DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-8 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2023, 06/13/2024, 12/30/2024, 05/15/2025, and 05/21/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi et al (JP 2013170107 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tokuchi et al teaches a method of forming a ceramic green sheet comprising the steps of forming a mixture of ceramic powder, water, deflocculant, and binder; kneading said mixture into a slurry; defoaming said slurry to remove air bubbles under vacuum; and forming the slurry to a green sheet by a method that can comprise molding. Tokuchi et al teaches an embodiment comprising 100 parts ceramic powder, 25 parts water, 0.75 parts deflocculant, and 40 parts of a 25% PVA1 aqueous solution (as a binder). Said PVA1 binder solution is at 25% solution, and as such 30 ppw water are added from the binder, so that the total water content of the slurry is 55 parts per 100 parts ceramic powder. The aforementioned embodiments uses alumina as the ceramic powder, however Tokuchi et al teaches that the ceramic chosen can be silicon nitride. As such, routine optimization and experimentation with the small and finite list of possible ceramics taught by Tokuchi et al would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a slurry comprising silicon nitride particulate along with the other aforementioned components. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Tokuchi et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Tokuchi et al teaches bubble removal (decompression treatment) under vacuum atmosphere. Tokuchi et al does not specify the temperature at which said vacuum treatment is carried out. However, as the Tokuchi et al process is carried out to degas a water-based slurry, and as there is no teaching of a heating or cooling step undertaken before the vacuum process is carried out, one of ordinary skill would have had motivation and understanding that the vacuum process can be carried out at room temperature. This would be the least energetically-intensive choice for performing the bubble removal, and the temperature falls within the range of the instant claim. As such, the further limitations of claim 5 are met by the teachings of the prior art of record and the claim is not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Tokuchi et al teaches a method of forming a green sheet that can be molded comprising silicon nitride, the green sheet prepared from a slurry comprising silicon nitride, water, and a binder, with water present in an amount of 55 parts per weight to 100 parts per weight silicon nitride. The resultant green sheet thus meets each limitation of instant claim 7.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi et al (JP 2013170107 A) in view of Yasuoka et al (JP 2008169050 A).
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from Tokuchi et al as applied above because Tokuchi et al does not teach that the inventive slurry comprises an antifoaming agent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokuchi et al in view of Yasuoka et al in order to incorporate an antifoaming agent into the inventive slurry. Yasuoka et al teaches a process of producing a silicon nitride green sheet from a slurry, and teaches that a polyether antifoaming agent is advantageously added to the raw material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to include the Yasuoka et al antifoaming agent because of the beneficial pore reduction effects taught to be realized thereby, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Tokuchi et al and Yasuoka et al are drawn to ceramic green sheets produced from starting slurries. Each limitation of claim 2 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 3, Yasuoka et al teaches that the antifoaming agent is a polyether.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi et al (JP 2013170107 A) in view of Yasuoka et al (JP 2008169050 A) and in further view of Matsuhisa et al (JP H0677924 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Tokuchi et al in view of Yasuoka et al teaches only a single amount of antifoaming agent of 0.0125 g antifoaming agent to 50 g water. Thus Yasuoka et al does not teach a range overlapping or falling within the corresponding range of the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokuchi et al in further view of Matsuhisa et al in order to use the antifoaming agent amount taught therein. Matsuhisa et al teaches a method of forming a silicon nitride ceramic body from a slurry, and teaches that an antifoaming agent is a component of said slurry. Matsuhisa et al teaches that 0.25 parts by weight of said antifoaming agent are included in the slurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use this amount because it would have been understood that the single concentration taught in Yasuoka et al does not represent the extent of usable concentrations for this component, and thus one would have had motivation to look to other teachings for appropriate amounts. Matsuhisa et al provides such a teaching. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Tokuchi et al, Yasuoka et al, and Matsuhisa et al are all drawn to methods of forming silicon nitride ceramics from starting slurries. The further limitations of instant claim 4 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Tokuchi et al teaches a method of forming a green sheet that can be molded comprising silicon nitride, the green sheet prepared from a slurry comprising silicon nitride, water, and a binder, with water present in an amount of 55 parts per weight to 100 parts per weight silicon nitride. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokuchi et al in view of Yasuoka et al and Matsuhisa et al in order to include a polyether antifoaming agent in the slurry in an amount of 0.25 ppw to the ceramic component. The resultant green sheet thus meets each limitation of instant claim 8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi et al (JP 2013170107 A) in view of Kaga et al (JP 2010208898 A).
Regarding claim 6, the claim differs from Tokuchi et al as applied above because while Tokuchi teaches a green sheet for forming a ceramic, it does not specify a sintering temperature to form said ceramic. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tokuchi et al in view of Kaga et al in order to use the sintering temperature taught therein. Kaga et al teaches a method of forming a silicon nitride sintered substrate by firing at a temperature of 1600-2000 °C. One would have had motivation to use the temperature taught by Kaga et al because the lack of specific teaching in this regard by Tokuchi et al would lead one to consult other teachings for an appropriate sintering temperature. Kaga et al provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Tokuchi et al and Kaga et al are both drawn to methods of forming silicon nitride ceramics. Each limitation of claim 6 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW20 January 2026