in the original form, a cylindrical hole interface between a porous sintered core and a dense tube / disc component) in the same way (e.g., increasing the interface area between the porous core and the outer tube / disk, which would reasonably increase bonding strength; and, by increasing the traverse length of the interface, may aid in preventing leakage at the interface, as suggested by Kuno).
To promote compact prosecution regarding the inner threaded surface, an alternative teaching in view of Wheeler is provided below.
Wheeler is generally directed to methods of forming sintered porous components (“void metal composite” [VMC] materials) and dual density components comprising a porous component joined with a dense / solid component. In one aspect, Wheeler discusses “bonding of the VMC [porous material] to a solid core” and teaches that, in one embodiment (shown in fig. 13), the interface between the porous material and the solid material may be formed as a “threaded” interface “to increase the shear area” (col. 13, lines 46-51). See also col. 14, lines 30-63, generally. In particular, figure 13 depicts a first component with a hole having an inner threaded surface extending from one end of the first component, the hole configured to receive a corresponding threaded portion of a second component.
Note: while the hole shown in fig. 13 is a blind hole, other examples in Wheeler, e.g., figs. 10-12, depict through-holes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi such that the inner surface of the dense outer tube extending axially between the outer tube ends is an inner threaded surface, in view of the teachings of Wheeler, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a cylindrical interface between a porous sintered component and a solid component as a threaded interface, as in Wheeler) to improve a similar device (i.e., the dual density disc of Kobayashi having, in the original form, a cylindrical hole interface between a porous sintered core and a dense tube / disc component) in the same way (e.g., increasing the bond strength between the porous and solid components via increasing the shear area at the interface relative to a plain cylindrical interface, etc.; as suggested by Wheeler), especially considering that Kobayashi already suggests that a bonding strength at the interface between a porous core and an outer tube may be improved by providing angled or perpendicular interface portions, and a threaded interface as in Wheeler may be reasonably seen as a type of angled interface.
Examination Note: to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming an interface between a ceramic or porous component and a surrounding body as a threaded interface, in general, is well-known in the art. By way of example, see US 2,323,146 (e.g., fig. 5), US 5,209,525 (e.g., figs. 5d, 6d, 7d, 8d), US 2020/0294838 A1 (e.g., figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 2, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the porous core has a bulk density of 1.00 to 3.0 g/cc and the crush strength is greater than 2000 pounds per square inch when present within the dense outer tube.
With respect to the limitation wherein the porous core has a bulk density of 1.00 to 3.00 g/cc, as previously explained in the rejection of claim 1, Kobayashi discloses that the porous core may comprise, e.g., 99.9% alumina (Al2O3)(see table 3), and have porosity which may be preferably between 10% and 40% (paras. 19-20), with test examples of 21% and 27% porosity cited (examples 6 & 7 in table 4).
Alumina (i.e., aluminum oxide, Al2O3), at 0% porosity, has a theoretical density of approximately 4 g/cc (see US 3,505,158 to Murray: col. 3, lines 41-42). Considering the alumina composition having a porosity of 27% in table 4, example 6 of Kobayashi, such a porosity would be expected to result in a bulk density of 2.92 g/cc (i.e., 73% of the full density), which falls within applicant’s claimed range.
Furthermore, even considering the broader preferred porosity ranges of Kobayashi, the expected bulk density of alumina would be approximately 3.6 g/cc at 10% porosity (i.e. 90% of the full density) and 2.4 g/cc at 40% porosity (i.e., 60% of the full density), thus defining a range which overlaps applicant’s claimed range of 1.00 to 3.0 g/cc; and, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding the limitation wherein the “crush strength is greater than 2000 pounds per square inch when present within the dense outer tube”, it is first noted that this “crush strength… when present within the dense outer tube” does not appear to be based on a conventional industrial standard but, as described in applicant’s specification (e.g., paras. 51-52), appears to be a method developed by applicant to test this particular arrangement.
As set forth in MPEP 2113(III), “as a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Additionally, while applicant broadly explains that “the crush strength and flow of the gases within the pores depend on the initial particle size distribution of the metal oxide powder used, the amount (i.e., weight percent) of pore former in the blend and the sintering conditions” (para. 46), the example provided in table 1 do not specify the initial particle size distribution of the alumina powder, and provide only very broad density and crush strength ranges for each blend composition. However, it appears that crush strength generally increases with density and thus decreases with increasing porosity (as would be expected).
