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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 4-21 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 4/29/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The objection to claim 15 has been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/463,573 and 18/175,871 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The rejection of claims on the ground of non-statutory double patenting have therefore been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-15, filed 4/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include wherein the liquid storage advantage layers and the liquid locking advantage layers are formed integrally of a single porous ceramic material, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found art and previously applied art.
The following is a modified rejection made based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the porous body of claim 1, wherein the porous body comprises porous alumina ceramic, porous silicon oxide, porous cordierite, porous silicon carbide, porous silicon nitride, porous mullite, or composite porous ceramic formed integrally.
However, claim 1, line 18, already recites wherein the liquid storage advantage layers and the liquid locking advantage layers are formed integrally of a single porous ceramic material. Therefore, claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon 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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsayar (WO2021/035355) in view of Zhou (CN110876494A, cited in IDS dated 2/28/2023; references will refer to the English equivalent US2022/0312844).
Regarding claim 1, Alsayar teaches:
A porous body for an electronic vaporization device (ceramic core 300, [113], figure 3A) comprising:
a first surface configured to install a heating body (inner surface of second ceramic layer 302 with heating element 304 positioned inside of the ceramic core by the air channel ([122] and [107]);
a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being configured for contact with a liquid aerosol-generation substrate (outer surface of first ceramic layer 301 that contacts vaporization substance from chamber 207 ([100], [113], figures 2-3); and
at least two unit layers sequentially arranged along a direction from the first surface to the second surface, wherein each unit layer of the at least two unit layers comprises a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid locking advantage layer stacked together (as the ceramic core can have any number of layers ([121]), and thus an arrangement of first ceramic layer 301 and second ceramic layer 302 defines a unit layer comprising a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid locking advantage layer, and further arrangements of a first ceramic layer 301 and second ceramic layer 302 defining further unit layers, figure 3A, [113]),
wherein each liquid storage advantage layer has a first porosity, each liquid locking advantage layer has a second porosity, and the first porosity is greater than the second porosity (the porosity of the first ceramic layer 301 being greater than the porosity of the second ceramic layer 302, [113]),
wherein the liquid storage advantage layers and the liquid locking advantage layers are formed integrally of a single porous ceramic material (the ceramic core 300 is manufactured as a uniform piece with different porosity layers, [117]).
Alsayar does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) wherein the liquid storage advantage layer and the liquid locking advantage layer are alternately arranged along the direction from the first surface to the second surface to facilitate transport of liquid from the second surface toward the first surface and vapor from the first surface away from the second surface and (II) wherein a thickness of each liquid locking advantage layer ranges from 10 um to 200 um.
In regard to (I), Alsayar further teaches various combinations of layers and sections throughout a ceramic core are possible to achieve more complex non-uniformity of porosity than that shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B ([135]).
Zhou, directed to a ceramic vaporization core, teaches:
A vaporization core (1) comprising a porous body (10) that has a liquid storage advantage layer (porous ceramic layer 11) and a liquid locking advantage layer (microporous ceramic layer 12) ([0045]-[0046], figure 2).
There may be a plurality of porous ceramic layers 11 and a plurality of microporous ceramic layers 12, and they may be sequentially and alternately disposed in the flow direction of the e-liquid ([0046]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alsayar to have a plurality of liquid storage advantage layers and a plurality of liquid locking advantage layers that are sequentially and alternatively disposed in the flow direction of the e-liquid as taught by Zhou, because both Alsayar and Zhou are directed to vaporization cores with a porous body that has a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid locking advantage layer, Alsayar teaches the ceramic core may have any number of layers and various combinations of layers throughout the ceramic core are possible, and this merely involves configuring similar layers of a porous body a known way (i.e. plurality of layers sequentially and alternatively disposed) to a similar vaporization core to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Alsayar is silent to the thickness of each liquid locking advantage layer. However, 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. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the thickness of each liquid locking advantage layer is dependent on the overall size of the vaporization core and vaporization device, larger vaporization devices needing larger vaporization cores and thus larger layers. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonable determine workable liquid locking advantage layer thicknesses that would allow the vaporization core to function as effectively based on the size of the overall vaporization core and vaporization device arrive at a thickness of each liquid locking advantage layer within the claimed range or overlapping the claimed range. The courts have held that, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 4, Alsayar is silent to the thickness of the porous body. However, 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. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the thickness of the porous body is dependent on the overall size of the vaporization device, larger vaporization devices needing larger vaporization cores. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonable determine workable porous body thicknesses that would allow the vaporization core to function as effectively based on the size of the overall vaporization device arrive at a thickness of the porous body within the claimed range or overlapping the claimed range. The courts have held that, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 6, Alsayar is silent to the thickness of each unit layer of the at least two unit layers. However, 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. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the thickness of each unit layer of the at least two unit layers is dependent on the overall size of the vaporization core and vaporization device, larger vaporization devices needing larger vaporization cores and thus larger unit layers. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonable determine workable unit layer thicknesses that would allow the vaporization core to function as effectively based on the size of the overall vaporization core and vaporization device arrive at a thickness of each unit layer within the claimed range or overlapping the claimed range. The courts have held that, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 9, Alsayar further teaches wherein the first porosity may be 2 times the second porosity (the first ceramic layer 301 may have a porosity of 40% while the second ceramic layer 302 may have a porosity of 20%, [120]) which falls within the claimed range of 1.2 to 2 times.
