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/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l: Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-14 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-17 and 21 drawn to the non-elected group have been cancelled.
IDS
The IDS’ entered 09/08/2023, 03/18/2025, and 11/05/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims states “Method according to claim 1, wo the method including a precipitating step in which the ceramic product is being maintained at a temperature in a range between 300 °C and 1000 °C for a time period of at least 10 s”. It appears that “wo the method including” is a typographical error. The examiner will interpret this to mean “the method including” based on page 60, ll25-31 in the specification. 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 1-3 and 6-10 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 1 recites the limitations “wherein the power density of the radiated light is between 10 W/cm2 and 750 W/cm2 , further preferably, between 20 W/cm2 and 200 W/cm2,- wherein the light includes wavelengths in a range from 200 to 700 nm, further preferably, from 300 to 500 nm” in line 7. The limitations render the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitations are interpreted as wherein the power density of the radiated light is between 10 W/cm2 and 750 W/cm2, and wherein the light includes wavelengths in a range from 200 to 700 nm, respectively.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the heating of the ceramic starting material in some regions happens at a heating rate of (a) 1 K/s or more, preferably 10 K/s or more, preferably 100 K/s or more, preferably 1000 K/s or more, and/or (b) 10000 K/s or less, preferably 5000 K/s or less, preferably 1000 K/s or less and/or” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as wherein the heating of the ceramic starting material in some regions happens at a heating rate of (a) 1 K/s or more and/or (b) 10000 K/s or less.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the heating, in particular, in some regions, of the ceramic starting material is carried out by radiating light for a time period of (a) at least 0.1 seconds, at least 0.5 seconds, at least 1 second, preferably at least 5 seconds, preferably at least 20 seconds, and/or (b) at most 10 minutes, preferably at most 8 minutes, preferably at most 5 minutes, preferably at most 3 minutes, preferably at most 1 minute, preferably at most 30 seconds, preferably at most 10 seconds, preferably at most 5 seconds, preferably at most 3 seconds, preferably at most 1 second” in line 4. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as wherein the heating, in particular, in some regions, of the ceramic starting material is carried out by radiating light for a time period of (a) at least 0.1 seconds, at least 0.5 seconds, at least 1 second and/or (b) at most 10 minutes.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the ceramic starting material comprises at least one ceramic multilayer composite, at least one ceramic composite material and/or at least one ceramic powder, and/or is provided in the form of a sheet, an endless tape, a, preferably cuboid, pellet and/or as a solid body.” in line 4. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as wherein the ceramic starting material comprises at least one ceramic multilayer composite, at least one ceramic composite material and/or at least one ceramic powder, and/or is provided in the form of a sheet, an endless tape, a pellet, and/or as a solid body.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the thickness of the ceramic starting material is between 0.00005 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 0.001 mm and 10 mm, preferably between 0.1 mm and 5 mm, preferably between 0.5 mm and 4.0 mm” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as wherein the thickness of the ceramic starting material is between 0.00005 mm and 20 mm.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the light completely illuminates at least one surface, in particular, side, preferably, main side, of the ceramic starting material” in line 2. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as wherein the light completely illuminates at least one surface, in particular, side.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “(ii) wherein the irradiation is reduced by more than 90% with a delay of less than 10 seconds, preferably, in less than 1 second, further preferably, in less than 0.1 second, preferably less than 0.01 second, further preferably, less than 1 millisecond, even further preferably, less than 0.1 millisecond, and/or wherein by switching off the radiation a cooling rate of more than 10 K/s, further preferably, more than 50 K/s,even further preferably, more than 200K/S is attained” in line 6. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as (ii) wherein the irradiation is reduced by more than 90% with a delay of less than 10 seconds, and/or wherein by switching off the radiation a cooling rate of more than 10 K/s.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “(iii) is guided by an optic onto the ceramic starting material and/or, preferably, focused onto the area to be heated” in line 7. The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim since it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. For compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as (iii) is guided by an optic onto the ceramic starting material.
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.
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 and 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Carlo (US20140295102A1) in view of Hang (US 20130049148 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Di Carlo teaches a method for producing ceramics (ABS), the method comprising: radiating light onto a ceramic starting material in order to heat this at least in some regions and, as a result, to produce a ceramic product (P0026-36),
- wherein the light includes wavelengths in a range from 200 to 700 nm (greater than 400nm, P0037)
Di Carlo is not specific to wherein the radiation of light is carried out simultaneously onto a surface of at least 20% of the surface of the ceramic starting material.
