DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 11-21 in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant uses the term “release displacement” in claims 12-13. This term is not a common term in the art. However, applicant explains in the specification, the compression release curves can be generated experimentally by pressing a respective sample of a ceramic powder or a passage mold with a press to a measured maximum force and then reducing the displacement of the press while continuing to measure the reaction force generated by the sample. As a result of the first stability characteristic, the SiC powder expands or rebounds from a maximum compressed state over a displacement that follows the compression release curve 170 of FIG. 6 to define a first release displacement. Thus, the release displacement will be interpreted as a distance the powder or mold expands/rebounds after compression.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a an expansion” and “includes and a binder strength “ are grammatically incorrect. 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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites a tensile force of the positive passage mold on the pressed body. A tensile force is a generally understood to be a pulling force. However, if the second stability characteristic of the positive passage mold is an expansion, it is unclear how the expansion of the mold produces a pulling force on the pressed body. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berkey et al. (2022/0401952). Berkey teaches a method for manufacturing a fluid device, the method comprising positioning a positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shape within a volume of binder-coated ceramic powder, pressing the volume of binder-coated ceramic powder with the positive passage mold inside to form a pressed body, heating the pressed body to remove the positive passage mold, and sintering the pressed body to form a high density, ceramic body having a tortuous fluid passage extending therethrough (abstract, [0002]).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 12, Berkey teaches the first stability characteristic includes a first release displacement and the second stability characteristic includes a second release displacement that is less than the first release displacement after pressing ([0058], fig. 6).
Regarding claims 16-17, Berkey teaches pressing can be uniaxial pressing or isostatic pressing ([0011]).
Regarding claim 18, Berkey teaches heating the pressed body to remove the mold comprises pressing the pressed body while heating the pressed body ([0011]).
Regarding claim 19, Berkey teaches forming a positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shaped by molding the passage mold ([0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Berkey teaches forming a positive passage mold having an outer layer of lower melting material, the lower melting material having a melting point lower than a melting point of a remainder of the positive passage mold ([0012]).
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.
Claims 11, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108558408 machine translation provided) in view of Denton (5,385,700). Li teaches a method for manufacturing a fluid device, the method comprising positioning a positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shape (step 1 on page 4, figure 1) within a volume of ceramic powder (step 2 on page 4), pressing the volume of ceramic powder with the positive passage mold inside to form a pressed body (step 2 on page 4), heating the pressed body to remove the positive passage mold (steps 3 and 4 on page 4), and sintering the pressed body to form a high density, ceramic body having a tortuous fluid passage extending therethrough (step 5 on page 4). Li teaches using ceramic powder (step 2 on page 4), but doesn’t specify if the ceramic powder is coated with a binder. Denton teaches a similar process for producing a ceramic body, the process comprising positioning a core (positive mold) within a volume of ceramic powder, pressing the volume of ceramic powder with the positive mold inside to form a pressed body, heating the pressed body to remove the positive mold, and sintering the pressed body to form a high density, closed porosity ceramic body (“green artifact”…become substantially hermetically airtight after sintering” in col. 10 lines 24-27) having cavities (col. 1 lines 5-26). Denton further teaches admixing a binder into the particulate material before locating the core therein and pressing, in order to provide good green densities and green strengths in the pressed body (col. 2 lines 42-68), thereby providing a pressed body from which the positive mold can be removed. Note, the admixing of binder material with the ceramic powder would naturally provide for binder coated ceramic powder. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for binder-coated ceramic powder in the process of Li as it would provide for pressed ceramic bodies having good green density and strength, as taught by Denton.
In further regards to forming a closed porosity ceramic body, Li doesn’t specified the ceramic body has closed-porosity, but it appears to be implied. Li teaches providing for integrated micro-channels in the ceramic body that does not leak (background technique on page 2, last passage on page 3), which suggests the ceramic body is closed porosity to ensure the containment of the desired fluid within the channels. Furthermore, Denton teaches sintering the pressed body such that ceramic body becomes hermetically airtight after sintering, which suggests the ceramic body has closed porosity. If it is not apparent that the sintered ceramic body of Li has closed porosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the sintering step of Li to provide for a ceramic body with closed porosity, as predicted by Denton, and to provide for channels that do not leak.