Regarding claim 11, Alsayar further teaches wherein the porous body comprises composite porous ceramic formed integrally (the ceramic core 300 is manufactured as a uniform piece with different porosity layer, [117]).
Regarding claim 12, Alsayar further teaches a method of manufacturing the ceramic core 300 is described by US 4,629,483 which teaches:
providing at least two pairs of green compacts with different porosities or different pore sizes (Abstract, substrate layer of a more open structure and substrate layer of a less open structure);
stacking the at least two pairs of green compacts alternately to form a green compact assembly (Abstract, compressing the substrate layer and subsequent layers selected in succession compression steps to form a composite body);
and co-firing the green compact assembly to form an integrated porous body (Abstract, firing the composite body to form a ceramically monolithic porous body).
Regarding claim 15, Alsayar further teaches:
A vaporization core for an electronic vaporization device (vape tank 200 implemented in a vaporization device, [098], figure 2), comprising:
a heating body (heating element 204, [099]); and
the porous body of claim 1 (ceramic core 300 can be implemented in vape tank 200, [113])
wherein the heating body is arranged on a surface of the liquid storage advantage layer or a surface of the liquid locking advantage layer of one of the at least two unit layers ([107], figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Alsayar further teaches other heating elements are possible and are within the scope of this disclosure ([106]).
Alsayar does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating body comprises a porous heating film or a metal heating sheet.
Zhou further teaching a heating body 20 that may be a metal sheet which may be partially embedded in the porous body 10 ([0050]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the heating element of Alsayar to be a metal sheet as taught by Zhou, because both Alsayar and Zhou are directed to porous bodies with heating elements for vaporizations, Alsayar teaches other heating elements are within scope, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known heating element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Alsayar further teaches:
An electronic vaporization device (100, figure 1), comprising:
a liquid storage cavity (chamber 103, [096], figure 1);
a vaporization cavity (stem 104, [097], figure 1); and
the vaporization core of claim 15 (ceramic core 102, [096]),
wherein the surface of the porous body on which the heating body is arranged is in communication with the vaporization cavity in an air guiding manner ([097]), and
another surface of the porous body opposite the surface on which the heating body is arranged is in communication with the liquid storage cavity in a liquid guiding manner ([097]).
Regarding claim 18, Alsayar further teaches wherein the porous body comprises from 2 to 30 of the unit layers (as any number of layers can be implemented, [121]).
Regarding claim 21, Alsayar further teaches:
The heating body infiltrates into an adjacent liquid locking advantage layer (the heating element 304 is attached to second ceramic layer 102 which has a lower porosity than first ceramic layer 301 ([114]).
Other heating elements are possible and are within the scope of this disclosure ([106]).
Alsayar does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the heating body infiltrates with an infiltration ratio of lower than 60%.
Zhou further teaches a heating body 20 that may formed by sintering of a conductive slurry screen-printed on the porous body.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the heating element of Alsayar to be screen-printed on the porous body as taught by Zhou, because both Alsayar and Zhou are directed to porous bodies with heating elements for vaporization, Alsayar teaches other heating elements are within scope, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known heating element for another to obtain predictable results.
As the heating element is screen printed onto the porous body, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the infiltration ratio would approach zero which falls within the claimed range of an infiltration ratio of lower than 60%.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsayar (WO2021/035355) in view of Zhou (CN110876494A, cited in IDS dated 2/28/2023; references will refer to the English equivalent US2022/0312844) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (CN215422802, cited in IDS dated 2/28/2023; references will refer to the English translation provided).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 20, Alsayar does not appear to disclose where an average porosity of the porous body ranges from 50% to 75%, where the first porosity ranges from 55% to 90%, and wherein the second porosity ranges from 55% to 90%.
