DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-17 and 22-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the impurity constituent constitutes less than about 0.1 %wt to 5 %wt of the ceramic powder” is unclear. It is unclear how a constituent can be less than 0.1-5%. This claim limitation could reasonably mean the constituent must be below 0.1%, however in such a case the recitation of “5%” is unclear. Alternatively, it appears as if this could be a typographical error which should instead recite “the impurity constituent constitutes 0.1 wt.% to less than 5 wt.% of the ceramic powder”, which is a clear statement with logical boundaries. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning “the impurity constituent constitutes 0.1 wt.% to less than 5 wt.% of the ceramic powder” unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corral et al. (US20140378294, hereinafter referred to as Corral) as evidenced by ACS material (https://www.acsmaterial.com/graphene-nanoplatelets-2-10nm.html#:~:text=Graphene%20Nanoplatelets%20(2%2D10nm),GNNP0031%2D1Kg Accessed 01/29/2026, hereinafter referred to as ACS material).
Regarding claim 1, Corral discloses a ceramic powder for producing high temperature-resistant and/or high mechanical strength materials (See Corral at [0046], disclosing graphene-ceramic composites exhibiting significantly enhanced toughness compared to starting ceramic materials, and thus broaden their use in materials and processes that require high temperatures.), comprising: a silicon nitride (Si3N4) powder, comprising Si3N4 particles (See Corral at [0077], disclosing Si3N4 powders), wherein the Si3N4 powder includes beta phase silicon nitride (β-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 1 % vol (see Corral at [0048], disclosing the Si3N4 consists predominately (i.e., >99%) α-Si3N4 grains, which Examiner notes leaves a remaining less than 1% which can be β-Si3N4 crystal structure, and is therefore within the claimed range.); and an impurity constituent intermixed with the Si3N4 powder within the ceramic powder, the impurity constituent comprising at least one of silicon (Si), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), carbon (C), magnesium (Mg), or manganese (Mn) (see Corral at [0037], disclosing graphene is present … at between about 0.02 to about 1.5% … on a volume percentage basis.) and (see Corral at [0035] disclosing the graphene is provided in the form of graphene platelets (GPL), which can be obtained from a number of commercial sources.), wherein the impurity constituent constitutes less than about 0.1 %wt to 5 %wt of the ceramic powder (see ACS Material at the characterizations table, showing graphene nanoplatelets have an apparent density of 0.06-0.09 g/mL, which will be estimated to be 0.075 g/cm3 for approximation. A graphene density of 0.075 g/cm3 provides a wt.% range of 0.26 wt.% graphene to 20 wt.% graphene when accounting for the 0.02-1.5 vol% graphene of [0037] of Corral, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Examiner notes graphene corresponds to carbon.
Regarding claim 3, Corral discloses the impurity constituent includes elemental Si, C, Mg or Mn (Corral discloses graphene which Examiner notes includes elemental carbon as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Corral discloses the Si3N4 powder consists essentially of alpha phase silicon nitride (α-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 99.99 %vol and the beta phase silicon nitride (β-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 1 %vol (see Corral at [0048], disclosing the Si3N4 consists predominately (i.e., >99%) α-Si3N4 grains, which Examiner notes leaves a remaining less than 1% which can be any other crystal structure such as β-Si3N4, and is therefore overlaps with the claimed range.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corral as evidenced by ACS material in further view of Xu et al. (Xu, Xin, et al. "New strategies for preparing nanosized silicon nitride ceramics." Journal of the American Ceramic Society 88.4 (2005): 934-937, hereinafter referred to as Xu).
Regarding claim 2, while Corral discloses graphene-ceramic composites exhibiting significantly enhanced toughness compared to starting ceramic materials, and thus broaden their use in materials and processes that require high temperatures (See Corral at [0046]), Corral does not disclose the Si3N4 particles have a size within a range of 30 nm to 70 nm.
Xu is directed towards new strategies for preparing nanosized silicon nitride ceramics (see Xu at the title). Xu discloses a grain size of about 70 nm (see Xe at the third paragraph of page 935, second column). Xu teaches nano-Si3N4 grains with an average diameter of about 70 nm, led to noticeable high-temperature ductility and elevated hardness (see Xu at the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Corral to use Si3N4 within the particle size range disclosed by Xu with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a Si3N4 ceramic with noticeable high-temperature ductility and elevated hardness as taught by Xu.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses a ceramic powder for producing high temperature-resistant and/or high mechanical strength materials (see Hashimoto at Col. 1, lines 12-13, disclosing silicon nitride is superior in thermal resistance and high-temperature strength), comprising: a silicon nitride (Si3N4) powder, comprising Si3N4 particles (see Hashimoto at the Title, disclosing α-form silicon nitride fine powders), wherein the Si3N4 powder includes beta phase silicon nitride (β-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 1 % vol (see Hashimoto at the Abstract, disclosing α-form silicon nitride fine powders, which Examiner notes corresponds to 0% β-Si3N4); and an impurity constituent intermixed with the Si3N4 powder within the ceramic powder, the impurity constituent comprising at least one of silicon (Si), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), carbon (C), magnesium (Mg), or manganese (Mn), wherein the impurity constituent constitutes less than about 0.1 %wt to 5 %wt of the ceramic powder (See Hashimoto at the Abstract, disclosing a mixture of at least one of Mg, Ca, and compounds thereof with 0.01-1 part by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto discloses the impurity constituent includes elemental Si, C, Mg or Mn (See Hashimoto at Col. 10, line 16, disclosing MgO. Examiner notes MgO includes elemental Mg).
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto discloses the impurity constituent includes a compound selected from SiO2, SiC, MgO, or MnO (See Hashimoto at Col. 10, line 16, disclosing MgO).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto discloses the Si3N4 powder consists essentially of alpha phase silicon nitride (α-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 99.99 %vol and the beta phase silicon nitride (β-Si3N4) in an amount up to about 1 %vol (see Hashimoto at the Abstract, disclosing α-form silicon nitride fine powders, which Examiner notes corresponds to 100% α-Si3N4 and 0% β-Si3N4, which is close to touching the claimed range.) 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), second paragraph).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasimoto in view of Xu.
Regarding claim 2, while Hashimoto teaches silicon nitride is superior in thermal resistance and high-temperature strength (see Hashimoto at Col. 1, lines 12-13), Hashimoto does not disclose the Si3N4 particles have a size within a range of 30 nm to 70 nm.
Xu is directed towards new strategies for preparing nanosized silicon nitride ceramics (see Xu at the title). Xu discloses a grain size of about 70 nm (see Xe at the third paragraph of page 935, second column). Xu teaches nano-Si3N4 grains with an average diameter of about 70 nm, led to noticeable high-temperature ductility and elevated hardness (see Xu at the Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Hashimoto to use Si3N4 within the particle size range disclosed by Xu with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a Si3N4 ceramic with noticeable high-temperature ductility and elevated hardness as taught by Xu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731