A review of applicant’s specification reveals that the alumina powder may have particle sizes ranging from 10 nm to 500 μm, with preferred ranges of 100 nm to 150 μm and 150 nm to 100 μm (para. 27).
Applicant’s specification also reveals the use of solvents and pore formers to be optional (paras. 29 & 30), wherein one suitable pore former may be polyvinyl alcohol (para. 34), wherein pore formers may be used in amounts of 5 to 50 wt.%, preferably 10 to 25 wt.% (para. 37).
Applicant’s specification also discloses an optional first sintering step (to enhance handleability) and a second sintering step performed at temperatures of between 1500°C and 2000°C, in vacuum, air, oxygen, argon, nitrogen, natural gas, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, or combinations thereof (paras. 40-41).
Finally, applicant’s specification discloses a porosity of greater than 30% (with additional preferred values of >50%, >70%, >80%, >90%)(para. 48).
Returning to Kobayashi, in table 3, example 6 sets forth an alumina composition for the porous core comprising particles ranging from 210-300 μm, with an average size of 250 μm, which lies within applicant’s broad disclosed range for permissible alumina particle sizes.
Example 7 in table 3 provides an alumina composition for the porous core comprising particles ranging from 105-150 μm, with an average size of 115 μm, which lies with applicant’s preferred range of particle sizes.
Kobayashi further discloses the use of 5 wt.% of polyvinyl alcohol, within applicant’s broad range disclosed to be suitable for optional pore formers.
Kobayashi also discloses that the sintering process may be adjusted based on the materials used and the desired porosity, but is generally carried out at a temperature between 1000 to 2400°C (para. 53), with the alumina examples 6 & 7 in table 4 using a maximum temperature of 1600°C in a nitrogen (N2) environment (argon is also disclosed), within applicant’s claimed range of sintering temperatures.
As previously noted, Kobayashi discloses examples having 21% and 27% porosity (examples 7 & 6, respectively), but otherwise discloses a preferred range from 10% to 40%, which overlaps applicant’s range of greater than 30%. As previously explained, crush strength would be expected to increase with density, and decrease with increased porosity.
As a result, the porous cores of Kobayashi, at least as in examples 6 & 7, formed from alumina particles falling within applicant’s disclosed ranged, utilizing a pore former of an amount and composition disclosed to be suitable by applicant’s specification, manufactured using a sintering process at a temperature falling within applicant’s disclosed range, and having porosities in a range overlapping applicant’s disclosed range (i.e. 10% to 40% vs >30%), or otherwise close (i.e., 27% vs 30%), would reasonably be expected to exhibit the same properties as applicant’s disclosed porous core, including having a crush strength of greater than 2000 pounds per square inch, especially where the porosity of Kobayashi is near the lower end of the disclosed range, as crush strength would be expected to increase with density and decrease with increased porosity. See MPEP § 2114(I).
It is also noted that Kobayashi discloses the dual density disc may be subjected to hot pressing during sintering, at a compacting pressure which may be adjusted between 50 to 400 kg/cm2 (711 psi to 5689 psi), and for examples 6 & 7, discloses that a compacting pressure of 200 kg/cm2 (2845 psi) was used (table 4; para. 65). Such porous cores, which would necessarily have been capable of withstanding 2845 psi (200 kg/cm2) of compression at 1600°C during the sintering process, would reasonably be expected to have a crush strength greater than 2000 psi after sintering, particularly when measured at lower temperatures.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, attention is drawn to Auriol et al. (US 4,724,078; hereafter Auriol), which teaches a sintered porous alumina material having 30-40% porosity, and an isostatic compression strength of 450 x 106 N/m2 (65,267 psi).
Regarding claim 3, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation where the porous core (3A) contacts the dense outer tube (2A) at its inner surface (i.e., at interface 21) and where the dense outer tube is in continuous contact with the porous core along an entire circumference of the porous core (see figs. 4a & 4b; para. 49).
Regarding claim 4, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the disc has radial hermiticity, which does not leak from the sides of the porous body and permits flow in only a longitudinal direction.