However, Alsayar further teaches that the porosity of the first ceramic layer 301 and the second ceramic layer 302 may depend on any one or more of a number of factors such as types of minerals used and particle sizes ([116]).
Huang, directed to an atomizing core, teaches:
A vaporization core for an electronic vaporization device comprising: a porous body (the atomizer core 50 that includes a ceramic substrate, [0027]) comprising a liquid storage advantage layer (third porous ceramic body 503) and a liquid locking advantage layer combined with the liquid storage advantage layer (second porous ceramic body 502) and the heating body is combined with a surface of the liquid storage advantage layer (as shown in figure 2).
The porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer is 30% to 80% ([00012]) and the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer is 10% to 50% ([0009]).
Therefore, as Alsayar teaches the porosity may depend on other factors such as types of minerals used and particle sizes, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of porosities of porous bodies that one of ordinary skill could apply to Alsayar with a reasonable expectation of success in the porous body having a suitably porosity for use in the vaporization device with other types of minerals used and particle sizes.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the liquid locking advantage layer and the liquid storage advantage layer of the porous body of Alsayar have a porosity of 10% to 50% and 30% to 80%, respectively, as taught by Huang, because both Alsayar and Huang are directed to porous bodies for vaporization devices comprising a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid storage locking layer, and this merely involves incorporation of a known porosity to a similar porous body to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, modified Alsayar would therefore have an average porosity of the porous body between 20% and 65%. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 50% and 75% and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer being between 30% and 80% overlaps the claimed range of wherein the first porosity ranges from 55% to 90% and is therefore prima facie obvious.
The porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer being between 10% to 50% is merely close to the claimed range of wherein the second porosity ranges between 55% to 90%. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 20, the porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer being between 30% and 80% overlaps the claimed range of between 55% and 90% and is therefore prima facie obvious.
The porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer being between 10% to 50% overlaps the claimed range of between 45% and 70% and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 7-8, Alsayar further teaches the characteristic of the ceramic core can be designed to be non-uniform to mitigate leakage and another characteristic instead of or in addition to porosity may be implemented ([103]).
Alsayar is silent to the pore size of the liquid storage advantage layer and the liquid locking advantage layer.
However, Huang, directed to an atomizing core, teaches:
A vaporization core for an electronic vaporization device comprising: a porous body (the atomizer core 50 that includes a ceramic substrate, [0027]) comprising a liquid storage advantage layer (third porous ceramic body 503) and a liquid locking advantage layer combined with the liquid storage advantage layer (second porous ceramic body 502) and the heating body is combined with a surface of the liquid storage advantage layer (as shown in figure 2).
Wherein the liquid storage advantage layer comprises a large-pore-size structure layer and wherein the liquid locking advantage layer comprises a small-pore-size structure layer (as shown in figure 2 the pores C of the third porous ceramic body 503 are larger than the pores B of the second porous ceramic body 502).
The pore size of the liquid storage advantage layer is 10 um to 50 um ([00013]) and the pore size of the liquid locking advantage layer is 10 um to 50 um ([0009]).
Therefore, as Alsayar is silent to the pore size of the liquid storage advantage layer and the liquid locking advantage layer and teaches another characteristic of the ceramic core may be designed to be nonuniform to be mitigate leakage, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of ceramic core characteristics, such as pore sizes, that one of ordinary skill could apply to Alsayar with a reasonable expectation of success in the liquid storage advantage layer and the liquid locking advantage layer having suitable pore sizes for use in the vaporization device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the liquid locking advantage layer and the liquid storage advantage layer of the porous body of Alsayar have a pore size of 10 um to 50 um as taught by Huang, because both Alsayar and Huang are directed to porous bodies for vaporization devices comprising a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid storage locking layer, and this merely involves incorporation of a known pore size to a similar porous body to yield predictable results.
As such, each liquid storage advantage layer would comprise a first-pore-size structure layer and each liquid locking advantage layer would comprise a second-pore-size structure layer, and an average pore size of the large-pore-size structure layer may be 1 to 5 times an average pore size of the small-pore size structure. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claim 7 range of 1.5 to 2.5 times and is therefore prima facie obvious.
The liquid storage advantage layer having a pore size of 10 um to 50 um overlaps the claim 8 range of from 50 um to 150 um and is therefore prima facie obvious. The liquid locking advantage layer having a pore size of from 10 um to 50 um overlaps the claim 8 range of 20 um to 100 um and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Alsayar further teaches wherein the first porosity may be 2 times the second porosity (the first ceramic layer 301 may have a porosity of 40% while the second ceramic layer 302 may have a porosity of 20%, [120]) which falls within the claimed range of 1.2 to 2 times.