However, Di Carlo teaches that by controlling the scanning in the xy plane of the beam on the layer of metal oxide it is possible to scan large areas (P0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have scanned at least 20% of the surface of a ceramic starting material for the purpose of sintering large areas at once as taught by Di Carlo (P0057).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Di Carlo teaches wherein the power density of the radiated light is at least equal to 1 W/cm2 (P0037) which overlaps with the claimed range of between 10 W/cm2 and 750 W/cm2.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Di Carlos power density range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Di Carlo is silent to wherein the ceramic starting material is thermally decoupled in relation to a receiving means by means of an insulation.
Hang, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics, teaches wherein the ceramic starting material is thermally decoupled in relation to a receiving means by means of an insulation (P0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ceramic starting material is thermally decoupled in relation to a receiving means by means of an insulation to lower the reflectance of light as taught by Hang (P0108).
Regarding claim 4, Di Carlo teaches wherein the ceramic starting material is free of absorbing additives (P0062, one layer of metal oxide is free of pigment).
Regarding claim 6, Di Carlo teaches wherein the ceramic starting material comprises at least one ceramic multilayer composite, at least one ceramic composite material and/or at least one ceramic powder (P0061-62, organic binders, two layers comprising metal oxide), and/or is provided in the form of a sheet (film P0066).
Regarding claim 7, Di Carlo teaches wherein the thickness of the ceramic starting material is (i) between 0.001mm and 0.025mm (1 μm to 25 μm, P0062) which is fully within the claimed range of between 0.00005 mm and 20 mm;
(ii) wherein the ceramic starting material includes or consists of TiO2 as material (P0062).
Regarding claim 8, Di Carlo teaches wherein the light completely illuminates at least one surface, in particular, side of the ceramic starting material (P0017).
Regarding claim 10, Di Carlo teaches wherein the light consists of wavelengths greater than 400nm which overlaps that claimed range of 200 to 700 nm, (ii) is emitted from at least one light source including at least one laser (P0054) and (iii) is guided by an optic onto the ceramic starting material (galvo-mirrors, P0057).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Di Carlos wavelength range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Carlo (US20140295102A1) in view of Hang (US 20130049148 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hauptmann (WO 2019166938 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Di Carlo is silent to a heating rate.
Hauptmann, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics, teaches wherein the heating of the ceramic starting material in some regions happens at a heating rate of 3 K/s (ABS) which I fully within the claimed range of (a) 1 K/s or more, and/or (b) 10000 K/s or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen this rate to optimize the translucency of the final product as taught by Hauptmann (page 9, ll1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Di Carlo teaches wherein the geometry defined by the radiation in a heated zone is created, in particular, with a large surface, which is square or the shape of which can be freely selected by the user (P0052, P0057);
Di Carlo is not specific to cooling rates.
Hauptmann teaches a cooling rate of at least 4K/s (pg.10, ll27-28) which overlaps a cooling rate of more than 10K/s.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Hauptmanns cooling rate range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Carlo (US20140295102A1) in view of Hang (US 20130049148 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kimura (US2022169571A1 corresponding to WO2020196605A1).
Regarding claim 3, Di Carlo teaches that once the average power output of the laser was set (about 7 W), the scanning sintering process was carried out by setting the scan speed at 1.2 mm·s−1 (P0072) but is not specific to wherein the heating, in particular, in some regions, of the ceramic starting material is carried out by radiating light for a time period of (a) at least 0.1 seconds, at least 0.5 seconds, at least 1 second, and/or (b) at most 10 minutes.
Kimura, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics, teaches wherein the heating, in particular, in some regions, of the ceramic starting material is carried out by radiating light for a time period of 1 second to 60 min which is within the claimed range of (a) at least 0.1 seconds, at least 0.5 seconds, at least 1 second (P0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen this irradiation time as laser irradiation conditions are appropriately chosen depending on the sintering area, the sintering depth, etc as taught by Kimura (P0078).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art alone or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the steps of additionally including a further radiating of light, the further radiating of light being carried out at a power density of at least 1500 W/cm2 and a time period of at most 50 ms; including a precipitating step in which the ceramic product is being maintained at a temperature in a range between 300 °C and 1000 °C for a time period of at least 10 s; wherein the cooling-off rate in the temperature range from 800°C to 100°C across a span of at least 100 K is at most 1 Kelvin per second.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm 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 supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741