See para. 69: Kobayashi performed a test where helium gas was supplied to one face of the porous core to test for leakage through the dense outer tube, and no such leakage was detected, confirming that flow of the gas was permitted only in a longitudinal direction (i.e., from one face of the porous core to the other).
Regarding claim 5, with respect to the limitations wherein the dense outer tube has an outer diameter of 1 to 75 millimeters and an inner diameter of 0.8 to 70 millimeters, it is first noted that these values do not appear in appear in applicant’s specification and thus appear to be merely design preferences rather than dimensions critical to achieving some unexpected result.
Kobayashi does not limit the dual density disc to any particular size or application but suggests that the arrangement may be useful as a member or article for a semiconductor producing system (e.g., a shower plate) or as a filter (para. 72).
In one example, shown in fig. 6(b), Kobayashi discloses that the dense outer component (2) may have an outer diameter of 100 millimeters (which is relatively close to the range of 1 to 75 millimeters), and an inner diameter of 70 millimeters (radius = 35 mm) (within the range of 0.8 to 70 millimeters). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)].
Similarly, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), it has been held that wherein the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention involves only a change in form, proportions, or degree, such a difference is unpatentable even though such changes may produce better results than prior inventions [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874)].
In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention appears to be the recitation of relative dimensions which do not appear to result in different performance than the prior art, or otherwise a mere change in form or proportions, which would be unpatentable even if such changes produced better results (which, as noted, has not been established).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as otherwise modified above, such that the dense outer tube has an any reasonable dimensions as maybe required for a particular application, including an outer diameter in the range of 1 to 75 millimeters and an inner diameter in the range of 0.8 to 70 millimeters, as a matter of routine engineering design, especially considering that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device and/or considering that such a difference appears to be merely a change in form or proportions, wherein such a difference is generally unpatentable even when such changes may produce better results, in view of the above cited guidance.
Furthermore, as noted, it appears that applicant places no criticality on these claimed ranges, as these values do not appear in the specification as originally filed.
Regarding claim 6, with respect to the limitation wherein the dense outer tube has an initial length of 1 to 120 millimeters, it is first noted that this range does not appear in appear in applicant’s specification and thus appears to be merely a design preference rather than a dimension critical to achieving some unexpected result.
Kobayashi does not limit the dual density disc to any particular size or application but suggests that the arrangement may be useful as a member or article for a semiconductor producing system (e.g., a shower plate) or as a filter (para. 72).
In one example, shown in fig. 6(b), Kobayashi discloses that the dense outer component (2) may have an axial length of 8 millimeters, which falls within the claimed range of 1 to 120 millimeters.
Similarly, it is noted that Kuno teaches that the dense outer tube / disk (20) may have an axial length (thickness) of 5 millimeters (paras. 29 & 30), which also falls within the claimed range.
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as otherwise modified above, such that the dense outer tube has an any reasonable dimensions as maybe required for a particular application, including an initial length of 1 to 120 millimeters (e.g., 5mm as in Kuno, or 8mm as in Kobayashi), as a matter of routine engineering design, especially considering that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device and/or considering that such a difference appears to be merely a change in form or proportions, wherein such a difference is generally unpatentable even when such changes may produce better results, in view of the above cited guidance.
Furthermore, as noted, it appears that applicant places no criticality on this claimed range, as this range does not appear in the specification as originally filed.
Regarding claims 7-9, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the porous core is manufactured from a metal oxide powder having an initial purity of greater than 92% (as in claim 7), greater than 99% (as in claim 8), and greater than 99.5% (as in claim 9).
In particular, as noted for claim 1, Kobayashi discloses that the porous core may be manufactured from a metal oxide powder (e.g., alumina) having an initial purity of 99.9% (see table 3: the alumina [Al203] example materials [6 & 7] are shown as 99.9% alumina by weight; thus, both alumina examples in table 3 are understood to have an initial purity of 99.9%)
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that using a metal oxide powder of at least 99.9% purity to make sintered components, in general, is otherwise well-known in the art. By way of example, see US 4724078 A (for porous materials: col. 1, line 46: “alumina which is at least 99.9% by weight pure”).
Regarding claims 10 & 11, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the metal oxide used in the dense outer tube is alumina (claim 10), and where the metal oxide used in the porous core is alumina (claim 11).
See examples 6 & 7 in tables 3 & 4; paragraphs 64 & 65. See also para. 13, generally.