Alsayar does not appear to disclose (I) wherein an average porosity of the porous body is from 50% to 75% and (II) a thickness of the porous body is from 0.8 mm to 3.0 mm, a thickness of each unit layer is from 0.10 mm to 1.5 mm, and a thickness of the liquid locking advantage layer of each unit layer is from 10 um to 200 um.
In regard to (I), Alsayar further teaches that the porosity of the first ceramic layer 301 and the second ceramic layer 302 may depend on any one or more of a number of factors such as types of minerals used and particle sizes ([116]).
Huang, directed to an atomizing core, teaches:
A vaporization core for an electronic vaporization device comprising: a porous body (the atomizer core 50 that includes a ceramic substrate, [0027]) comprising a liquid storage advantage layer (third porous ceramic body 503) and a liquid locking advantage layer combined with the liquid storage advantage layer (second porous ceramic body 502) and the heating body is combined with a surface of the liquid storage advantage layer (as shown in figure 2).
The porosity of the liquid storage advantage layer is 30% to 80% ([00012]) and the porosity of the liquid locking advantage layer is 10% to 50% ([0009]).
Therefore, as Alsayar teaches the porosity may depend on other factors such as types of minerals used and particle sizes, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of porosities of porous bodies that one of ordinary skill could apply to Alsayar with a reasonable expectation of success in the porous body having a suitably porosity for use in the vaporization device with other types of minerals used and particle sizes.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the liquid locking advantage layer and the liquid storage advantage layer of the porous body of Alsayar have a porosity of 10% to 50% and 30% to 80%, respectively, as taught by Huang, because both Alsayar and Huang are directed to porous bodies for vaporization devices comprising a liquid storage advantage layer and a liquid storage locking layer, and this merely involves incorporation of a known porosity to a similar porous body to yield predictable results.
Modified Alsayar would therefore have an average porosity of the porous body between 20% and 65%. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 50% and 75% and is therefore prima facie obvious.
In regard to (II), Alsayar is silent to the thickness of the porous body, each unit layer, and the liquid locking advantage layer of each unit layer. However, 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. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the thickness of the porous body, each unit layer, and the liquid locking advantage layer of each unit layer is dependent on the overall size of the vaporization device, larger vaporization devices needing larger vaporization cores. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably determine workable porous body thicknesses, and thus unit layer and liquid locking advantage layer thicknesses, that would allow the vaporization core to function as effectively based on the size of the overall vaporization device arrive at a thickness of the porous body, unit layer, and liquid locking advantage layer, within the claimed range or overlapping the claimed range. The courts have held that, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsayar (WO2021/035355) in view of Zhou (CN110876494A, cited in IDS dated 2/28/2023; references will refer to the English equivalent US2022/0312844) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gross (US2018/0361352).
Regarding claim 13, Alsayar does not appear to disclose wherein the at least two pairs of green compacts are formed by flow casting or extrusion.
Gross, directed to forming ceramic substrates ([0030]), teaches:
Conventional processes for forming ceramic substrate bodies such as shaping into a green body by any known conventional forming process such as extrusion or slip casting (i.e. flow casting, [0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making the green compacts as taught by Alsayar to be made by extrusion or flow casting as taught by Gross, as both Alsayar and Gross are both directed to methods of making ceramic substrates from green compacts, Gross teaches this is a convention process for forming a green compact, and this merely involves simple substitution of a known method of forming a green compact with another method of forming a green compact to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Alsayar does not appear to disclose wherein at least some of the at least two pairs of the green compacts are formed by flow casting, and at least some of the at least two pairs of the green compacts are formed by extrusion or injection molding.
Gross, directed to forming ceramic substrates ([0030]), teaches:
Conventional processes for forming ceramic substrate bodies such as shaping into a green body by any known conventional forming process such as extrusion, injection molding, or slip casting (i.e. flow casting, [0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making the green compacts as taught by Alsayar to be made by extrusion, injection molding, or flow casting as taught by Gross, as both Alsayar and Gross are both directed to methods of making ceramic substrates from green compacts, Gross teaches this is a convention process for forming a green compact, and this merely involves simple substitution of a known method of forming a green compact with another method of forming a green compact to obtain predictable results.
As Alsayar in view of Gross teaches forming the green compacts by flow casting, extrusion, of injection molding, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try forming at least some of the at least two pairs of green compacts by flow casting and forming at least some of the at least two pairs of green compacts by extrusion or injection molding as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights