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 11/25/2025, the previous rejections have been maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication CN110395995A, supplied by applicant, machine translation previously provided, hereafter He, in view of Published Application US20160264471A1, hereafter Isoda, further in view of Foreign Publication GB2552312A, hereafter Juma and further in view of Foreign Publication CN106903775A, supplied by applicant, machine translation previously provided, hereafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of manufacturing a ceramic object, the method comprising:
forming a ceramic structure by 3D printing the ceramic structure with a binder jetting 3D ceramic printer using a ceramic powder ([0042] Al2O3) and an inorganic binder ([0010] modified sodium silicate binder); and
firing the ceramic structure to form the ceramic object ([0044] sintering).
He is silent on wherein the ceramic powder comprises sintered ceramic material, and wherein the particles of sintered ceramic material are formed from smaller particles that have been sintered together.
In the analogous art of ceramic molding, Isoda discloses wherein the ceramic powder comprises sintered ceramic material ([0036] mixed powder is fired and then pulverized) and wherein the particles of sintered ceramic material are formed from smaller particles that have been sintered together ([0035] mixed powder of MgO, Al2O3, and SiO2, [0036] fired to form coarse cordierite grains followed by pulverization).
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 He with the sintered ceramic material disclosed by Isoda in order to increase the density of the final ceramic object, as suggested by Isoda ([0036]), thereby increasing mechanical strength, and reducing the risk of cracking in the ceramic object due to shrinkage upon firing.
The combination of He and Isoda is silent on wherein the ceramic object comprises a ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration.
In the analogous art of ceramic 3D printing, Juma discloses wherein the ceramic object comprises a ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration (page 2, lines 25-27).
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 combination of He and Isoda to produce a ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration, as disclosed by Juma, since the claimed process to produce such a product is known from He and Isoda, and the use of the known method to produce a different product which may itself be novel or known, is still obvious to one of ordinary skill due to the method itself being obvious or known (see MPEP 2116.01). Further, the techniques of ceramic molding and 3D printing represent a finite number of ways for the product of Juma to be produced, and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2143 (I) (E)).
The combination of He, Isoda, and Juma is silent on wherein the sintered ceramic material comprises particles of sintered ceramic material having a size:
greater than 10 microns, and
less than 200 microns.
In a further analogous art of ceramic 3D printing, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size:
greater than 10 microns, and
less than 200 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
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 combination of He, Isoda, and Juma with the ceramic particle size of 20-50µm disclosed by Yang in order to increase the density and reduce the porosity of the final fired product, thereby increasing mechanical strength, since the small size of the particles naturally leads to the particles being able to be more densely packed than larger particles, and because 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Isoda further discloses wherein the sintered ceramic powder comprises sintered granulated ceramic material ([0036] mixed powder is fired and then pulverized).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the combination does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the sintered ceramic material being less than 10% or 5%. As the density of the final product and reduction in thermal shrinkage upon firing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said porosity of the sintered ceramic material, with said thermal shrinkage upon firing decreasing (thermal shrinkage is caused by reduction of pores during sintering due to grains growing and bonding together) and density/mechanical strength of the fired ceramic product increasing (Yang, [0017]) as the porosity of the sintered ceramic material is decreased, the specific porosity of the sintered ceramic material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed porosity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the porosity of the sintered ceramic material of the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang to obtain the desired final density and mechanical strength and reduced risk of cracking of the final fired ceramic product, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the combination does not explicitly disclose the shrinkage undergone by the ceramic structure upon firing to be less than 10% or 5%. As the density of the final product is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thermal shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing, with said thermal shrinkage upon firing decreasing (thermal shrinkage is caused by reduction of pores during sintering due to grains growing and bonding together) and density/mechanical strength of the fired ceramic product increasing (Yang, [0017]) the resulting thermal shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed shrinkage of the ceramic structure cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing of the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang to obtain the desired final density and mechanical strength and reduced risk of cracking of the final fired ceramic product, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang further discloses wherein the ceramic powder comprises a free-flowing powder of sintered ceramic material (this is implicit, since a powdered sintered ceramic material would already be free flowing by its nature as a dry fine powder (Isoda [0036] coarse grains obtained by firing mixed powder are pulverized, resulting in a dry (due to the sintering) and fine (due to the pulverization) powder), especially at the size range of 20µm-50µm, and it would not be considered a powder if the particles were otherwise stuck together).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size: less than 150 microns, less than 100 microns, or less than 50 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size: greater than 30 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
Regarding claim 8, He further discloses wherein firing the ceramic structure comprises firing the ceramic structure to a temperature greater than: 1,000°C, 1,200°C, 1,400°C, or 1,600°C ([0038] sintering at 1580°C or higher).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12071379 (US application 16/317,319) in view of Foreign Publication CN110395995A, supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation, hereafter He, and further in view of Published Application US20160264471A1, hereafter Isoda, and Foreign Publication CN106903775A, supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation, hereafter Yang. (Note the instant application and the US Patent No. 12071379 share the same inventors; see MPEP 804).
Regarding claim 1, claim 3 of the patent recites a method of manufacturing a ceramic object, the method comprising: forming a ceramic structure by 3D printing the ceramic structure with a binder jetting 3D ceramic printer (this is disclosed in the patent specification on page to be one mode of 3D printing used in the claimed method, ceramic jet printing) using a ceramic powder (page 6, carbon precursor may be a carbon powder), and firing the ceramic structure to form the ceramic object, wherein the ceramic object comprises a ceramic foundry filter for metal filtration.
Claim 3 of the patent is silent on using an inorganic binder.
In the analogous art of 3D printing, He discloses using an inorganic binder ([0010] modified sodium silicate binder);
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 patent claim 3 with the inorganic binder disclosed by He in order to use less toxic and more environmentally friendly materials, as suggested by He ([0023]).
The combination of Patent Claim 3 and He is silent on the use of a sintered ceramic powder and wherein the particles of sintered ceramic material are formed from smaller particles that have been sintered together.
In the analogous art of ceramic molding, Isoda discloses wherein the ceramic powder comprises sintered ceramic material ([0036] mixed powder is fired and then pulverized) and wherein the particles of sintered ceramic material are formed from smaller particles that have been sintered together ([0035] mixed powder of MgO, Al2O3, and SiO2, [0036] fired to form coarse cordierite grains followed by pulverization).
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 combination of Patent claim 3 and He with the sintered ceramic material disclosed by Isoda in order to increase the density of the final ceramic object, as suggested by Isoda ([0036]), thereby increasing mechanical strength, and reducing the risk of cracking in the ceramic object due to shrinkage upon firing.
Claim 3 of the patent is silent on wherein the sintered ceramic material comprises particles of sintered ceramic material having a size:
greater than 10 microns, and
less than 200 microns.
In a further analogous art of ceramic 3D printing, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size:
greater than 10 microns, and
less than 200 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
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 combination of Patent Claim 3, He, and Isoda with the ceramic particle size of 20-50µm disclosed by Yang in order to increase the density and reduce the porosity of the final fired product, thereby increasing mechanical strength, since the small size of the particles naturally leads to the particles being able to be more densely packed than larger particles, and because 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Isoda further discloses wherein the sintered ceramic powder comprises sintered granulated ceramic material ([0036] mixed powder is fired and then pulverized).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Patent Claim 3, He, Isoda, and Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the combination does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the sintered ceramic material being less than 10% or 5%. As the density of the final product and reduction in thermal shrinkage upon firing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said porosity of the sintered ceramic material, with said thermal shrinkage upon firing decreasing (thermal shrinkage is caused by reduction of pores during sintering due to grains growing and bonding together) and density/mechanical strength of the fired ceramic product increasing (Yang, [0017]) as the porosity of the sintered ceramic material is decreased, the specific porosity of the sintered ceramic material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed porosity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the porosity of the sintered ceramic material of the combination of Patent Claim 3, He, Isoda, and Yang to obtain the desired final density and mechanical strength and reduced risk of cracking of the final fired ceramic product, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Patent Claim 3, He, Isoda, and Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the combination does not explicitly disclose the shrinkage undergone by the ceramic structure upon firing to be less than 10% or 5%. As the density of the final product is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thermal shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing, with said thermal shrinkage upon firing decreasing (thermal shrinkage is caused by reduction of pores during sintering due to grains growing and bonding together) and density/mechanical strength of the fired ceramic product increasing (Yang, [0017]) the resulting thermal shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed shrinkage of the