Regarding claims 12 & 13, the dual density disc of Kobayashi, as modified in view of Kuno and/or Wheeler as set forth for claim 1 above such that the inner surface of the dense outer tube extending axially between the outer tube ends is an inner threaded surface, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations where the inner threaded surface is located at an inlet, an outlet of the tube or both at the inlet and the outlet of the tube (as in claim 12); and where an inlet, outlet or both an inlet and an outlet of the dual density disc has threads on the inner surface (as in claim 13).
In particular, the inner threaded surface of the dense outer tube resulting from the above combinations would reasonably extend along the entire axial length of the opening in the dense outer tube (and thus along the entire axial length of the opening in the dual density disc), including along portions which may be considered the inlet and outlet of the tube, such that the dual density disc as a whole may be considered to have threads on an inner surface of the inlet and outlet of the dual density disc (i.e., the threads of the inner threaded surface of the dense outer tube, which provides the inlet and outlet of the dual density disc).
Regarding claim 28, Kobayashi discloses (fig. 4) a dual density disc (1A) comprising:
a dense outer tube (2A; “ring-shaped dense portion”) extending axially between outer tube ends (i.e., upper and lower ends of 2A as oriented in fig. 4a) and comprising a first ceramic (e.g., alumina or aluminum nitride [para. 65, lines 6-10 & table 4]; see also para. 13) having a purity of greater than 92% (para. 65, lines 6-8: “Ceramic fine particles 8…with a purity of 99.9 percent…”);
a porous core (3A; “porous portion 3A with a [shape] of a disk”) extending axially between the outer tube ends (as shown; face 3a of the porous core being substantially coplanar with the upper end of the outer tube; face 3b of the porous core being substantially coplanar with the lower end of the outer tube) and comprising a second ceramic (e.g., alumina or aluminum nitride [para. 64 & para. 65, lines 1-5 & table 3]; see also para. 13) of a lower density than a density of the dense outer tube (see table 4: dense portion has 0% porosity, porous portion has relatively greater porosity and, therefore, lower density; see also paras 18 & 19); wherein:
the porous core has a purity of greater than 99% (see table 3: the alumina [Al203] example materials [6 & 7] are shown as 99.9% alumina by weight and the aluminum nitride [AlN] example material [8] is similarly shown as 99.9% aluminum nitride by weight; thus, all three examples of the “second ceramic” in table 3 are understood to have a 99.9% purity);
wherein the dense outer tube comprises an inner surface (i.e., at interface 21 in fig. 4a) extending axially between the outer tube ends (as shown).
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that using a ceramic powder of greater than 99% purity to make sintered components, in general, is otherwise well-known in the art. By way of example, see US 4724078 A (for porous materials: col. 1, line 46: “alumina which is at least 99.9% by weight pure”), US 2009/0029087 A1 (for molded materials: para. 52: “Examples of the ceramic powder include alumina, aluminum nitride, zirconia, YAG and the mixtures thereof, and a powder with high purity of 99% or more is preferably used.”), etc.
Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose threads on the inner surface of the dense outer tube, wherein the threads are parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tube or inclined to the longitudinal axis of the tube.
Rather, as shown in fig. 4, the interface (21) between the dense outer tube and the porous core is arranged substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis / a direction (A) of the tube (see para. 49). However, Kobayashi further suggests that the configuration of the interface between the porous core and the dense outer tube may be arranged to affect the final component in various ways. In one example, Kobayashi suggests that, if the interface is formed with at least one part oriented in an angled / crossing direction (e.g., greater than 45° or 60°) or in a perpendicular direction to a pressing direction (i.e., the longitudinal axis), the resulting bonding strength at the interface may be improved (see para. 28).
