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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper Markush language, it is suggested to amend “or” to “and” in claim 18, line 1.
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 5, 14 and 22 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “below 30 vol%”, and the claim also recites “preferably below 25 vol%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “below 30 vol%”, and the claim also recites “preferably below 25 vol%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 14 and 22 claim “as measured according to the specification”. It is unclear what this refers to.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forg (2019, cited on the 9/21/23 IDS) as referenced by Metal Matrix Composite Products (2016).
Forg teaches suspensions of pure titanium carbide were thermally sprayed. One suspension was prepared by using milled feedstock powder (TC1), while two suspensions were prepared using non-milled carbide powder dispersed in pure deionized water (TC2) and deionized water with additives (TC3), respectively.
Forg, 2.1, teaches water based suspensions.
Fig. 3, TC1 and TC2, teaches the volume fraction of the particles having a particle size of 1 micron or lower is about 1.5%.
Fig. 3, TC3, teaches the volume fraction of the particles having a particle size of 1 micron or lower is about 3%.
Table 1 teaches the solid content of the TC1, TC2 and TC3 powder is 20 wt%.
Therefore, the fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC1 and TC2 is 3/20=.075.
The fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC3 is .15.
Table 2 teaches D50 of TC1 is 2.66, TC2 is 5.66 and TC3 is 4.43 microns.
Metal Matrix Products, table 6, teaches the density of TiC is 4.93 gm/cc.
Regarding claim 2, the fine fraction ratio of the suspension is 3/20=.15.
Regarding claim 3, Metal Matrix Products, table 6, teaches the density of TiC is 4.93 gm/cc.
Regarding claim 5, Fig. 3, TC1, teaches the volume fraction of the particles having a particle size of 1 micron or lower is about 3%.
Regarding claim 6, Table 2 teaches D50 of TC3 is 4.43 microns.
Regarding claim 7, Forg, 2.1, teaches water based suspensions.
Regarding claims 8-9, Forg, TC3, teaches NH4OH.
Regarding claim 11, TC3, teaches NH4OH.
Regarding claim 13, the fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC1 and TC2 is 3/20=.075.
The fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC3 is .15.
Regarding claim 14, Fig. 4, TC1 shows at a shear rate of 10 the viscosity is below 50 mPa*s.
Regarding claim 21, the fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC1 and TC2 is 3/20=.075.
The fine fraction ratio of the suspension of TC3 is .15.
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 4, TC1 shows at a shear rate of 10 the viscosity is below 50 mPa*s.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10, 12, 17-20 are 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.
Although Forg teaches TiC, Forg does not teach Cr2O3, Al2O3, Y2O3 or TiOx particles as claimed in claim 4.
There is no motivation to modify the particles of Forg to obtain the particles as claimed in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, although Forg teaches NH4OH and water, Forg does not teach the solvent consisting of a mixture of water and ethylene glycol wherein the weight ratio of water to ethylene glycol ranges from 1:10 w/w to 1:1 w/w as claimed in claim 10.
There is no motivation in Forg to add ethylene glycol as claimed in claim 10 into the suspension.
Regarding claims 12, 19-20, Forg, Table 1, teaches the solid content of the TC1, TC2 and TC3 powder is 20 wt%.
Forg does not teach the mass fraction of the solid ceramic particles in the suspension is at least 60 wt% as claimed in claim 12.
There is no motivation in Forg to increase the mass fraction of the solid ceramic particles in the suspension to at least 60 wt%.
Regarding claim 18, although Forg teaches NH4OH and water, Forg does not teach the solvent comprising ethylene glycol or the alcohol comprising ethanol or isopropanol as claimed in claim 18.
There is no motivation in Forg to add ethylene glycol, ethanol or isopropanol as claimed in claim 18 into the suspension.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20180119264 teaches powder for thermal spraying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 3/27/26
Prosecution Insights