ceramic structure cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the shrinkage of the ceramic structure upon firing of the combination of He, Isoda, Juma, and Yang to obtain the desired final density and mechanical strength and reduced risk of cracking of the final fired ceramic product, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Patent Claim 3, He, Isoda, and Yang further discloses wherein the ceramic powder comprises a free-flowing powder of sintered ceramic material (this is implicit, since a powdered sintered ceramic material would already be free flowing by its nature as a dry fine powder (Isoda [0036] coarse grains obtained by firing mixed powder are pulverized, resulting in a dry (due to the sintering) and fine (due to the pulverization) powder), especially at the size range of 20µm-50µm, and it would not be considered a powder if the particles were otherwise stuck together).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size: less than 150 microns, less than 100 microns, or less than 50 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses wherein the ceramic material comprises particles of ceramic material having a size: greater than 30 microns ([0031], particle size of the ceramic powder is 20µm-50µm).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12071379 (US application 16/317,319) in view of Foreign Publication CN110395995A, supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation, hereafter He, and further in view of Published Application US20160264471A1, hereafter Isoda, and Foreign Publication CN106903775A, supplied by applicant, used attached machine translation, hereafter Yang, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12071379 (US application 16/317,319).
Regarding claim 8, Patent Claim 3 is silent on wherein firing the ceramic structure comprises firing the ceramic structure to a temperature greater than: 1,000°C, 1,200°C, 1,400°C, or 1,600°C.
Patent Claim 20 recites wherein firing the ceramic structure comprises firing the ceramic structure to a temperature greater than: 1,000°C, 1,200°C, 1,400°C, or 1,600°C (less than 1700°C).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant's remarks that one skilled in the art would know that the sodium-silicate binder could not form the siloxane network if the particles of the oxide ceramic powder were pre-sintered because those particles would have hardened and smooth surfaces and would have shrunk, the examiner disagrees. First, in Isoda, the powder is fired and then pulverized ([0036]). This pulverization necessarily increases surface area and there is no reason why one skilled in the art would believe the sodium silicate binder would not perform its function, as intended.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 7 of applicant's remarks that the final product would lack the "bridging effect" seen in He because if the ceramic particles are pre-sintered, the skilled person would know that said particles would not sinter and densify further at 1580°C, the examiner disagrees. Especially since the sintering and pulverizing in the combination would be taking place before the particles are mixed with the binder, the removal of moisture from the mixture and the bridging effect would indeed still be brought about by the dehydration and polycondensation of the siloxane three-dimensional network structure, as disclosed by He in [0039].
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on pages 7-8 of applicant's remarks that the curing agent chemistry presumes a non-sintered ceramic powder, and so pre-sintering would change the reaction or adsorption of the curing agent with the oxide ceramic powder, potentially causing the curing agent to be effectively inert, the examiner disagrees. The curing agent and binder in the combination would not be added to the ceramic powder until after pre-sintering and pulverization, thus, their reactions and interactions with one another would remain the same. Even if changes were to take place with respect to the curing agent, one skilled in the art would have no reason to believe that it would perform significantly differently on pre-sintered powder instead of unsintered powder.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant's remarks that because an additional step of pre-sintering would be added in the combination, and He's stated aim is to shorten the ceramic preparation cycle, there would be no motivation to modify the invention of He, the examiner notes [insert no motivation FP]. In this case, the motivation to modify He with Isoda is stated in the rejection to be to increase the density of the final ceramic object, as suggested by Isoda ([0036]), thereby increasing mechanical strength, and reducing the risk of cracking in the ceramic object due to shrinkage upon firing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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