Kuno teaches (e.g., figs. 1-3; see also modified form in fig. 12, etc.) a dual density disc (10) comprising:
a dense outer tube / disk (20; para. 29: “The ceramic plate 20 is a ceramic disk…”) extending axially between outer tube / disk ends (i.e. upper end 21, incl. surface 21c; and a lower end, as shown, facing layer 40) and comprising a first ceramic (para. 29: “the ceramic plate 30 is a ceramic disk…such as an alumina sintered body…”); and
a porous core (26; para. 31: “The plug 26 is a porous body and is a ceramic porous body according to the present invention”) extending axially between the outer tube ends (see figs. 1 & 3; see also fig. 12) and comprising a second ceramic (e.g., alumina; para. 31: “An example of the ceramic porous body can be a porous body composed of the same material as the ceramic plate 20”) of a lower density than a density of the dense outer tube (i.e., the porous core being a porous body of the same material as the dense outer tube disk would have a correspondingly lower density); and
wherein the dense outer tube / disk comprises threads on an inner surface (i.e., threads 24a of through-hole 24), the threads extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of the through-hole / dense outer tube / disk (as shown).
Kuno explains that the threads at the interface between the outer tube / disk and the porous core result in a “zig-zag shape in the up-down direction” such that the interface forms a longer “distance” than would be the case if no threads were provided, which can prevent “creeping discharge” from occurring across the disc.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi such that dense outer tube comprises threads on the inner surface, wherein the threads are parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tube or inclined to the longitudinal axis of the tube (e.g., the threads being parallel to the longitudinal axis), in view of the teachings of Kuno, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a through-hole in a dense ceramic component for receiving a porous core as a threaded inner surface along the longitudinal axis, configured to engage a corresponding threaded outer surface of the porous core, as in Kuno) to improve a similar device (i.e., the dual density disc of Kobayashi having, in the original form, a cylindrical hole interface between a porous sintered core and a dense tube / disc component) in the same way (e.g., increasing the interface area between the porous core and the outer tube / disk, which would reasonably increase bonding strength; and, by increasing the traverse length of the interface, may aid in preventing leakage at the interface, as suggested by Kuno).
To promote compact prosecution regarding the inner threaded surface, an alternative teaching in view of Wheeler is provided below.
Wheeler is generally directed to methods of forming sintered porous components (“void metal composite” [VMC] materials) and dual density components comprising a porous component joined with a dense / solid component. In one aspect, Wheeler discusses “bonding of the VMC [porous material] to a solid core” and teaches that, in one embodiment (shown in fig. 13), the interface between the porous material and the solid material may be formed as a “threaded” interface “to increase the shear area” (col. 13, lines 46-51). See also col. 14, lines 30-63, generally. In particular, figure 13 depicts a first component with a hole having an inner threaded surface extending from one end of the first component, the hole configured to receive a corresponding threaded portion of a second component.
Note: while the hole shown in fig. 13 is a blind hole, other examples in Wheeler, e.g., figs. 10-12, depict through-holes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual density disc of Kobayashi such that the dense outer tube comprises threads on the inner surface of the dense outer tube, where the threads are parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tube or inclined to the longitudinal axis of the tube (e.g. wherein the threads parallel to the longitudinal axis), in view of the teachings of Wheeler, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a cylindrical interface between a porous sintered component and a solid component as a threaded interface along the longitudinal axis, as in Wheeler) to improve a similar device (i.e., the dual density disc of Kobayashi having, in the original form, a cylindrical hole interface between a porous sintered core and a dense tube / disc component) in the same way (e.g., increasing the bond strength between the porous and solid components via increasing the shear area at the interface relative to a plain cylindrical interface, etc.; as suggested by Wheeler), especially considering that Kobayashi already suggests that a bonding strength at the interface between a porous core and an outer tube may be improved by providing angled or perpendicular interface portions, and a threaded interface as in Wheeler may be reasonably seen as a type of angled interface.
Examination Note: to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming an interface between a ceramic or porous component and a surrounding body as a threaded interface, in general, is well-known in the art. By way of example, see US 2,323,146 (e.g., fig. 5), US 5,209,525 (e.g., figs. 5d, 6d, 7d, 8d), US 2020/0294838 A1 (e.g., figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 29, Kobayashi discloses the additional limitation wherein the first ceramic is the same as the second ceramic.
See para. 27, lines 1-9: “The invention may provide an integrated structure having a porous portion and a dense portion which are made of the same kind of ceramic material…”. See also para. 60, lines 1-3 and claims 2 & 9. Further, as best understood from tables 3 & 4 and paras. 64-67, in context, examples 6 & 7 use alumina (Al2O3) for both the first and second ceramics, while example 8 uses aluminum nitride (AlN) for both the first and second ceramics.