Li and Denton don’t discuss stability characteristics of the binder-coated ceramic powder or the positive mold. However, since Li and Denton provides for pressing that provides for successful formation of a pressed body with the desired channels/openings that can withstand further heating, removal of the positive mold, and sintering, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect a relationship between a first stability characteristic of the volume of binder-coated ceramic powder and a second stability characteristic of the positive passage mold prevents discontinuities in the pressed body after pressing.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned, Denton teaches admixing a binder into the particulate material before locating the core therein and pressing, in order to provide good green densities and green strengths in the pressed body (col. 2 lines 42-68). Denton teaches pressing binder-coated ceramic powder with the positive mold inside, wherein the pressed body has sufficient strength to remain intact during subsequent positive mold removal and sintering (col. 2 lines 48-52). Thus, it would appear the first stability characteristic of the ceramic powder includes binder strength, wherein the binder strength is configured to counter a force of the positive mold on the press body during heating.
Regarding claims 16-17, Li teaches adding half the amount of ceramic powder into a pressing mold, then inserting the positive mold, and adding the rest of the ceramic powder, and pressing (step 2 on pages 2-3), which suggests uniaxial pressing. Denton also teaches pressing can be uniaxial pressing, isostatic pressing, or both, as both are well known pressing steps (col. 2 lines 42-46). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed uniaxial pressing, isostatic pressing, or both for producing the pressed body, as Denton teaches both are well known and common, with a reasonable expectation of success in producing a pressed body of sufficient strength.
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches the positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shape comprises various materials, including a polymer resin (step 1 on page 2, fig. 1), but doesn’t specify how the mold is made. Denton teaches forming a positive mold comprising polyethylene glycol by molding the positive mold (col. 6 lines 59-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shape by molding, as it is a well-known method that predictably provides the successful shaping of a tortuous shaped mold.
Claims 12-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108558408 machine translation provided) in view of Denton (5,385,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itoh et al. (WO 2006082760 machine translation provided). Li and Denton are silent regarding a release displacement of the mold or pressed body. Itoh teaches a pressed ceramic body formed by pressing ([0004]-[0005]). Regarding claim 12, Itoh also recognizes the common problem of cracking the pressed body when releasing from the mold and teaches prior arts that has addressed this problem by using a mold having a smaller release displacement than the pressed body, thereby preventing cracks in the pressed body while decompressing ([0006],[0013], [0017]). Accordingly, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried a core mold in the process of Li and Denton having a smaller release displacement than that of the pressed ceramic body, as such a solution is recognized in the art for addressing cracking of the pressed body. Regarding claim 13, Itoh teaches it is common to expect the second stability characteristic of a second release displacement of the mold is greater than the first stability characteristic of a first release displacement of the pressed ceramic body ([0013], [0015]). Regarding claims 14 and 21, Itoh also teaches adding a binder to the ceramic powder to provide increased strength to the pressed ceramic body, thereby preventing cracking of the pressed ceramic body ([0008], [0022]). Although the presence of a binder may required the additional step of removing the binder, it still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have tried adding a binder to provide sufficient strength to the pressed body for counteracting a release force of the core mold on the pressed body, a such a solution is recognized in the art for addressing cracking of the pressed body during decompression, as taught by Itoh.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108558408 machine translation provided) in view of Denton (5,385,700) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sommer et al. (EP 1431260 machine translation provided.). Regarding claim 18, Li and Denton doesn’t specify pressing the pressed body while removing the mold. Sommer teaches a similar method of removing a core mold after pressing binder coated ceramic particles around the core mold (5th passage on page 4, 7th passage on page 6, claim 1), wherein the core mold is removed by heating during pressing (page 8). Sommer teaches using a core mold having inner layers and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises a lower melting material than a melting temperature of the remainder of the core mold (7th passage on page 5, 2nd passage on page 6, page 8). Note, Sommer specifies the outer layer of the core are melted during pressing (page 8), the core comprises inner layers and an outer layer that is different (7th passage on page 5), and the inner layers are pyrolyzed during or after carbonization (bottom of page 6 to top of page 7). Thus, Sommer fairly suggests the core mold has inner layers and an outer layer, wherein the outer layer comprises a lower melting material than a melting temperature of the remainder of the core mold. Sommer teaches heating the pressed body to harden the binder (for holding the pressed body together), wherein pressing can occur before or at the same time as heating of the pressed body for hardening (7th - 8th passages on page 6). Sommer teaches hardening while pressing allows for easier time holding the pressed body together. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for the step of pressing the pressed body while heating the pressed body as it allows for easier time to hold the body together while also hardening. Additionally, Sommer teaches having different layers for the molding core provides for higher compressibility of the outer layer during pressing to prevent damage to the pressed body during release (2nd passage on page 5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a molding core having different inner and outer layers, wherein the outer layer comprises high compressibility and lower melting temperature than that of the inner layer, so as to prevent damage to the pressed body during releasing, as taught by Sommer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 at 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights