DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites subpassages have a different radius of curvature than the recombination of the subpassages. The specification does not appear to offer support for this limitation. If the Examiner has erred in this, please point to the paragraph where support can be found.
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 24-30 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 24 recites the high density, closed porosity ceramic body comprises a fluidic device. It also recites the fluidic device comprises a monolithic closed-porosity ceramic body corresponding to the high density, closed porosity. It is unclear what is meant by correspond to the high-density, closed porosity. A noun appears to be lacking. If the intention was to recite it corresponds to the high density, closed porosity ceramic body of claim 11, it is unclear how it corresponds. Furthermore, claim 24 recites a tortuous fluid passage. It is unclear if this tortuous fluid passage is different or the same as the tortuous fluid passage of the high density, closed porosity ceramic body of claim 11.
Claims 25-30 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 24.
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, 16-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacob et al. (2024/0009887). Jacob 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, and the tortuous passage comprises a division from into subpassages and a recombination of the subpassages, and the subpassages have a different radius of curvature than the recombination of the subpassages (see figure 2), 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, wherein the heating the pressed body to remove the mold comprises pressing the pressed body while heating the pressed body ([0008]), and sintering the pressed body to form a high density, ceramic body having a tortuous fluid passage extending therethrough (abstract, [0005]). Jacob further discloses a relationship between a first stability characteristic (i.e. rebound) 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 the pressing the volume of binder-coated ceramic powder and/or during the heating the pressed body ([0047]).
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, Jacob teaches the first stability characteristic includes a rebound amount, which appears to relate to a first release displacement and the second stability characteristic includes a second rebound amount, which appears to relate to a second release displacement, wherein the second release displacement is less than the first release displacement after pressing (“specifically a material with low rebound after compression relative to the rebound of the pressed ceramic powder after compression” [0047]).
Regarding claims 16-17, Jacob teaches pressing can be uniaxial pressing or isostatic pressing ([0006], [0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Jacob teaches forming a positive passage mold of a passage having a tortuous shaped by molding the passage mold ([0046]).
Regarding claim 22, Jacob discloses the binder-coated ceramic powder comprises silicon carbide ([0002]).
Remarks
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note, US 2023/0219053 and US 2023/0302427 constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). In order to place this application in condition for allowance, please additionally provide the necessary statements to remove these as prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 1, 2026, with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jacob.
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 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