It is noted that Kuno also teaches that the dense disk and the porous component may be formed from the same material (Kuno, para. 31: “An example of the ceramic porous body can be a porous body composed of the same material as the ceramic plate 20”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding applicant’s remarks directed to independent claim 1, as noted previously in this action, claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-13) have been rejoined in view of applicant’s amendments directing the claim to the elected species. New grounds of rejection have been applied to the rejoined claims, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to independent claim 28, applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Kobayashi and Wheeler are not found be persuasive (as detailed below). However, to promote compact prosecution in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 28, alternative or otherwise amended grounds of rejection have been applied to the amended claim.
Regarding Kobayashi, applicant first points to FIGs. 4A & B thereof, with an interface (21) that is “substantially parallel with the direction A”. From this, applicant argues “by requiring a ‘substantially parallel’ interface, Kobayashi teaches a solution that is divergent from the claimed solution in which an interface between [a] core and outer tube is threaded. Modifying Kobayashi to remove the intentional design feature and provide it with a threaded interface does not support an obviousness rejection”. Applicant later suggests that Kobayashi “teaches away from the claimed configuration”. These arguments are not found to be persuasive.
As set forth in MPEP § 2123 (II), disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
While Kobayashi does disclose one embodiment (i.e., FIGs. 4A & B) wherein the interface is substantially perpendicular, the disclosure of Kobayashi is not limited to that specific configuration. By way of example, the embodiment shown in FIGs. 1A & B includes a first interface (21) that is “substantially parallel” to the direction A, and a second interface (20) that is “substantially perpendicular” to the direction A (see para. 43).
Kobayashi also discloses that the interface may be angled with respect to the direction A, whereby, if the interface is formed with at least one part oriented in a direction crossing (i.e., angled to) or perpendicular to the direction A, a resulting bonding strength at the interface may be improved (para. 28).
Similarly, Kobayashi explains that having at least part of the interface substantially parallel may aid in preventing irregularities due to shrinkage (para. 29).
In view of the above, Kobayashi clearly suggests that such interfaces may be perpendicular, parallel, and/or angled and, while preference for certain combinations may be expressed, Kobayashi does not specifically teach away from any particular interface arrangement.
See MPEP § 2123(II): "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding Wheeler, applicant argues that “the reference teaches a ‘solid titanium alloy piece 26’ within a composite billet 25… That is, Wheeler teaches away from a porous core and solid outer tube, and Wheeler also teaches away from a core that extends between axial ends of the outer tube”. This argument is not found to be persuasive.
As previously noted from MPEP § 2123(II), disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.
As set forth in MPEP § 2123(I): "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
In the instant case, applicant appears to be arguing that, as the specific example shown from Wheeler depicts a solid element within a composite element, and does not show the threaded surface to be a through-hole, Wheeler must therefore be seen as teaching away from these features. But this is not found persuasive and is not a reasonable conclusion in view of the above guidance of the MPEP.
As noted in the grounds of rejection, Wheeler is generally directed to methods of forming sintered porous components (“void metal composite” [VMC] materials) and dual density components comprising a porous component joined with a dense / solid component. In one aspect, Wheeler discusses “bonding of the VMC [porous material] to a solid core” and teaches that, in one embodiment (shown in fig. 13), the interface between the porous material and the solid material may be formed as a “threaded” interface “to increase the shear area” (col. 13, lines 46-51). See also col. 14, lines 30-63, generally.
As noted above, the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain, and a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As such, Wheeler may be reasonably seen as reasonably suggesting to one having ordinary skill in the art that an interface between a porous component and dense/solid component may take the form of a threaded interface, generally, which may increase the bond strength between the porous component and solid component via an increased shear area relative to a plain cylindrical interface. Since Kobayashi already broadly suggests that a bonding strength at the interface between a porous core and an outer tube may be improved by providing angled or perpendicular interface portions, the teachings of Wheeler of using a threaded interface (i.e., a particular arrangement of angled / crossing interfaces) to improve bond strength would logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention as one possible solution.
It is also noted that applicant’s arguments against Kobayashi and Wheeler amount to arguments of the individual references rather than the resulting combination. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, to promote compact prosecution, the grounds of rejection in this action include alternative teachings in view of Kuno, which explicitly teaches a solid ceramic disk having an inner threaded surface for receiving a corresponding threaded porous core.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753